Commons Sitting of 24 October 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FOREIGN POLICY (GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any communications on the foreign policy of Great Britain and France have passed between the permanent secretariat of the Foreign Office and the Political Committee of the Grand Orient of France in the last seven years; and, if so, what is the nature of the communications?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer is in the negative.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    CONDUCT OF MILITARY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has got any report of the conduct of the military after they had killed the non-combatants in North King Street, Dublin, and buried them in yards and cellars, breaking into a public-house where drink had been refused to them, and drinking and taking away what they pleased; whether more than one of them died from alcoholic poisoning; and whether any guarantee of indemnity will be given to the publican if he gives public proof of these facts?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No, Sir, I have not any report in the sense of the first and second parts of this question.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for a report?

    CASUALTIES (CIVILIANS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the names of all the non-combatant civilians, including women, killed by the military during the recent insurrection in Dublin and buried in Trinity College grounds; whether it was in those grounds they buried the boy Gerald Keogh, shot and bayoneted by them in Grafton Street and dragged into Cook's tourist office; and whether he will have that boy's coat examined and photographed, showing the nineteen wounds of which he died?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am obtaining information, but in the meantime I must not be taken as accepting any of the statements made in the question as correct.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the information in the House when he receives it?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will see what it is.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet obtained from the Dublin police or from Sir Patrick Dunn's Hospital the names of all the non-combatant civilians killed and wounded, respectively, on the drawbridge connecting Brunswick Street with Rings end by the soldiers firing from Haddington Road Catholic Church; if not, whether he will get the information; what was the purpose of the continuous fire on the bridge, where there were no combatants; . whether Mrs. Naylor, one of those shot dead, was mother and dependant of a soldier serving at the time in the British Expeditionary Force; whether information on the shooting of his mother has been allowed to reach him: and, if there are ether dependants, what provision has been made for them?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have not the information on all the points of this question. As regards Mrs. Naylor, it appears from inquiries made that she was crossing. Victoria Bridge with her sister at 9 a.m. on the 29th April, and was shot and left for dead. A priest went to her and also thought that she was dead, and reported to that effect. At 3 p.m. the same day she was removed to St. Vincent's Hospital, where she became conscious. She was attended by the priest, but died the next day. The rebels had three positions within 20, 50, and 200 yards from the bridge, and the troops had a machine gun

    917
    posted a mile away, which covered these positions and the bridge. The rebels in this district were the last to surrender.

    PATRICK H. PEARSE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War the text of the written message sent by the late Patrick H. Pearse before his surrender on 29th April last to the Commander of the British Forces in Dublin, and the text of the reply?
    Mr. FORSTER: No written message was sent to headquarters by the late P. H. Pearse on the 29th April, 1916. He sent word through a Red Cross nurse that he was prepared to surrender, and a verbal reply was sent, as a consequence of which a meeting was arranged.

    CAPTAIN BOWEN-COLTHURST.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether any of the officers or soldiers concerned in the incidents connected with the murder of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington, Mr. Dickson, and Mr. M'Intyre would have been liable to punishment under the Army Act if they had refused to carry into effect any of the orders given to them by Captain Bowen-Colthurst in relation to those murders?
    Mr. FORSTER: Without knowing the particular incident to which the hon. Member refers, it is difficult to furnish him with the information he desires. An officer or soldier, however, is only liable to punishment under the Army Act for refusing to obey a lawful command, and for a definition as to what is a lawful command I would refer the hon. Member to note 6 to Section 9 of the Army Act in the Manual of Military Law, 1914.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House why the soldiers or officers, as the case may be, who murdered these three unarmed civilians have not been put on trial under the ordinary law?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question; it is fresh matter.

    COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he has read the admission of the Law Officers in Ireland that no civil authority had been consulted by the military in Ireland last May on the legality
    918
    of trying persons not subject to military law by field general courts-martial held in camera in capital cases until Courts had been, for the first time, so held, and some persons not subject to military law executed and other such persons sent to penal servitude in pursuance of their sentences, and that the Law Officers then informed the military authority that the responsibility for their procedure rested with the courts-martial, having regard to the facts that, without the fiat of any civil Court, judge, or Law Officer, persons not subject to military law have been executed and other such persons sent to penal servitude under this new procedure not warranted by any law, but only by a regulation which has never been judicially reviewed, and that its victims are now, powerless to have it so reviewed; whether he can cite the authority of any competent civil Court for assuming the existence in field general courts-martial of a power to try in capital cases in camera persons not subject to military law, or for assuming that a field general courts-martial has, without statutory authority, inherent power to exclude the public from such trials; in the absence of both law and authority of any competent civil Court for the procedure in question, whether he will take immediate steps to obtain a decision of a competent civil Court on the legality or illegality of trying civilians in capital cases by field general courts-martial held in camera, in order that Parliament may deal with the matter without delay; and when the Government intend to introduce a Bill to indemnify those responsible for the procedure in question in Ireland last May?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I circulated an answer to this question with the OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday last.
    Mr. GINNELL: The question to which the answer refers me is substantially different from this. The first clause of this question has never appeared on the Paper before, and I now ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to answer it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I have circulated.
    Mr. GINNELL: If this case arose in England, involving, as it does, fifteen murders and 130 cases of penal servitude by illegal courts-martial, would the right hon. Gentleman dare to evade it?
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he will now direct that the proceedings of the Irish courts-martial shall be published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I will arrange for this to be done.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the fact that on the 11th May, 1916, he informed the House of Commons that Thomas Kent had been most properly executed at Fermoy for murder; whether he is aware that since that date at the hearing of a case before the Assize Court in Cork, a certificate of the finding of the court-martial was produced, and that it was a certificate that he was convicted of high treason; and whether any explanation is now forthcoming as to how it happened that this House and the public were misinformed and misled?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the point raised by my hon. Friend is one of substance. As I stated in answer to a question on the 4th July, Kent was executed for taking part in an armed rebellion. The murder of Constable Rowe was one of the acts of rebellion proved against Kent, and my statement of 11th May does not conflict with this fact.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the act of rebellion consisted in protecting his mother from soldiers firing at her?
    Mr. MULDOON: Did not the police go to the home at 2 o'clock in the morning, although the same police had met him at a fair in the neighbourhood the same day, were they not armed and without a war want or any lawful authority, is it not the case that at the court-martial there was no evidence whatever of Kent having fired a shot, and that no such charge was made against him?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question.

    GERMAN PRISONERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increasing number of German prisoners of war now in Great Britain, he will consider the advisability of their immediate em-
    920
    ployment upon canal construction, land reclamation, and other work of national importance and urgency?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): A Committee is now sitting to inquire into the question of utilising prisoners of war labour on works of national importance and other works of urgency.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    HOME SERVICE MEN.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of men over thirty years of age, married and with large families, who are only passed as fit for Home duties, are being called up; whether it is intended that they shall take the place of the first-and second-line units of Yeomanry and Territorials who are still retained for garrison duties at Home and release these latter for general service, either as units or in drafts; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of postponing the calling up of these category C men with a view to their releasing for general service unmarried men under thirty now badged or in reserved occupations?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Men in category C 1 are being called up to replace category A men in Home service units. Men of categories C 2 and C 3 are not being called up, but are being used to replace category A men now badged or in reserved occupations.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether all men in category C 1 are likely to be required; if so, whether they are likely to be required immediately; and whether this also applies to men in categories C 2 and C 3?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards categories C 2 and C 3, the position is that in the majority of cases the men classified are not likely to be required.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men who are classified in categories C 2 and C 3 are being returned to civil life with an intimation that they will be called up when required, and that those of them engaged in business are rendered, by this uncertainty, incapable of entering into any contract,

    921
    not knowing when they may be called up; and in these circumstances can he give these men some kind of undertaking that they will not be called up, say, before a certain date or within a certain number of months?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid we cannot guarantee that none of these men, or that no individual man, will be called up. It is quite obvious that if we want a man who is accustomed to clerical work we might require his services, but, speaking of them as a class, we do not expect that they will be called up.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In order to meet the difficulty, which is a very real and pressing one, could not the hon. Gentleman select a certain number of men and say that they will be called up first and so give some guarantee to the others?
    Mr. FORSTER: We will have that point considered. We do not desire to inflict unnecessary hardship.

    INSPECTIONS OF FACTORIES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether inspections of factories, with a view to ascertaining the number of men of military age that in each case should be called up for military service, are usually made by a recruiting or other military officer who has no special knowledge of the mechanical skill or experience required of any of the employes; and whether he could arrange that on such occasions the officer should be accompanied by some independent person who has a technical knowledge of the work carried on at the factory visited?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that employers are required to post lists of all male employés between the ages of eighteen and forty-one in a conspicuous place on the premises in or about, which such persons are employed. From these lists the recruiting officers and others who are authorised by the Army Council to inspect such lists can see what the maximum number of men available for military service is, irrespectively of the needs of the factory. With regard to this latter point, the recruiting officer on making his visit would go equipped with special information supplied to him by the Advisory Committee, and would consequently be in a position to form an independent opinion on any points placed before him by officials of the factory.

    CIVIL AND MILITARY EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a conference in the Isle of Wight on the proposed manpower distribution and substitution, and to the statement of Colonel C. H. Lewis that they were placing less fit men in Class W and returning them to employers, and that if there was any hanky-panky action on the workman's part the military retained the power to tell him to come back to military service and to give the employers another man; and if this represents the policy of the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: No Sir; my attention has not hitherto been drawn to any statement by Colonel C. H. Lewis. Men passed to the Reserve on condition of engaging in a particular class of occupation will be in a position exactly similar to that of men holding conditional exemption on the ground of employment in a certified occupation, and the question of a man remaining in the employment of a specified employer will not arise.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Do I understand from the answer that if a workman so returned desires to change his employer he will be free to do so? I will put it in this way: If a workman who has been so returned is discharged by one employer will he be free to seek employment with another employer?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think so, but perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

    CARD INDEX.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, the object and purpose of the proposed card catalogue in the premises of the National Liberal Club; whether it is proposed to use the cards for the purpose of supplying labour after the War to employers in the various towns, and, if so, under what arrangements for safeguarding the standard rates of wages; whether this is to be in substitution for the former proposal that each man's form should be sent a month before his discharge, to the town to which he elects to proceed; and whether it is proposed to have any joint committee of employers and employed to supervise the use of the card catalogue as conceded in the Advisory Committee of the Labour Exchanges?
    Mr. FORSTER: The card index of men is a portion of the machinery which the War Office employs in maintaining information and control with regard to the men now in the Army and to those who may become available for service in the Army. It exists solely for military purposes and it is not proposed to use the cards in any way whatever which would conflict with any of the former proposals with regard to the distribution of forms for the men.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say how much it has cost the War Office to take over the National Liberal Club?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend had better address that question to the Office of Works.

    LIABILITY TO SERVICE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the military authorities are so active in rounding up young Irishmen who lived in England for a short time, but who went back to Ireland previous to the passage of Conscription, and at the same time close their eyes to the fact that thousands of young Englishmen of military age are living in Dublin and throughout Ireland without any question being put to them; is he aware that numbers of young Englishmen of military age can be seen daily at Irish race meetings, some of them in company with officers of high rank in Ireland; and whether he will see that, if young Irishmen are being harassed and persecuted, the same rule will be put in force against others, no matter in what capacity they work in Ireland and no matter to what profession they belong?
    Mr. FORSTER: Under the Military Service Acts liability to service depends upon the question whether the individual has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain on or after a certain date, and, so long as the individual is a British subject, is wholly unconnected with the question of nationality or descent. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any information he may possess as to individuals believed to be liable under the Military Service Acts, but not summoned to the Colours, I will undertake that attention shall be paid to their cases wherever they may reside and in whatever capacity or profession they may be employed.

    ATTESTED MEN.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for War whether an attested man whose employment has ceased to be classed as a certified trade is entitled to two months interval before he is called up under the same conditions as apply to an unattested man who has been engaged in an occupation which has been removed from the list of certified occupations?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, he is not entitled to such interval, but both the attested and unattested men have the right to apply for the renewal of exemption which ceases to be in force owing to the change of a certified occupation list.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is not a man whose leaving certificate has been withdrawn and who had been previously working for a controlled establishment entitled to the two months' interval before he is called up?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not quite sure that I grasp the point; perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice.
    Mr. ALDEN: If he is still on the certified list, is he entitled to exemption?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is the occupation which is on the certified list.
    Mr. ALDEN: If he is in one of the certified occupations, is he entitled to exemption?
    Mr. FORSTER: This does not really come within my province, as the House knows, and I am very reluctant to give answers which might lead to misunderstanding. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of the question.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War whether all Group 46 are to be called up in November; whether therefore attested men are in a less favourable position than unattested men; and whether, in view of the promise of the Prime Minister, he will explain why this course has been adopted?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Question No. 35.
    Sir W. BYLES: Do I understand that henceforth, from this moment, attested and unattested men are in the same position?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the very lucid answer which my right hon. Friend gave.

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War how many millions of men of military age have been exempted in Great Britain from the operation of the Military iService Acts?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I gave some general information in a speech I made in this House on 12th October. The exact number of exemptions in force varies, of course, from day to day, and it is not desirable to add anything to the general statement just referred to at present. It may be necessary to do so later on.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether it would be possible to give a Return to this House of the men of military age who are serving in the various Departments, showing their number and age?
    Sir C. HENRY: There has been such a Return. Could it be brought up to date?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I was going to say to my right hon. Friend. To the best of my memory, there was such a Return. Since then I rather think a good many men have been released to join the Army; but it might be desirable to bring the Return up to date. I certainly remember going through the list at the War Office. I believe there are other Departments doing the same thing.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the Return include all those men included in the figure of 3,600,000 that the right hon. Gentleman gave us the other day?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was not aware that I had given a figure.
    Sir E. CARSON: My right hon. Friend was comparing the figures with the French figures of 560,000.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; at any rate my right hon. Friend wants to know whether there are in the numbers those who, for one reason or the other, have been exempted. I should not like to say, but I think it is very likely that they are in the number exempted.
    Mr. HAZELTONasked the Secretary of State for War how many men who offered themselves for enlistment in the Army in Ireland since mobilisation were not accepted on medical or other grounds?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot yet say whether this information is obtainable.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that this is a recruiting award for these rejected men in Ireland?
    Mr. HAZLETON: Did not the right, hon. Gentleman promise to give the figure this week, in view of the fact that he gave the figure of 50,000 in debate
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; I gave the figure, but I instantly corrected it on discovery. I am trying to find out what exactly is the actual figure. I find it extremely difficult to get accurate figures in connection with Ireland.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to obtain these figures?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; I will. I promised my hon. Friend, and we are doing our best to get the figures, but it is very difficult.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether three conscientious objectors have been confined for the last three months in a dungeon at Fort Horsted, in Chatham?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend wishes inquiry made, I must ask bim to furnish me with with the regimental number and unit of the soldiers concerned. In the meantime I must not be taken as accepting the truth of the general allegation made in this question.

    HOME-GROWN TIMBER COMMITTEE.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Burwarton district, near Bridgnorth, Shropshire, several men passed as fit for foreign service, although refused exemption by the tribunals, have, just before being called up for service, applied to and been taken on by the Home-grown Timber Committee, a Government Department, and been given badges; and whether, as these men are now employed as unskilled labourers, he could have them taken for the Army and men of Class C or discharged soldiers put in their place?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend should not have addressed this question to the representative of the Ministry of Munitions, as men

    927
    who are badged for the Home-grown Timber Committee are badged by the Ministry of Munitions on the application of that Committee. The issue of badges is, therefore, as he will see, not under the control of the War Office. I understand, however, that under orders recently issued by the Man Power Distribution Board men who have been refused exemption by a tribunal cannot in future be badged.
    Major HUNT: Will these particular men be unbadged?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member must ask the Ministry of Munitions.

    PROTECTION CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War what is the purport of the protection certificate issuable by recruiting officers to men classified under Category C, and under what circumstances is it issuable?
    Mr. FORSTER: These certificates are granted, upon request and upon production of proof of identity, to men who, after examination by a medical board, are certified to be in a category which is not being called up for srevice and are relegated to the Reserve. The certificates are cancelled by the sending of a calling-up notice by the recruiting officer.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What is the purport of this certificate; what effect does it have; what is the meaning of it?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I must throw myself on my hon. Friend's indulgence.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If I put the question down again, shall I get an answer? That is the question which is asked—what is the purport of it?

    RAILWAY CORPS, ROYAL ENGINEERS (RATES OF PAY).
    Mr. THOMASasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that No. 189990, Sapper W. Booth-royd, Railway Corps, Royal Engineers, along with many other railwaymen, enlisted under the conditions that the rate of pay should be for the first twenty-eight days 1s. 8d. a day, then 2s. 2d. a day, rising after sixty days to 3s. 2d.; that those men have recently been advised that they are
    928
    to be rated at 1s. 8d. a day and have had deducted from their pay the amount previously paid above this rate, notwithstanding the terms of their enlistment; and whether he will have inquiries made into this question and arrange for the men to be paid the rate promised to them when they were recruited from the railway service?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will have inquiry made, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

    SURVEYORS OF TAXES.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the number of the men of military age employed in the offices of the Surveyors of Taxes in the Metropolitan area who have been granted, on the grounds of indispensability, certificates of exemption from military service; whether the list of exemptions contains a number of youths between the ages of nineteen and twenty; and (2) how many men of military age employed in the office of the Surveyor of Taxes at Carlisle have, on the grounds of indispensability, been exempted from military service; and whether among the number one is a youth not exceeding nineteen years of age?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The number asked for in the first part of Question 91 is 427. Of this number 141 are between the ages of eighteen and twenty. The number of men of military age employed in the offices of the two Carlisle districts is seven. Of these three are between the ages of nineteen and twenty. I may remind the hon. Member that the question of the extent to which it may be possible for Government Departments to release further men for military service is under the consideration of the Man-Power Distribution Board, of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India is chairman.

    VOLUNTARY ATTESTMENT (MEN OF FORTY-ONE).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the instruction issued by the Army Council, under the date of 12th October, for the calling up of men who voluntarily attested and who have since attained the age of forty-one years places such men at a serious disadvantage as compared with unattested men; and whether,

    929
    in view of the authoritative statements which were made that men who voluntarily attested were not to be put to a disadvantage he will make arrangements for the instruction in question to be withdrawn?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Army Council intends so to administer the calling up of the men of forty-one that the attested men will not be at a disadvantage in relation to the unattested men of the same ages. Instructions to give effect to this intention will be issued immediately.
    Mr. TERRELL: Am I to understand that the Army Order is to be treated as withdrawn?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no! The hon. Gentleman is not to understand anything except what I actually told him. There will be no disadvantage as between them and the others.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had two definite and explicit promises from the War Office; one on 17th May and the other on 7th March, saying that men who reached the age of forty-one, whether attested or unattested, would not be called up, but would be passed into the Reserve. Does that stand?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, it does.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of his statement, now, this week, they are calling men up who are past forty-one? Are we to understand that his answer is to be taken as cancelling these instructions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; it simply means that there will be equalisation of conditions in both cases.
    HON. MEMBERS: How?
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday and the day before men of forty-one have been called up? Does that Order stand?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. I will give the exact Order to the House in the course of a day or two, but you have undoubtedly to redress the position. Cancellation of the Order would mean the loss of an enormous number of men whom we cannot afford to lose. We propose, therefore, to go up to the legal limit so far as the unattested men are concerned, and to equalise the conditions so far as the unattested men are concerned.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Notwithstanding the answer you have just given to the Member for Blackburn?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no inconsistency.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh, yes!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I have here simply stated that it was proposed to equalise. The only pledge that has ever been given is that attested men would be in the same position as unattested men.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of any other pledge. My attention has not been drawn to any other. It is proposed to carry out the pledge by means of equalisation.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As this is a matter of such urgent importance, might I ask for a clear answer to this question: If a man who has turned forty-one receives a notice calling him up has he to respond to it or not, seeing that the two replies I got from the War Office to which I have referred stated explicitly that he would not be called up?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know the answers to which my hon. Friend refers.
    HON. MEMBERS: They were given by Tennant.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The only pledge that I am aware of is that attested or unattested men should be on exactly the same footing.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That we propose to carry out. If we went beyond that it would be a very serious blow to the Army.
    An HON. MEMBER: Raise the age limit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do not propose to raise the age limit, but to go right up to the legal limit imposed by the Military Service Act. If the House insists upon anything else they will be deliberately depriving the British Army, at a time when it stands in serious need of men, of a very large force. That is a very serious responsibility for the House to take.
    Mr. TERRELL: In view of the unsatisfactory replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss the matter.

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION ACT (EMIGRATIONS).
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has taken any means to ascertain the number of men of military age who, in the first year of hostilities, escaped the National Registration Act by leaving Great Britain for Ireland, France, and the United States of America and are now resident particularly in Paris, Monte Carlo, and California in the two latter countries; whether it is intended to allow these men to shirk service without making any effort in the matter; and is he aware of the feeling caused to our French Allies by this slackness of our War Office?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not possible to give any estimate which would satisfactorily answer the first part of this question. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that every possible effort will be made to obtain the men in question for military service, and that any consultation with the French Government which may be necessary in regard to this matter will take place.

    VICTORIA STATION (ACCOMMODATION FOR SOLDIERS).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, owing to representations made to his predecessor about this time last year as to the friendless and forlorn condition of our soldiers and sailors arriving from or going to the front, it was decided to provide suitable accommodation for them under the control of the War Office and the Young Men's Christian Association; and if, in view of the fact that there is now practically no suitable place in the neighbourhood of Victoria Station, he will make inquiry if any suitable site or building can be obtained?
    Mr. FORSTER: A considerable amount of accommodation is already available for any soldiers who are on leave in London, and this is being continually increased. At
    932
    the present time it is in contemplation to provide further accommodation in the neighbourhood of Victoria Station.

    AIRCRAFT RAIDS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility when danger from a Zeppelin raid in London has passed of reassuring invalids and parents, of young families by sounding a hooter or in some other obvious way?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say more than that this proposal is about to be considered by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief Home Forces in conjunction with the Home Office.
    Mr. BILLING: Might I ask whether, in, view of the enormous amount of inconvenience that is caused by rumours on. nights when Zeppelins are expected, information might not be withheld from responsible people asking for it from, officials?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not understand the hon. Member's question.
    Mr. BILLING: Whether information regarding known raids might be withheld from any responsible person who asks a. special constable or police official?

    PRESS CENSOR (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Secretary of State for War during what hours the office of the Military Press Censor in Ireland is opened, and how many hours a week the head of that Department is supposed to look after his duties; what particular officer does duty in the absence of Lord Decies; how many days since the rebellion of Easter week the latter person has been absent from all public duties; and why it has been possible for him to be so absent?
    Mr. FORSTER: The office of the Press Censor in Dublin is open night and day for the convenience of the Press, but the Press Censor is, of course, not required to be present continuously. If he is away a competent assistant is always present.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Has he to get leave before he goes from Dublin?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not know; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the question.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Secretary for War what steps are being taken by the Government to regulate and co-ordinate the dispatch of food and comforts to British prisoners of war in belligerent countries other than Germany?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Croydon on the 17th October. Since then a very full and detailed statement has been published in the Press, and to this there is at present nothing to add.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the answer given to me referred entirely to Germany; the question on the Paper relates to other countries; would he clear that up?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: That is why I asked the question.

  GREECE.

    SALONIKA (DISPATCH).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that no dispatch has been published since the Army landed at Salonika; and when a dispatch may be expected?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend's statement is quite correct. He will find in Sir Charles Munro's dispatch, published in the "London Gazette" on the 10th April, a lengthy reference to the Salonika Army, and in Sir Archibald Murray's dispatch, published in the "London Gazette" on the 25th September, the story was brought down to a more recent date. A dispatch will, no doubt, be received before very long from Lieut.-General Milne, but I cannot state the date he will send it off nor the date when it is likely to be published.

    ARMY OFFICERS (COST OF LIVING).
    Colonel HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the increased cost of living is pressing very hardly on married captains and subalterns appointed for the period of the War, and especially on those promoted from the ranks; and whether he is considering the practicability of granting some allowance to these officers in order that they may be
    934
    able to support their families in reasonable comfort, and also to meet their necessary expenses as officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: The cases of officers holding temporary commissions can be dealt with by the Civil Liabilities Committee. I am considering whether any analogous arrangements can be made for officers of the Regular Army.
    Colonel HOPE: Does not the Civil Scheme only cover the cases of those concerned before they joined the Army and not to the case of those where expenses have been incurred owing to the increased cost of living?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think they have the power to deal with cases of officers who have joined the Army with temporary commissions since the War began, but have no power, I understand, to deal with cases of officers of the old Regular Army. I am seeing whether I cannot work out some scheme which will give the Regular officers the same advantages as the officers with temporary commissions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the scheme also include the Reservists who at the present time are excluded?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will take that into consideration.
    Mr. WING: Can the same considerations be made to apply to the ordinary soldier?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Would it not be possible to raise the pay of the subaltern instead of his having to go before this Commission to plead for a further allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that arises.

    ALLIES' WAR DECORATIONS.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORDasked the Secretary of State for War if soldiers are not allowed to hold the Russian war decoration and the French cross of war at the same time; if Bombardier Jennings, 51st Battery, Royal Field Artillery, who had been awarded both decorations for two different acts of gallantry, has been ordered to return the Russian decoration; and, if so, where is the order for the same to be found?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Orders are in force that an individual soldier is not to

    935
    receive more than one foreign decoration. This rule has been adopted in order to ensure an equitable distribution of such decorations. In the case mentioned in the question the second decoration was inadvertently given. Orders have, however, been issued that as a special case both decorations may be retained by the soldier in question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that apply to officers?
    Colonel CRAIG: Would the order granting the decoration to soldiers also apply to officers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not like to answer without notice.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Was not the old rule laid down in time of peace, and is it not now possible to have separate awards for separate acts of gallantry?

    SOLDIERS AND CIVILIAN WORK.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the workers are disturbed at the practice of allowing soldiers to be employed under military discipline on public work or civilian work of any kind, and, moreover, that the soldiers themselves resent it; and whether he will consider the practicability of allowing the temporary release with full civilian rights to any soldier whilst employed on civilian work?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is hoped shortly to be able to arrange for soldiers now employed as military working parties on civil work, who are not for the time being required in the Army, to be passed to the Reserve. There will then be only a limited number who cannot be passed to the Reserve who will still be available to meet demands of a temporary nature where civilian labour is unobtainable. These men must retain their military status, as the civil employment forms only an incident in their service.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Are these men who are engaged in civil employment under military discipline?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; when they are working under military officers they are under military discipline.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If a man is released from the Army and not passed
    936
    into the Reserve, but released to engage in some kind of civil employment, is he under military discipline?

    BADGES.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangement has been made for the distribution of badges to those entitled to them on account of having been discharged from the Army owing to wounds or physical disabilities contracted during the present War?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Silver War badges are issued to approved applicants, in the case of officers, nurses and civilians, direct from the Deputy-Director of Ordnance Stores, Woolwich Dockyard; in the case of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, through the officers in charge of records of the units with which they served. Instructions on the subject were published in the Press on 16th September, 1916, together with a notification that a pamphlet containing full information as to whom individuals should apply, could be obtained from any post office. Supplies of these pamphlets have been distributed to the post offices throughout the United Kingdom.
    Sir C. HENRY: Could not my right hon. Friend see that soldiers, when they are discharged, are notified where and when they can receive their badges?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why are soldiers who are discharged for disabilities due to disease not entitled to the silver badge?

  ROYAL FLYING COEPS.

    OFFICERS' FLYING PAY.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War why it is that if a wounded flying officer succeeds in bringing himself and his aeroplane back into the British lines, and thus saves himself from being taken prisoner and his machine from being captured by the enemy, he is deprived of flying pay after a short time in hospital, whilst a flying officer, whether wounded or not, coming down within the enemy lines or in a neutral country is given flying pay till the end of the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: Flying pay, like other forms of special corps pay, is continued to officers who suffer the crowning misfortune of being imprisoned or interned. In other cases, special consideration is given to cases of injury due to flying, but the orders on this subject were found to have been overlooked in some cases, owing to the rapid growth of the corps. Action to correct this, including review of past errors, was taken in September last.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Gentleman state whether or not the flying pay of an injured officer who succeeds in getting back wounded with his machine ceases when he comes out of hospital unfit or continues?
    Mr. FORSTER: It continues as long as the officer is on sick leave on full pay. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the length of sick leave on full pay differs in differing circumstances. It rests largely, I think, with the commanding officer to settle how long sick leave on full pay should continue. I think there was some misunderstanding as to how far commanding officers' power was properly exercised. Attention has been called to it, and I hope the matter is in order now.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the fairness of allowing cases of officers who are so injured to receive their flying pay so long as they remain in the force for the duration of the War, and thus put them on the same basis as those taken prisoner?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think we can make an exception in favour of flying officers.

    GERMAN RIFLE AND BAYONET.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether the German bayonet is six inches longer than the British bayonet, thus placing our soldiers very often at a disadvantage; that it is admitted that the German rifle is also superior to ours; that the German rifle can use British cartridges, while the British rifle will not take the German cartridge; and that the German cartridge clip is neater and handier than ours; and whether he will take steps to remedy these defects in the interests of our soldiers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point raised in the first part of the question was dealt with in the answer given on the 19th May,
    938
    1915, by the present Secretary for Scotland to the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool. It is not admitted that the German rifle is superior to the British, nor that the British cartridge can be used in the German Mauser rifle. The Army Council do not propose to alter the designs of the rifles now being produced and issued to the troops.

    ARMY LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTION).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the growing discontent of young subalterns at the front who, after leading men in charges and trench fighting, find there is no chance of promotion on account of the fact that other officers already made captains are sent out and placed in command over them, although these captains have had no experience at the front; and whether he will take steps to secure that these lieutenants fighting at the front are given the preferential consideration for promotion they deserve?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Army Council have no information of any discontent such as is alleged in the question. It may occasionally occur that an officer of captain's rank is sent out who has not had previous experience of this War, but most officers of captain's and higher rank have already been employed at the front.

    SOLDIERS' DIETARY AND HUTTING SPACE.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War what is the scale of dietary given to soldiers in the field and what the floor and cubic space per man in the military huts?
    Mr. FORSTER: The scale of diet varies in different theatres of war. There are, in point of fact, scales in force for France, Egypt, Salonika, Mesopotamia, and East Africa respectively. It would be quite impossible to give an accurate idea of these scales within the limits of an answer to a question. I will, however, with my hon. Friend's permission, send him a copy of each of the scales of rations. In military huts and barracks 400 cubic feet and 40 square feet of floor space are the normal amounts for each man.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why separation allowance is not issued for imbecile dependants above twenty-one if they have been kept at home and still are?
    Mr. FORSTER: Some limitation of the payments made by the War Office in such cases has always been considered necessary, and this was a feature of the scheme approved by Government and accepted by this House. If it operates harshly in particular cases, appeal lies to the Statutory Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: Supposing a soldier had imbecile dependants over twenty-one dependent upon him, would the War Office pay a separation allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: In that case dependence would be established.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why men entitled to Service pension have it merged in disablement pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: So far as the War Office is concerned, the reason is that the Select Committee on War Pensions recommended, and this House approved, a scheme of which this is a feature. It does not fall to me to expound the reasons of these decisions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee drew up a scheme of separation and disability pensions, that as a matter of practice a soldier who is earning a Service pension does not get that pension when he gets his disability pension, but the two are roped into the same payment, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that fair?
    Mr. FORSTER: It depends which is the higher of the two. The hon. Member must really accept that from me. He gets whichever is the higher of the two. The point whether he should draw both was put to the Select Committee, which decided against it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this House has never had an opportunity of discussing or approving the recommendations of the Committee?
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the position in regard to separation allowances of wives living apart from their husbands owing to such causes as their desertion by their husbands; whether, where the husband made no payment under an order of Court or otherwise before mobilisation or enlistment, no issue of separation allowance is made by the War Office; whether the War Office require, as a condition precedent to the issue of allowance, that clear evidence must be forthcoming of reconciliation between husband and wife and that the soldier intends to re-establish his home with his wife and maintain her after his period of service; and whether he will state under what authority such a Regulation has been framed?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Regulations are as stated. They proceed on the principle that separation allowance is intended to make good the loss due to separation caused by military service. They were framed under the authority of the Army Council.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, under Army Orders issued in January this year, a reduction is made in the separation allowance paid to a dependent mother of a soldier if she. becomes the recipient of the soldier's separation allowance by transference in consequence of the death of a soldier's father to whom the soldier's dependants' separation allowance had previously been paid; and whether, having regard to the fact that a dependent mother is made poorer and not richer by the death of her husband, and also, having regard to the fact that the payment of dependants' separation allowance in such a case was based on the amount contributed by the soldier for the benefit of the home, and not on the number of members of the household, he will arrange to put a stop to this practice of saving odd shillings and half-crowns for the Treasury at the expense of bereaved relatives of soldiers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. The fact that the husband is in any ordinary sense of the word self-supporting does not prevent him from being reckoned as a dependant in assessing reparation allowance, and when he dies his share necessarily lapses.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether questions relating to pensions can now be addressed to the Paymaster-General?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I think the existing practice should be continued for the present.

    TRAVELLING FACILITIES (SOLDIERS ON LEAVE).
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will arrange free travélling facilities on the underground railways between the mainline railway termini in London for overseas soldiers travelling to their homes on leave and when travelling to rejoin their overseas battalions?
    Mr. FORSTER: These facilities already exist.

    ARMY PAY OFFICE, WATERLOO STATION.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the loss of time suffered by soldiers from overseas on leave, arriving at Waterloo Station, in having to go to the Army Pay Office; and whether a branch office will be opened at or very close to that railway station?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. Some little time has been occupied in the provision of accommodation, but the office was opened last week.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to concede to men in the Army Ordnance Department the war bonus recently granted to men in the Royal dockyards?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question is under consideration.

    ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, OLYMPIA.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that at Olympia, a much used and important depot under the Royal Army Clothing Factory, Pimlico, goods both coming inward and going outward are conveyed from a station on the railway some five miles distant by carts and motors, using a gallon of petrol to two
    942
    miles run; whether he is also aware that three railway sidings abut on Olympia; and will he state why no use has been or is being made of these railway sidings for the transport of these goods?
    Mr. FORSTER: I dealt with this matter in debate on Thursday last. The matter is being considered.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand that the War Office are trying to get the railway companies to give these railway facilities?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will not go so far as to say they are doing that at the present moment. The whole question is being looked into.

    AFTER-WAR PROBLEMS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether, with the object of encouraging and facilitating intercourse between the peoples of the Allied countries upon commercial, industrial, and political questions, he will approach the Governments of those countries with the object of inducing them to agree to the teaching of a common language in addition to the national language in their schools?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that in present circumstances any useful purpose would be served by adopting this suggestion.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present cost of living, any consideration has been given to the case of persons entirely dependent upon the receipt of benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether the Government will consider the justice of amending the Workmen's Compensation Act in the direction of raising the maximum benefit payable in proportion to the increase in the cost of living?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot contemplate the introduction of a Bill in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend, who will doubtless remember that the cost of workmen's compensation both to the Government and to other employers of labour has been very greatly increased by the general increase in wages since the outbreak of war, and that the persons dependent on benefits under the

    943
    Act are by no means alone in suffering through the decreased purchasing power of money resulting from enhanced prices.

    REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister how he intends to deal, whether by Bill of indemnity or otherwise, with the cases of Members of this House who have, in contravention of the law, within the last two years received remuneration out of public funds without having been re-elected to Parliament since appointmen to the position or duty in respect of which the remuneration has been paid?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This matter was dealt with by the Re-election of Ministers Act.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased cost of living, the Government are prepared to introduce legislation with the object of making general for the period of the War and six months thereafter the 2s. 6d. increase in old age pensions which is at present only granted in special cases?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government the scheme explained in Cd. 8373 should meet the case.
    Mr. RUTHERFORDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the discouragement of thrift arising from the fact that under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 and 1911, the provisions made for old age through registered friendly societies, trade unions, employers' provident funds, and benevolent institutions are calculated and treated as income so as to reduce the amount of the pensions under the Acts; and whether the Government are prepared to introduce legislation in order to meet the case?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that the provisions of the Old Age Pension Acts dealing with the calculation of claimants' means have had the effect suggested by my hon. Friend. His Majesty's Government are not prepared, as at present advised, to introduce legislation on the subject.

    FOOD PRICES TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Prime-Minister if he will consider the advisability of creating fair food prices tribunals throughout the country on similar lines to the military service tribunals, giving them power to prevent or punish all those who for no just reason raised the prices of food above a proper figure?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question; It is not proposed to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. But I am considering the desirability of asking the House to confer further powers on the Board of Trade with a view to checking any preventable rise in prices.

    UNDER-SECRETARY (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime-Minister if any appointment has yet been made to the position of Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle; and, if so, will he give the name?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This appointment has already been announced in the Press.

    HIRE OF PREMISES BY MILITARY (LOWESTOFT).
    Mr. INGLEBYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the military representatives have taken advantage of the state of affairs prevailing at Lowestoft to hire empty premises at half the usual rent; and, if so, whether, seeing that the existing depression is due to acts of war, he can see his way to instruct the military representatives to pay such a rent as the premises would have been fairly worth in normal circumstances?
    Mr. FORSTER: Rents of buildings occupied for military purposes during the War at Lowestoft, as elsewhere, are based upon the actual loss sustained by the owner owing to the military occupation of the property. I can hold out no hope of departing from this principle.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office can get accommodation for nothing; that they can take a man's house, occupy it, and pay no rent?
    Mr. FORSTER: Failing agreement as to the amount properly payable, the owner of the property can take his case before the Commission on Losses.
    Mr. ASHLEY: That is not an answer to my question. Is it not the fact that the Government can take an empty house, use it, and pay no rent?
    Mr. FORSTER: We do not take it on the basis of rent; we take it on the basis of loss. The hon. Member knows quite well that the Commission was appointed in order to deal with these cases.

    WOOL PURCHASES.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that farmers in Carnarvonshire are being put to inconvenience and expense owing to the fact that the wool clip when acquired for the Government is not paid for at once; and whether, in view of the fact that the price of the wool clip is generally allocated to meet the rent, he will give instructions that the price be paid on delivery of the wool?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made as to whether there is any undue delay in making payment for wool in Carnarvonshire. In the meantime I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any individual cases in which farmers have been put to inconvenience by delays in payment for wool already delivered.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman merely want particulars of inconvenience?
    Mr. FORSTER: I want particulars so that I may see where the delay occurs. So far as I know, farmers have been very free in expressing their gratification at the prompt payment they have received where the wool has been delivered. That is the general rule. If there have been cases of delay in payment I would like to hunt them up.
    Colonel GRETTON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider cases other than those in Carnarvonshire?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is
    946
    aware that where a farmer sells his wool clip to the merchant with whom he hitherto dealt the wool is subsequently revalued by a Government agent, and the difference, if any, between the valuation and the price paid is claimed by the Government; whether such difference is to be repaid to the farmer who in the peculiar circumstances in which he is placed accepted too little for his wool clip, or whether the money is to be used to pay the expenses of administering the Order?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not fully understand the question the hon. Member desires to put to me, and I should be glad to arrange an interview to discuss the points to which he desires to draw my attention.
    Mr. DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, where merchants are permitted to buy wool for their own purpose, they fix the price for the wool, which the farmer must accept as he is not free to sell to others; and whether, in view of the disadvantage to which the farmer is subjected, he will allow the farmer to sell either to the Government or to the manufacturer at his option?
    Mr. FORSTER: Merchants are not permitted to buy wool for their own purposes, so I presume the hon. Member refers to manufacturers in the first part of his question. Certain small manufacturers in Wales are permitted, under licence, to buy wool at the prices fixed by the Government under conditions which prevent them making any profit from the fact that the fixed prices may be less than market prices. They are not free to fix their own price, and the farmers are under no obligation to sell to them. If the farmers so desire, they can apply to the district executive officer to have their wool allocated to an authorised merchant, who will value and take delivery on behalf of the Department.
    Mr. DAVIES: Are the farmers compelled to sell merely to the person who is nominated by the Government?
    Mr. FORSTER: No; they can sell as they do at present, to the manufacturer who has a licence to buy if they wish. If they do not wish to do that, or if they cannot agree on terms with the manufacturer, they can claim to sell to the: Government direct.

    CHELSEA COMMISSIONERS (GUNNER SMITH).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what were the assurances that the Chelsea Commissioners received which led them to suppose that it would be distinctly to the advantage of Gunner Smith to be allowed to emigrate to Australia; and if he will say by whom these assurances were given and whether they were verbal or in writing?
    Mr. FORSTER: These assurances were contained in letters from the Assistant Superintendent of the Immigration Department of the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria and from the Secretary of the Naval and Military Emigration League.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Could the hon. Gentleman give me the date?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give the date now; but I will send it to the hon. Member.

    ARMY HORSES.
    Colonel LOCKWOODasked if the Government have agreed to discontinue the sale of cast Army horses abroad with the exception of some mares sold solely for breeding purposes?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend hopes soon to be able to announce the decision on this question.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: It will not be long?
    Mr. FORSTER: No.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of sending home to this country horses which have been cast from the Army so that they may be available for breeding purposes here?
    Mr. FORSTER: That has not been lost sight of.

    JAMS FOR TROOPS.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that jams supplied to the troops at the front are in many cases unlabelled and without a manufacturer's name, and
    948
    that therefore the men fighting at the front have no means of identifying the manufacturer of bad jams which are occasionally given to them; and whether he will see that in future all jams supplied will bear not only the name of the article contained but also the name of the manufacturer?
    Mr. FORSTER: The specification requires the tins to be labelled with a description of the contents and the maker's name. An instance has occurred in which a consignment was sent in without this information owing to the contractor running out of printed labels, but this has been remedied.
    Mr. BILLING: As we are in the third year of the War, cannot we vary the apple and plum jam?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will get information up to date he will know that there is very little apple and plum.
    Mr. FLAVINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that complaints have been made by wounded soldiers who have been invalided home that the marmalade supplied to them at the front does not in many cases bear the manufacturer's name, and that in many cases the marmalade contains a strong smell and taste of petrol, which makes it impossible for human use; and whether he will take steps to prevent a continuance of this complaint?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have received no such complaint. Every effort is made by inspection to secure that it is satisfactory.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RAILWAY FARES FOR RELATIVES).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to cases of hardship to wives or dependants of wounded soldiers who are unable to visit their husbands in hospital when the distance is great because they are unable to pay the half railway fare which is necessary under existing Regulations; and whether he will consider the desirability of so altering the Regulations that wives or dependants can obtain one free pass instead of two passes at half-rates if it is proved that they are unable to pay the necessary sum for the journey?
    Mr. FORSTER: The effect of the present Regulation is that, where the visit is really necessary, one relative gets free travelling between his or her home and the hospital. If the visit is voluntary, but not necessary, two full return tickets can be obtained at half-fare, on production of a voucher supplied by the medical officer-in-charge of the hospital. To assist in limiting journeys in these latter cases it is considered that visitors should pay a portion of their fare, and any further alteration of the rule is not considered desirable.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question: Whether, in cases where the relatives are unable to pay half-fare, the War Office will grant one free pass instead of two passes at half-rates?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have answered my hon. Friend's question. I said that any further alteration of the rule is not considered desirable.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that?

    INVESTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will introduce legislation, if necessary, to prevent the Bank of England from informing solicitors in Scotland that payment of dividends instructed in notarial requests executed in due form according to the law of Scotland will be refused; and whether he is aware that the alternative document demanded or suggested by the Bank is one unknown to the law of Scotland and repugnant to ordinary reason in that it involves an absolutely impossible act, namely, the making of a signature by mark by a person physically incapable through paralysis of doing so; (2) whether he will introduce legislation, if necessary, to prevent the Bank of England from intimating to any parish council in Scotland that certain papers will not be recognised at the Bank unless executed under seal; whether he is aware that there is no requirement in Scots law that a parish council shall possess a seal; whether he can say what authority the Bank of England believes itself to possess to place such an obstacle in the way of a public body in Scotland desirous of subscribing to Government Loans; and whether he is
    950
    aware that a certain school board in Scotland was deterred from investing certain funds in Government Stock by the particular action of the Bank now complained of; (3) whether he is satisfied that, notwithstanding sundry recent reforms, investors in Scotland have reason to press for much better facilities for the inscription, transfer, and general management of the Government Stocks in which they are being urged to invest; whether he can hold out a prospect of effecting further reforms on an early date, and in any case before the issue of the next War Loan; and whether allowances made to the Bank of England for handling public business are derived from Scottish as well as from English taxpayers; and (4) whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties which beset trustees in Scotland anxious to invest in War Loan, etc.; whether he will endeavour to arrange with the Bank of England for a withdrawal of the requirements that a set of trustees numbering more than four shall not register more than four names, with the result that trustees who do not feel entitled to depart from the ordinary Scottish practice of full registration prefer not to take War Loan, notwithstanding the obvious convenience of this requirement to the bank and the explicit statement in the prospectus; whether, failing some such arrangement with the bank, he will introduce legislation, if necessary, enabling trustees to comply with the requirement and giving them indemnity against loss which might arise; whether he has seen the recent opinion given by an ex-law officer of the Crown upon this point, which describes the position in which this requirement places trustees in Scotland as very puzzling; whether he will introduce legislation to enable the bank to withdraw its objection to the registration of trustees as such in accordance with the usual practice in Scotland; and whether he is aware that in Scotland the registration of trust property in a private name is regarded as highly undesirable?
    Mr. McKENNA: The difficulties which arise in connection with Government stocks from the differences between Scottish and English law are well-known to me. I have been for some time past, and am still considering, what steps can be taken to meet these and other difficulties of procedure which I am anxious to overcome. As the matter is one of great complexity I am not even now in a position to

    951
    make any definite proposals, but I hope to be able to deal with the matter at no distant date.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the treatment of the Scottish Land Courts by the Bank of England is a breach of the treaty between Scotland and England, which is treated as a "scrap of paper"?
    Mr. JOWETT: Small nationalities!
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he has now had time to consider the practicability of relieving judicial factors in Scotland of their disability in connection with holdings of Indian and Colonial public stocks which involve the estates under their care in an expense of about £30, in order to obtain an administration order in England in addition to the title given them by the Supreme Court in Scotland; whether he can state what, if any, public interest is served by retaining this requirement, which is much resented in Scotland; whether legal expenses on this scale are exigible in respect of a trifling holding of, say, £50 of Dominion of Canada stock; whether any English holders of a like Colonial investment have legal charges on anything like this scale to face; and (2) whether he has now had an opportunity of considering memorials addressed more than a year ago to the Secretary of State for War and the Admiralty by the Faculty of Advocates and the leading commercial and professional bodies in Scotland, setting forth the hardship to which the estates of Scottish sailors and soldiers are exposed in respect that undrawn balances of Imperial pay lying at credit with Navy and Army agents in London are regarded as distinctively English estate, and thus as necessitating the expense of resealing Scottish confirmations in the English Probate Court; whether he is aware that the War Office, the Admiralty, and the India Office, which latter is concerned in a difficulty of the same kind in connection with certain Indian pension payments, have indicated that only the Treasury can deal with the matter; and whether he will consider the practicability of relieving the families of deceased sailors and soldiers of all ranks from these probate charges, on the ground that such pay is no more English estate than it is Scottish?
    Mr. McKENNA: I may remind the hon. Member that I have already dealt with certain points which he has raised affecting Government stocks, which could be, and were, brought within the scope of a Finance Act. The points he now raises involve a wider issue and could only be dealt with in an Act to revise the general law of probate and transfer. Such a revision, I fear, cannot be undertaken at the present time. I understand that the difficulty as regards the estates of soldiers and sailors is in practice commonly met by the bankers concerned.

    DEATH CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation, if necessary, to prevent the Bank of England from declining to accept as evidence of death an official extract death certificate of a domiciled Scotsman issued by an official registrar under the 1854 Act applicable to Scotland; whether that Act enacts, and was passed for the purpose of enacting, that such an extract shall be admissible as evidence in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions without any other or further proof of such entry; whether, notwithstanding this, the bank habitually refuses to accept such extract unless the certificate of the public official is endorsed on the back by the gravedigger; whether frauds upon the bank such as took place prior to the existence of official registrars in connection with the old and loosely-kept ecclesiastical registers of death, and justified the bank in taking precautions at that time, have ever been perpetrated in connection with official registrars' certificates; and whether he is aware that no corporation in the United Kingdom except the Bank of England declines to comply with the 1854 Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am in communication. with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on this matter.

    WAR-SAVINGS CAMPAIGN (WEST OF SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the new war-savings campaign dealing with workers in controlled establishments that is about to

    953
    be inaugurated, he will set up a Committee dealing solely with the West of Scotland and having complete control of that area, in view of the facts that so many of the controlled establishments in Scotland are in that district and that so little money has been got out of it by the present arrangement?
    Mr. McKENNA: With the assistance of the Ministry of Munitions, the National War Savings Committee have established a Department to deal with the work in munition factories in England and Wales. It is hoped that arrangements will shortly be made between the Scottish Committee and the Ministry for the conduct of a similar campaign in Scotland by the Scottish Committee. I do not think it would be desirable to appoint a completely independent Committee to deal with a particular area in Scotland.

    LIQUOR LICENCE DUTY (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a communication from the Retail Purveyors' and Family Grocers' Association, of Dublin, respecting the grievance of the off-licence holders; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending Section 17, Sub-section (2), of the Finance Act, 1915, so as to put off-licence holders in the same position as on-licence holders in this matter?
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the off-licensed holders in Ireland for a concession as regards a rebate of Licence Duty, similar to that granted to off-licensed holders in Great Britain; whether he has inquired into the action of the military authorities in Ireland, especially within the last six months, in curtailing the hours of sale; and whether he will take this matter into consideration in the next Budget or sooner?
    Mr. BRADYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place the holders of off-licences in Ireland on the same footing as those in Great Britain in regard to a rebate of Licence Duty, especially in view of the curtailment of hours recently imposed by the military authorities in Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received the communication referred to by my hon.
    954
    Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division. My attention has been called to this matter, which is not free from difficulty. Under the law off-licence holders, whether in Great Britain or Ireland, cannot obtain any relief from Licence Duty on account of restrictions on their trade unless those restrictions are imposed by the Central Control Board. That Board has not imposed any restrictions in Ireland, and consequently no off-licence holder in Ireland can obtain relief. I will direct my advisers to look into the matter, and if it can be shown that the restrictions imposed in Ireland are comparable in stringency with those imposed by the Central Control Board in Great Britain, I will consider how the difficulty can be met. But I fear I could in no case admit that off-licence holders have a claim to be put in the same position as on-licence holders.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that off-licence holders in Ireland are placed in exactly the same position as on-licence holders in England?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have endeavoured to explain the difficulty, that the Central Control Board has not acted in Ireland at all. Therefore, whilst I might reply to my hon. Friend in the affirmative, I should not really give him what he wants. I am prepared to consider the difficulty which has arisen owing to the fact that the Central Control Board does not act in Ireland.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir John Maxwell has the same powers under martial law as the Central Control Board has under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is the very point I have been endeavouring to explain.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. RUTHERFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the inconsistency arising in the administration of the Excess Profits Tax from the fact that the statutory percentage of 6 per cent. or other substituted statutory percentage is, under one portion of the Act, the rate for capital employed in the pre-war standard period, and under other portions of the Act it becomes the rate for capital put into an undertaking in the accounting or postwar period; whether he recognises that the rates for money in pre-war periods

    955
    have been greatly increased in post-war periods; and what he is prepared to do to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot agree that the use for all the purposes of the Excess Profits Duty of a uniform statutory percentage fixed by reference to pre-war conditions involves an inconsistency. It is no doubt true that capital now invested in business earns a higher reward than in pre-war times, but where this increased reward is retained by the proprietor as part of his profit, it is in my judgment no less than any other element of profit which arises out of war conditions and contributes to the excess of profits over the pre-war standard, rightly included in the scope of the charge.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a fortnight ago, before the Board of Referees, it was made clear that the statutory percentage applicable to the pre-war period is one thing and that the percentage applicable to the post-war period is another—in fact, almost double—and that very serious difficulty has been caused to the taxpayer by such an anomaly in the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is the very point which I have endeavoured to answer.

    ENEMY BANKS IN ENGLAND.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the winding-up of the affairs of the Deutsche, Dresdner, and Disconto Gesellschaft enemy banks in this country has yet been completed; if not, what remains still to be done; and whether, in view of the injury to British mercantile and banking interests caused in the past by the operation of German banks having their offices in this country, he will take immediate steps for speedily and completely eliminating these hostile influences from our midst?
    Mr. McKENNA: The banks referred to in the question are wholly precluded from carrying on business in this country except under licence to the extent necessary to complete transactions, outstanding at the outbreak of war. Very considerable progress has been made towards the settlement of these transactions, which is being carried out as rapidly as possible, but it has not yet been fully completed. The question to what extent, if at all, the
    956
    banks will be allowed to resume business after the War is a matter upon which I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. BUTCHER: What remains to be done?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member will give me notice of the question I should be very happy to answer it.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a report from the liquidator saying when he thinks the matter will be disposed of? It has been constantly brought up.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have answered the question as fully as I can. I have personally no further information.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember an answer which he gave me many months ago on this subject?
    Mr. McKENNA: There are a great many questions on the Paper.
    Mr. WATT: Is there any truth in the statement that the Dresdner Bank is in possession of Government secrets and that that is the reason why it is not wound up?
    Mr. McKENNA: I know nothing about the Dresdner Bank, but I should think that there is not the slightest foundation for the question.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will any report be laid on the Table of this House showing how the proceedings in the liquidation of these various banks have been progressing?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will ask Sir William Plender.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is there any prospect of the liquidators completing their work before the War is finished?
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is it a fact that the liquidators are paid by the hour and that the longer they go on working the more money they get?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know whether that is so or not.
    Mr. SPEAKER: All these points have been dealt with recently in Debate, including the particular question which the hon. Member has just asked.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked how many enemy aliens are still employed at the London offices of the Deutsche, Dresdner, and Disconto-Gesellschaft banks, respectively, and what are their respective

    957
    duties; whether the continuance of the employment of enemy aliens in the work of winding-up these banks is conducive to a speedy winding-up; and whether he will consider the possibility, after twenty-six months of controlled management, of replacing these enemy aliens by persons of British birth and origin?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the number of alien enemies still employed at the Deutsche Bank is five; at the Dresdner Bank one; and at the Disconto-Gesell-schaft three. Two of such aliens will be interned on 1st December next, which would then leave a total of seven alien enemies at the three banks, as compared with 363 on 31st July, 1914, immediately prior to the outbreak of war. The remaining seven enemy employés are managers, sub-managers, and heads of departments. As such, they are familiar with, and have a complete knowledge of the numerous and complicated transactions now being closed, which other members of the staff do not possess. They hold the banks' procuration, and their signatures are required for dealing with the assets in this country and abroad. It is impossible to replace these employés by persons who are in no way familiar with the banks' past business. The removal of these enemies would deprive the controller of their assistance, and, in his opinion, impede rather than accelerate the settlement of the banks' affairs.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Was it not possible in twenty-six months to find other persons?
    Mr. McKENNA: A liquidator or controller is put in control of these banks. I am sure that he is conducting the business in the best interests of the State. It must be remembered that the business of these banks relates only to such matters as were undertaken before the outbreak of the War. The banks are being wound up for the benefit of the British creditors, and I am sure that if my hon. Friends who question me were themselves creditors they would also be anxious that their interests should be regarded as well as what are popularly regarded as the general interests of the State in the conduct of these banks. But no new business is allowed to be undertaken, and it is only British interests that are regarded in winding-up these banks.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the case that Sir William Plender has nothing whatever to do with the government and manage-
    958
    ment of these banks, and that his duty is merely to check and identify certain shares and other things, and is the German manager still in full control?
    Mr. McKENNA: A controller has been put in for the purpose of supervising the general business of the banks and, I assume among other things, making sure that no business is undertaken by these banks except the continuation and finishing of such business as was already opened before the outbreak of war. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has no justification for shaking his head and implying that that is not being done.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does the controller make regular statements or reports to any department of the Government as to how these liquidations are proceeding?
    Mr. McKENNA: No report has reached me personally. I will inquire of my right hon. Friend whether they have reached the Board of Trade, and whether it is not advisable to have such reports.
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the statement that these banks are being wound-up for the benefit of British creditors will the right hon. Gentleman consider the idea of forming a committee of British creditors of each bank to attend to the winding-up?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think that that might have been an excellent idea two years ago, but with the business of these banks almost finished I do not think that it would be wise to make a change now.
    Captain BARNETT: Is it not desirable to make it impossible for these banks to resume business after the War?

POINT OF ORDER.
Mr. LYNCH: I would desire to mention a point of Order arising out of the Debate on Thursday as this is the first opportunity that I have had of—
Mr. SPEAKER: Points of Order should be taken when they arise.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION.
At the conclusion of Questions,
Mr. G. TERRELLrose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the

959
Army Council in calling up men for service on the 1st November who have voluntarily attested and who, prior to the 24th June, have attained the age of 41 years, such action being a breach of the conditions under which such men attested and placing them at a serious disadvantage as compared with unattested men"; and the pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Major Douglas George Carnegie, commonly called the Hon. Douglas George Garnegie, for the Borough of Winchester.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE'S REPORTS.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: I rise to draw attention to the two Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and to move, "That the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee be now taken into consideration."
    I have to thank the Prime Minister for giving me an early opportunity of saying something on behalf of the Committee, about which some very hard things have been said, both in the House and in the Press—excusable in the Press—but Members ought to know the functions of Committees. In one widely-read newspaper it was said that the Public Accounts Committee was appointed ad hoc to investigate matters connected with War Office contracts. The Committee has been widely blamed for what has been called unfair action in not calling the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Devonport before them. I hope to show that this criticism is, in fact, unfounded. If the Members of the House had ever taken the trouble to read the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, or the Reports of this Committee, they would have seen that no names are ever mentioned. There are many individuals whose cases come under review all the way through, but they are all cases which have been dealt with beforehand. They are simply reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as the result of his examination of the accounts of the various Departments, and the function of this Committee is simple: to hand on those cases anonymously to this House, because this House is the only authority which deals with these matters between individuals.
    Let me give one somewhat similar instance, which arose after the South African War. There were a great many names of contractors mentioned, tout if the House refers back to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report they will find that the contractors are named A, B, C, and so forth. No names were given in the Report, and they
    1006
    were not given until they were brought out, and quite rightly brought out, in this House. One exception to this rule was that of a particular contractor who could not be described by a letter, because the subject matter of the inquiry was one as to a ration called the "Maconochie" ration, and the hon. Member took action. Under these circumstances the Public Accounts Committee thought they ought to hear him when he asked to give evidence before them. Even in this Report, if the Committee will look at it, there are many contractors referred to who have never been named, and there are many officers referred to, or rather there are many cases given where there have been embezzlements of money, or loss of money, through the action of some individual, both in the Navy, the Army, and the Post Office, but we never gave the names. Their cases have all been dealt with by the respective Departments concerned. It is not for us to gibbet any particular person, or to report upon particular names. So much is that the practice, that I only find two records of the Public Accounts Committee ever having thought of giving the names. I am thankful to say that the Committee stuck to precedent, and refused to put any name in the Report, but to keep to the words "principal contractor" all the way through.
    4.0 P.M.
    I sympathise very much with the "principal contractor," because there was another question raised in the Committee as to whether the War Office should be asked to give all the commissions paid to different contractors, and we decided not to ask the War Office to give us those commissions, because it involved giving names, and we did not want to do so. An hon. Member in the House, however, asked for a Return of these contractors, and that Return was granted. As I said, I very much sympathise with the senior Member for Devonport, because that Return happened to come out on the same day as the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and it appeared in the newspapers underneath the Report of the Committee, and everybody of course put two and two together, and action was taken outside. That concatenation of circumstances was very unfortunate for the hon. Member for Devonport, and I am quite sure very unfortunate for the Public Accounts Committee. I think I have shown the House that the Public Accounts Committee is not so

    1007
    much to blame as it is thought to be; on the contrary, we have striven to keep within the limits of our functions, and to make a Report to the House on those matters of which we are put in charge, leaving it to the House to deal with them. As the House knows very well, we do not mention the names of any firms who make Government supplies, but some of the firms took the matter up and have been answered by the Minister of Munitions, and that no doubt comes within the purview of this House. It is fifty-five years since Mr. Gladstone moved the appointment of a Select Committee on Public Accounts. He said that the object of the Committee would be "to revise the accounts of public expenditure after they had gone through the regular process of examination at the hands of the Executive Government; that was obviously the true conception of the duty of the House with regard to public money." He accordingly nominated the Select Committee on Public Accounts, adding that he had tried to appoint Members best qualified to fulfil those duties, which were of "a dry and repulsive kind." At that time the process of examination of the accounts varied greatly in the different Government Departments. It was not until the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, fifty years ago, was passed that that examination was systematized, and that there was a uniform system prescribed for all the Departments. After that Act, the Exchequer and Audit Department was set up, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General as head of that Department. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is an officer of the House itself, and is only removable by a joint petition of both Houses. The Public Accounts Committee has never been a party Committee. The chairman is always a member of the party in Opposition, and generally, I will not say invariably, has been the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury. When the late chairman became the Duke of Devonshire in 1908, there was no Unionist ex-Financial Secretary available, and as one of the oldest Unionist members, I was put in the chair. The Committee consists of fifteen members. I am quite certain that I speak for the Committee, as I do for myself, when I say that the proceedings of the Committee and the details which come before the Committee are neither "dry nor
    1008
    repulsive." On the contrary, the work of the Committee deals with principles and details which are extremely interesting. We are brought into touch not only with the officers of the Treasury, but with the Accounting and other Officers of the Departments picked specimens of that intelligence and devotion to the public interests which characterises the public Service as a whole. There is in this Report a very interesting Memorandum prepared by the present Comptroller and Auditor-General on the working of the Exchequer and Audit Act. During the fifty years since the Act was passed, there have been six Comptrollers and Auditors-General. Two of them I have had the pleasure of working with, and of the rest there is one outstanding name, Sir Charles Ryan, who has reached the age of eighty-five. When this Memorandum was sent to him, he wrote in answer and said, "If hereafter, under pressure of taxation, Parliament should wish to enforce economy instead of expenditure the means of doing so will be in their hands," in the Public Accounts Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Exchequer and Audit Department. Lord Welby, who was perhaps the outstanding member of the representatives of the Treasury is quoted in the last paragraph of the Memorandum:
    "The new system has taken away, and rightly, the unlimited discretion which the Treasury had formerly. It has done more, for while it has subjected the Treasury to a very needful control it has at the same time enabled the Treasury better to discharge its responsibility for the maintenance of financial order, because the Treasury learns much now from the Reports of the Auditor which it never would have learned under the old system."
    It was found practically impossible to give a list of the Members of the House who, during the fifty years, had served upon the Committee, but I think I ought to mention one in particular who was a member—I refer to Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles. This House owes him a very great debt for his financial ability and activities. He did especially two things for this Committee. He secured that the receipt side of the account was brought within the purview of the Committee,' and it was also he who, in 1905, persuaded the House to give a day for the consideration of the Report. In that year the then Prime Minister, now First Lord of the Admiralty, said he would be very glad to give up one of the days allotted to Supply for the purpose, but that if the House did not want to do that, he would

    1009
    find some other day later in the Session. The next Debate was in 1907, and in closing the Debate, the present Prime Minister said he thought "the innovation of setting apart a day for the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee's Report a valuable precedent which he hoped would be followed in future," as it was in 1908, but not again until 1910. Since that there has not been a day until this day. If the House will permit me, I should like to give a short history of Parliamentary Grants and Accounts. Before 1688 the whole of the revenues of the Crown were at the personal disposal of the Sovereign. It was not until then that Parliament began to appropriate Grants for a specific object, and the Civil Services were not completely separated from Civil List Expenditure until the time of William IV. It was in 1802 that finance accounts were first established, and in 1834 a new office created independent of the executive Government in order to prevent the issue of public money not in accordance with Act of Parliament. In 1832 the Admiralty was required to prepare annually an account of expenditure under the several Votes defined in the Appropriation Act and requiring the Commissioners of Audit to compare the accounts with the vouchers. In 1846 the Army services were brought into line, and in 1851 Woods and Works, and in 1861 the Revenue Department Vote, culminating in the extension of appropriate audit to all supply services by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866. But it was not until 1869 that the accounts or books were really in anything like the form in which they are in now, and it was not until 1873 that an Order in Council was passed formally prescribing the manner of keeping accounts. One result of the Act was to create the Accounting Officers. There were Accountants, but it was not for some time that it was realised that the real permanent heads of the Departments ought to be the accounting officers and responsible for the accounts, instead of merely accountants. This Committee has been very jealous of seeing that accounting officers are really accountable for the accounts and that the responsibility cannot be put on to anybody else. For excess Votes the sanction of the Committee must be obtained. The value of that is shown by the fact that whereas from 1868–9 to 1876–7 the average number of Civil Service and Revenue Department Votes which were
    1010
    exceeded were twenty-five, and in the nine years from 1886–7 to 1894–5 only eighteen, and from 1905–6 to 1913–14 only seven cases of excess Votes in those accounts. The basis of the Report of the Committee is the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the accounts which set out in detail the Estimates and the amount of actual expenditure, and the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on any irregularities are appended. It is on that that the Committee's work is founded, and the only persons who can answer the questions of the Committee upon those points are the Accounting Officers of the various Departments. They have to justify irregularities of whatever kind, and they do it with the full knowledge that their evidence will be published verbatim, and that anything they say, like the whole work of the Committee, is subject to the review of the House of Commons afterwards. It is not the purpose or function of this Committee to go beyond the statements made by the Accounting Officers. We do not want to disbelieve them; we have no reason to do so. They have to justify their statements to us, and anybody who looks at the evidence will see that very keen questions are put about the statements they make. If mistakes have been made by Accounting Officers in answers they give, it is for the House afterwards to decide whether they have been right or not in what they have said. The Public Accounts Committee does not deal with policy or expenditure, but with the results of expenditure. It simply reports to the House what has happened, and if there is any justification for what has been done.
    With regard to the two Reports of this year, the House will remember that they deal with the financial year ending 31st March, 1915, and therefore only comprise the initial eight months of the War. It sometimes has been asked, What is the use of such a belated inquiry as that? You will remember that the Committee is not a committee of Expenditure, but a committee of Accounts. The accounts cannot be examined before they are furnished, and they cannot be furnished before they are finished, and they are not finished before the 31st of March of each year. It takes some time to make up such large, voluminous accounts. Consequently it is some months before the Comptroller and

    1011
    Auditor-General is able to get the accounts, and he must then take some little time to examine them and to write his Reports. The Reports on the Civil Service Votes need not be presented before the 31st of January, and the Navy and the Army are allowed till the 15th of February of each year. If the House will remember that we are a committee of Accounts and not of Expenditure, it will see that our power really arises in the knowledge by the Departments all through that any action taken will be submitted to an accurate, informed and searching scrutiny; and it is that knowledge which has contributed very materially to accuracy in the accounts and to the checking of irregularities. Where, as sometimes happens, disciplinary action has been taken, or in the opinion of the Committee ought to be taken, the Committee invariably inquire into the matter, and is not content unless a satisfactory answer is given as to any action to be taken or that ought to have been taken. There is one other function of the Committee, and that is the power of disallowance. As an instance, this year certain legal expenses in Ireland seemed to the Treasury to be very extravagant, and after due consideration the Public Accounts Committee fully upheld the view of the Treasury, and a portion of them has been disallowed. Before I come to the Reports themselves, I should like to give a few figures to show the increase of the amounts with which the Committee now has to deal. In 1898–99 the Navy expenditure was £ 24,000,000. In 1910–11 it was £ 40,000,000, an increase of 66 per cent. In 1914–15 it had risen to £ 52,000,000, an increase of 30 per cent. over 1910–11, and 116 per cent. over 1898–99. The corresponding figures for the Army are: 1898–99, £ 20,000,000; 1910–11, £ 28,000,000, an increase of 40 per cent.; and 1914–15, £ 29,000,000, an increase of 3 per cent. over 1910–11, and 45 per cent. over 1898–99. The Civil Service Estimates are very different. They were, in 1898–99, £ 37,000,000; in 1910–11, £ 67,000,000, an increase of 81 per cent.; and in 1914–15, £ 87,000,000, an increase of no less than 29 per cent. over 1910–11, and 135 per cent. over 1898–99. In addition to this normal expenditure, there were £ 337,000,000 of war expenditure met out of the Vote of Credit.
    1012
    In regard to the pre-war months of the period under review there is not much to say upon the great bulk of the Civil Service Votes, with the exception of the new Class VII., which deals with questions under the National Insurance Act and the case of over-expenditure in Ireland, which I have already mentioned. We have drawn the attention of the Government to the necessity of as speedy legislation as possible for diminishing the number of the Commissioners under the Mental Deficiency Act. A certain statutory number had to be provided for, but it is quite obvious that the number might now be greatly reduced. With regard to the War months, it was seen that the contractors would soon come for large increases under their contracts. Time was taken by the forelock and a Committee of the Treasury was appointed, who laid down the lines on which increases might be granted, the Treasury supervising all the large amounts. The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Office of Works, while it was forced to put a large contract for housing at Woolwich on a percentage basis, seems to have taken effectual steps both to supervise the rate of wages under the contract and also to provide that no commission should be paid on material which they themselves supplied.
    With regard to the National Insurance Act, I should like to call attention to the amount of Supplementary Grants which have been required. The figures were given in the Report this year, and up to the present financial year they show that whereas the Grants under the Act of 1911 amounted to £ 20,250,000, additional Grants amounting to no less than £ 8,750,000 were needed—nearly 43 per cent. of the original amount—a fact that will have to be taken into account when the thorough review of the Act and its finance comes to be made, which so novel and complex a scheme must require. The earlier of these additional Grants at first received no Parliamentary sanction except that of the Appropriation Act, which, in the view of the Committee, is in itself a highly undesirable proceeding. The other Grants are covered by Section 1 of the amending Act of 1913. From the financial point of view, the Public Accounts Committee views with some apprehension the very large powers given under that Section for departing from the original contributory basis of the scheme. The

    1013
    National Insurance scheme is worked through approved societies, many of which are very small, and all of which have small branches, and they found great difficulty in accurately accounting for the sums spent. This difficulty arose not from deliberate inaccuracy, but rather from a natural non-appreciation of the necessity of keeping very strict accounts. In many cases the officials were working men, who, while fulfilling their functions with all honesty, were not conversant with the new system of keeping accounts which the Act rendered necessary. A considerable number of cases have come to light where overpayments have been made under the Act, chiefly in connection with the unemployment section, where the factors that govern the legal definition of unemployment are difficult of apprehension, and in these cases special provision has had to be made both for the recovery of overpayments in consequence of mere clerical errors and for the charging to the proper funds of amounts allowed erroneously.
    In the case of the Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance, the Board of Trade has taken in hand the question of proper forms of accounts being rendered and the prescribed conditions fulfilled. The whole question is a very difficult one, and the Treasury have appointed a Special Committee to go into the whole subject, and that Committee, of which a member of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon Member for Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) is a member, is, I believe, nearing the completion of its labours.
    The Public Accounts Committee were rather impressed with the cost of the administration of the Act, while the somewhat large number of Commissioners seem now to be more than are needed. Whether they were originally needed I do not know.
    Hitherto there has been an excellent practice that any proposed change in the form of the Estimate should be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee before it was carried into effect. In 1915 that practice was not observed. Provision was made for the payment of Exchequer benefits under the Act on an entirely new basis, and attention was drawn to it, not in the Estimate itself, but simply by a note on the Estimate. It was an alteration in practice which the Committee much regret, and if the point had been
    1014
    submitted to them first of all, I am inclined to think they would not have sanctioned it.
    In connection with the Civil Service Accounts, I may refer to the Post Office Telephone Service, in connection with which there was a deficiency of £ 111,000, as compared with a profit in the year before of £ 239,000. Of course, the War had a great deal to do with 'it, but at the same time the increase in the charge for depreciation was £ 142,000 and the pensions liability £ 36,000. The former must inevitably increase, as a very large capital expenditure still remains to be made under the Telegraph Money Act, of 1913, so that, unless some special measures are devised, it seems to me that in normal times the telephone service will show not a profit, but a deficit.
    With regard to the Departments more especially affected by the War—the Navy and the Army—in both Services it has been found impossible on the ground of national interest to publish the accounts in their full detail, while pressure of work and shortness of staff have rendered it necessary to omit a certain portion of the usual stocktaking, and also the rendering of certain manufacturing accounts. At the same time the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been afforded every facility for getting the information necessary for his usual examination and Report, and the Committee is informed that the accounts themselves have been kept as nearly full as possible, and have been entirely open to his confidential inspection. With regard to the Navy, at all events, a promise has been twice given in the House that as soon as possible after the War, when it can be done without detriment to the public interest, the accounts in full will be presented as usual. This has necessitated part of the examination by the Committee of both witnesses and documents being held in camera, and the evidence given by the Navy and the Army has had to be submitted to those Departments for the excision of such parts as they thought ought not to be published at present. If any hon. Members care to go through the whole of the evidence they will probably find certain gaps of which that is the explanation.
    During the year under review there were Votes of Credit for no less than £ 362,000,000. Against these was charged,

    1015
    in the case of Civil Services, all excess expenditure wholly necessitated by the War, and such amount must be taken as the cost of the War for those months with regard to the Civil Service Votes. The Committee asked whether it would not be possible to distinguish moneys spent within the ambit of the various Votes, but which were real war expenditure, so that they might be taken into account in reckoning the total cost of the War. They were eventually obliged to acknowledge the validity of the contention of the Department that in most cases differentiation would be almost impossible, while to do it with anything like approximate accuracy would entail an amount of time and money wholly disproportionate to the advantage gained. I may be asked why Votes of Credit were asked for instead of Supplementary Estimates, which, of course, are regarded as the normal procedure. The Committee have been very jealous of this point, but it was pointed out to them that it would be extremely difficult to frame Supplementary Estimates with any accuracy, as it was impossible to say what services would be wanted, or what payments would fall to be made in the financial year. For instance, early in March, or late in February, it was thought that a very large payment would fall due before the 31st March, and a supplementary Vote of Credit for £ 37,000,000 was taken. That payment, however, did not fall due, and there was a surplus of £ 25,000,000 on that head. The expenditure under the Votes of Credit was kept entirely in the hands of the Treasury. The Departments had to satisfy them monthly as to what they had spent, and what would probably fall due in future months. With regard to matters not coming within the ordinary Votes, there was only one of any importance, namely, the Sugar Commission. The Sugar Commission spent £ 18,500,000 in that particular year, their trading accounts were fully examined by the Treasury, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General carried out a most satisfactory test audit.
    With regard to the expenditure of the Navy and of the Army, in connection with the Navy a special Treasury Committee was set up, on which the Admiralty were represented, which was empowered on behalf of the Treasury to sanction all such urgent demands for money as were
    1016
    not of such overriding importance as to require formal reference to the Treasury itself. With regard to the Naval and Military expenditure generally, I think the House ought to bear in mind two things.—first, that in the carrying out of any service of great magnitude, time and money are necessary, and in this case there was no time to spare and money had therefore to be spent extravagantly. The other thing is the old warning regarding new wine in old bottles. The system both of the Navy and Army has grown up through many years, adapted to what the country regarded as the ordinary Naval and Military standard, and into these old systems, adapted for a comparatively small number of men and relatively small expenditure, there was suddenly poured unthought-of masses of men and the necessity for spending unthought-of millions of money. These two considerations account for a great deal of the enormous expenditure of the War. Let me give one instance—the provision that became necessary for large hutted camps. No man in his senses, if there had been time, would have begun to build those camps without first making the necessary roads. But the men had to be sheltered as soon as possible, and the roads perforce had to wait, although increased expenditure was thereby necessarily incurred.
    That mistakes in judgment were committed under the enormous pressure, there is no denying; nor that in many cases antiquated procedure was adhered to when it was evident that it was not suitable to the emergency. But on the whole, adaptability was shown. Moreover, it must be recollected, especially in the case of the War Office, men were taken away from work to which they were getting accustomed and their places had to be filled by others who were ignorant of the necessities and routine of their positions, while the enormous expansion of the personnel of all the offices necessitated bringing men in who, however competent and zealous, knew little or anything of the system they were severally called upon to administer. To give one instance, the Army Pay Department. This Department before the War consisted of about 600 men; by 31st March the number had risen to 7,000, and" at the present time it totals 15,000. The exigencies of the War necessitated the resort to a form of contract to which there is great objection, i.e., the system of payment by percentage, i.e., on net cost.

    1017
    plus percentage. In 1902–3 the system was tried by the Navy, when the Royal Dockyards had fallen into arrears which were needed to be quickly overcome; and it was then found too extravagant. But under the extreme urgency of repairing and rebuilding during the War, the Admiralty were forced to return to the system, though not without many misgivings, and careful instructions that resort should be had to the system only in the last extremity. Your Committee have no doubt that this was inevitable, but grave mistakes were made in that no provision was made in the contracts whereby the Admiralty could check undue payment of wages or undue cost of material, but they were obliged to pay the percentage on whatever accounts were produced to them by the contractor. These were factors which made the system so unprofitable when last tried, and the experience then gained ought to have been noted for future use. No doubt there were some safeguards against the extravagance of the system in 1902, and cases of extravagance were watched and reported to the Admiralty; and it is no doubt also true that the extreme pressure under which the work had to be done by day and night prevented thoroughly efficient supervision and did not afford time for correcting wrongs which had been done. But the amount paid for wages did not vary very much from one job to another, and the schedule of rates ought to have been submitted to and checked by the Admiralty, who also ought at least to have been able to control rates of pay and the prices which were being paid for material.
    With regard to the purchase of material the Admiralty, before the War, seemed to have no independent means of checking the prices of the armament firms. It seems to your Committee to have been slow in adopting the method of cost prices Situated as is this country in regard to its Navy, it is impossible to maintain sufficient national dockyards to cope with sudden emergencies, such as arise from time to time, and it is therefore necessary that there should be in existence a certain number of manufacturers of war material and builders of warships who should be able to undertake national orders quickly, without waiting, and to supply new machinery and make fresh arrangements. But this is no reason why the nation should pay extravagant prices for their requirements,
    1018
    nor why the Admiralty should not possess the requisite staff for controlling the cost of the supply and manufacture.
    When I come to the staff, I want the House to realise the immense debt which the country owes for the unpaid work which is so largely done. There are many men whose natural business ability would command salaries of many thousands a year freely giving up the whole or the best part of their time to the national work; while the value of the unpaid work generally must run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds annually. This brings up the question of the employment of business men in the Civil Service, which in ordinary times does not seem possible, for the ordinary run of Civil Service salaries is far below the value of men of such experience, while, unless in exceptional times their whole-time services would not be needed; and it would be difficult, though not impossible, to fit part-time work into the scheme of the Departments. Although the work of the Ministry of Munitions does not come within the year under review, yet in the light of the evidence given by the Admiralty officers your Committee thought it not outside 'their province to ask that the Ministry of Munitions would give evidence as to the method on which they worked, and the results which they had effected and which are very considerable, as the figures will show. I am quite aware that those figures are not accepted by everybody either inside or outside this House. But the Committee have only reported to the House the figures given to them, and it will be for the House to form its own judgment as to their accuracy. Evidence was forthcoming to your Committee that a similar system was not being adopted by the Admiralty as fast as it seemed to your Committee to be possible.
    A fruitful source of unnecessary expenditure which will have a lasting effect was the far too hasty medical examination of Reservists, so that men were passed into the Services who ought never to have been taken, and who were in many cases very soon invalided out with a pension or gratuity, however small, sometimes on account of the very diseases for which they had originally left the Services.
    In the case of the Army, the Appropriation Account has no such fundamental change dictated by public interest as in the Navy, though naturally a good many of

    1019
    the details are omitted, and here, again, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been in no way hindered in doing his full work of examining accounts as usual. Different provisions had to be made for the necessary relaxation of the Treasury Control. For instance, where expenditure was certified to be necessary and so urgently needed that there was no time to submit it to the Treasury, a certificate to that effect had to be given under the hand of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The organisation of the War Office differs so fundamentally from that of the Admiralty that it was not possible to institute an Emergency Treasury Committee of Control similar to that of the Navy. The Accounting Officer of the Army is not situated in the same way as the Accountant-General of the Navy, since his opinion on matters which seem to him extravagant are submitted to review by the Secretary of State for War. The whole question of the organisation and administration of the War Office and Admiralty will have to be considered after the War, and they will have to be much more co-ordinated with regard to their supplies, so that similar economical prices may be paid for articles which are in common use by them both, and to prevent them competing against one another for material for use in the dockyards or arsenals.
    The Army soon found that their system of contractors' lists was quite insufficient for the needs of the time, and they therefore resorted to the open market, with the result that they were gradually forced, step by step, until they have adopted the plan of commandeering whole processes of manufacture, and whole sources of supply, with exceedingly satisfactory results, and this was worked out and carried through excellently from a business point of view within the War Office itself. These methods would be impossible in peace time, and probably the system of lists of contractors will again come into force, and indeed in some respects is necessary, as the War Office must know where it can lay hands upon its requirements; and who has the necessary stock, and the machinery to produce it. These factors of necessity somewhat reduce the list and render combination more easy, but the costing system will obviate undue pressure upon the Government.
    1020
    I would notice in passing that the Public Accounts Committee of 1902, and again of 1906, recommended that in case of war there should be a Financial Adviser and Local Auditor in the field, a system which has produced excellent results at the present time.
    Information was given to the Committee on the subject of billeting, and the first large allowance was reduced by the Army Council; while in some instances General Officers were able to effect a considerable reduction where large numbers of men were billeted in the same town. But it was unfortunate that, whereas the Army Council told the Treasury in January, 1915, that they intended to considerably reduce the payment, that intention was not carried into effect until the 1st September, so that for seven months at least wholly unnecessary expenditure was being incurred. Another question to which public attention has been called has been the waste of food, due to various causes apart from carelessness, and particularly to the overriding necessity of Officers devoting their whole time and thought to the training of their men. There are Commands and individual Officers to whom the complaint does not apply; but they are not as numerous as they might have been; and there does not seem to have been that definite attention to the question of the waste of food in Inspection Reports on units or individuals which I would have liked to have seen.
    I now come to the hutting question, with which I only deal as regards the War Office justification for the action taken, which, after the public inquiry on one point, will no doubt form the subject of a debate in the House, for there is no doubt that neither material nor work was in many cases as good as it ought to have been, and many of the discomforts suffered by the troops could have been prevented, though here, again, the great difficulty of obtaining responsible overseers and inspectors over such a large area must be taken into account; while itmust be noted, to the credit of the War Office, that their first estimate for hutting was very accurate under the circumstances, with the addition which, of course, is necessary owing to the rise of prices during the period. In these cases, too, the system of net costs plus percentage was adopted, but with no proper provision for a sliding scale of commission in relation to the work, no understanding of items on which commission was to be

    1021
    paid, and no power to refuse exorbitant wages or prices. One question which arises is as to the failure of the War Department not to foresee the large amount required to be spent, and to fix the rate of commission with a maximum amount to which the commission should reach. I think I have put before the House the salient points of the Report. There is much food, not, perhaps, for action at present, but for reflection and thought as to what may be done after the extreme war pressure is removed. Above all, I hope I have succeeded in removing from the mind of the House an impression which seemed to us to have got abroad that the Committee had dealt exceptionally and unfairly not only with a fellow Member of the House, but with other members of the public.
    Sir C. HENRY: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I very much regret that I find it necessary to intervene in this Debate. I do so with reluctance. But I feel a very great hardship has been suffered by the large armament firms in this country who, in a time of stress, are doing their very best in the interests of the country. At times like these the relations between the large firms and the Government ought to be most amicable, and that has been the case all through. The relations between the large armament firms and the Ministry have been cordial and amicable, and therefore it is with very great reluctance that I feel obliged this afternoon to draw attention to various items in this Report. It is not our fault, or my fault, that I have to do so. It is, first, the fault of the procedure taken by this Committee, and, secondly, the fault of some evidence which was given before the Committee and the Committee did not allow that evidence to be answered. The Chairman of the Committee in his speech, just delivered, stated that they mentioned no names. True, but when the names are well known, and there are very few, it makes the charge all the worse because of the implication.
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: The names are very many.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am speaking of the armament firms.
    Sir R. WILLIAMS: I did not mention the armament firms.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Report mentions the armament firms and I shall draw the
    1022
    attention of the House presently to the manner in which they are mentioned. The large armament firms concerned were only five or six. The names were very well known, and when these statements are made in a public Report—false, as I know in my own case—it is our duty to take the first opportunity to contradict them. I should have liked, and my colleagues would have liked, to let this matter rest until the end of the War, but when a lie gets afloat it is very difficult to overtake it, and if we remained silent now we should be charged with our silence when we raised it after the War. It is best to be frank and open. Why did not the Committee give the gentlemen or the firms an opportunity of coming before them to state their case? They had power to send for them; they had power to send for persons and papers.
    Sir H. CRAIK: What are the passages in the Report?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am in possession: of the House.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am only asking a question.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will refer to the passages if the hon. Member will have patience. They had power to send for persons and papers. Out of ordinary courtesy alone they ought to have done it. They knew who the parties were to whom allusion was made, and should have written to them and pointed out certain statements made in evidence which implicated them very much, asking them if they would like to state their case before the Committee. What happened? They allowed a gentleman to give evidence. They gave no notice to the parties concerned. We knew nothing about the evidence given until we saw this Report published. Is that a fair way of proceeding? This House relies upon this Committee, and properly so. We trust all our Committees upstairs, and we trust them because it has been the privilege of this House to appoint Committees who report truthfully. But if procedure like this is going to be adopted in future, this House will lose confidence in that Committee.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Would the hon. Gentleman give—
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am very sorry, but it rather interrupts the argument. The hon. Member will have an opportunity later on. My hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) wants to know to what I allude.
    Sir H. CRAIK: In the Report.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I allude to the evidence.
    Sir H. CRAIK: That is not the Report.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROBERTS: If I am constantly interrupted it is impossible for me to proceed. On the 18th May Mr. Lever gave important evidence in regard to this matter. It is at the bottom of page 175. He is talking about the Ministry having reduced the price paid for shell. He says:
    "We first tackled the big armament firms—"
    "Tackled" is not a very nice word; it is not a very good start.
    "and we showed them our costs. They only said, That cannot be done,' and then we said, 'Produce your costs.' That did not bring the costs along as far as they were concerned, but we have the power under the Munitions Act to see the books if we want to, and so they immediately brought the prices down. As to the final result, as far as the armament firms are concerned, I have brought along a statement here in case you would want to see it. We have cut the price of shell from 25 to 30 per cent."
    That is a direct implication that before the action of this Department, and especially this gentleman, the armament firms had been charging too much and making money out of the War. It is a gross charge, and a libellous charge. I do not know whether gentlemen who give such evidence know that we have in this country a law of scandal and libel, and that a person is only protected when he gives evidence like this by the privilege of Parliament. The Committee appear to have acted on the evidence of this gentleman, for in their Report, on page 39, they say:
    "By instituting a system of actual costing of the various shell and other supplies, coupled with the powers conferred by the Munitions Act and Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, the Ministry has been enabled to effect substantial reductions in prices as compared with those paid in the early stages of the War, notwithstanding the increased cost of labour and material."
    The Committee appear to have taken the evidence of this gentleman as true, and to have adopted his suggestion that pressure was brought to bear, and that in consequence of this pressure the price was reduced. The chairman of Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company, on the board of which I have the honour to sit, as soon as he saw this evidence, thought it his duty, as I have stated, to draw the attention of the Committee to the matter. He did so because he was of opinion, as I am, that if he allowed the opportunity to pass away we should practically allow these false statements to go forth, and it would be very difficult then to contradict them. Three letters have been published in the "Times" newspaper. In the first letter Mr. Hichens drew attention to the
    1024
    fact that this gentleman made a false statement so far as our company was concerned. He was only speaking of our own company, although I believe the same is true of others, but we can only speak of ourselves. In the right hon. Gentleman's reply he practically endorses the statements of Mr. Lever. In fact, he adopts the whole evidence which Mr. Lever gave before the Committee. He admits, first, that he was not the Minister of Munitions then. I suppose the letter was drafted in this way. He must have sent for Mr. Lever and said, "Look here, you must draft me a letter—you know all about it—which I can sign." Mr. Hichens has replied in a letter which appears in the "Times" this morning. I do not, of course, ask anyone on the Front Bench to make any statement in reply to that letter now. It is rather too soon. I should like to give a full opportunity for a reply, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will understand I am not asking him to make any reply to that letter now. I have no doubt that he will consider it very carefully, and that a proper reply will be forthcoming. I should like, however, to allude to one or two matters in the letter of Mr. Hichens this morning, because he presents the case so far as my company is concerned. The Minister of Munitions stated in his letter that there were numerous negotiations with the Ministry, and Mr. Hichens as chairman was present at those interviews. It turns out that Mr. Hichens was in Canada on the business of the Ministry itself—and he did excellent work for the Ministry—and therefore he had no interviews, and there is no record of any interviews. That shows the very loose way in which this reply has been concocted. The Minister went on to say that he could find
    "no record of any specific refusal by our firm during the preliminary negotiations to reduce current prices; it is therefore, perhaps, unnecessary to pursue the point."
    That clears up the matter until February this year, and this brings the matter just where it is at the present time:
    "You refer to a meeting with Dr. Addison. I was present at two meetings, the first on the 31st January, and the second on 3rd February, 1916. Neither before nor during these meetings did I demur to supplying any data in regard to the cost of manufacture. At the second of these meetings the prices suggested by the Ministry for discussion were modified in various directions, and an agreement was reached."
    That settles the price by agreement for the larger kind of shell, and now we come to the smaller kind of shell:
    "In regard to the 18-pounder H.E. and the 4.5 in. H.E. shell, it was agreed according to the

    1025
    minutes, that there should be a 'friendly comparison of costs by the firms and the officers of the Department.' That is to say, that in the only cases where the Ministry were unable to accept the counter proposals made to them an examination into the costs was agreed to. Surely it is difficult to infer from these facts that we declined to reduce the price of shell until threatened with an examination into the costs, when we immediately brought the prices down. It would be truer to say that we declined to come down below what we thought reasonable until the costs had been examined into. Perhaps I may add that in reply to my letter accepting the above arrangement I was informed that ' The Ministry appreciate the readiness with which Messrs. Cammell Laird have expressed their willingness to accept the proposals set out in Dr. Addison's letter.' "
    If that is not sufficient for the bond fides and good faith of my firm to reduce their price when they found that the cost allowed it, I am unable to say what is. That is a very different story to that which was told by Mr. Lever, and I ask the Minister representing the Munitions Department to clear the matter up by sending an apology, which I think is due to our firm. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to Mr. Hichens, referred to the large national factory which we are managing now for the Ministry of Munitions. I am pleased to see at the end of the letter the right hon. Gentleman's admirable appreciation of the work now being done by the firm in managing most successfully one of their national factories without any fee or reward, when we could have had both fee and reward by asking for it. We are not, however, asking for it. On the other hand, we have carried out a work which to-day is turning out more shells of the larger type than we undertook to do, and we have submitted proposals to the right hon. Gentleman to produce still more shells. A firm that behaves in this way ought not to be treated by the Public Accounts Committee in the way it has been treated, and we feel that an apology is due to us. I should like the House and my right hon. Friend to bear the weighty words I have read in mind. If the large firms are mistrusted, unjustly suspected, and treated as evildoers, then the mainspring of action will be snapped. We do not want to do that. We shall go on doing our duty to the country and the Government, whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, and however we are treated; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman's consideration to this point. When he wants good work done by a firm or a private individual, the best way to get that good work is to encourage them and to praise them, and not always to be cavilling and finding fault. That is not the way to
    1026
    get the best work done, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will understand that the position, at all events of my firm, and I believe I am speaking also for my competitors, is that they will continue to do national work.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in dealing with the matters which he has entered into except in one respect where I think they touch the members of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I happen to be a member. The hon. Member made certain references to the procedure of the Public Accounts Committee, and this question has been raised in a very important and direct manner by another instance which has come before the public in the last few weeks, and that is the decision of the Government to appoint a Special Committee of Inquiry into the Army Hutting Contract case, which has already been reported upon by tire Committee. I need not say as that committee of inquiry has yet to make its investigation, that the case may be regarded as sub judice, and it would not be proper for the merits of the case to be discussed at this stage in the House of Commons. I do not propose for a moment to do so, but apart altogether from the merits of the case, or from any conclusion that may be arrived at with regard to it, as a result of further investigation in the future, I do think that as the result of what has happened and the decision of the Government, that the practice and procedure of the Public Accounts Committee may have to be revised. I do not think there will be any dispute as to what are the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Public Accounts Committee. It is their duty to inquire into and report on all expenditure of public money where they consider it is either necessary or desirable to do so. It is the duty of the Auditor-General to draw the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, and through them the attention of the House of Commons, to any expenditure of public money when it appears that such expenditure is made otherwise than is authorised by Act of Parliament. In this respect I would remind the House of Commons that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is not a!i officer of the Government at all, but an. officer of this House in no way responsible to the Government, and he may even be said to be the master in some respects of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet, because if any Minister or any officer of

    1027
    any Department under their control were to approve of the expenditure of public money otherwise than is directed and authorised by Act of Parliament it would be his duty to step in and prevent it if he could, and, if not, to report it to the House of Commons.
    In addition, the Public Accounts Committee itself, as a Select Committee of this House, is not responsible to the Government, but to the House of Commons, and I think I am right and correct in saying that it is the only Committee appointed by the House where the settled practice is to have a Chairman who is not a supporter of the Government of the day. What happened in the case which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down? The Committee had certain evidence before it, and the hon. Member appears to think that the Committee, in their Report, commented on and accepted that evidence. What happened in the case of the Army hutting contract, where the Government has promised this further inquiry? The Committee, having considered the matter, made a Report to this House, and a contractor, who happens to be a Member of this House, felt himself aggrieved, as the hon. Member (Mr. S. Roberts) feels his firm is aggrieved, and he asks for an inquiry, which the Government at once proceeds to grant. I have no quarrel with that action of the Government; in fact, I entirely agree with it, although at first sight it might appear to be a reflection or a vote of censure upon the Public Accounts Committee. I think I am quite safe in saying that it is not so regarded by any member of the Committee. Everyone is anxious that in this case, and in all cases of the kind, the fullest justice should be done, and we all welcome the proposal of the Government, because I believe, for my part, that it will lead to a reform, and a desirable reform, in the practice and procedure of the Public Accounts Committee.
    In connection with that case there is only one point I would like to put to the Government. I would like to know if the Government have finally decided what form that inquiry is to take. In my opinion the proper course would be to refer this particular matter back to the Public Accounts Committee for further consideration and evidence. If the contractor in question for any reason has any objection to that course, I would not dream of pressing it upon the Government, although I
    1028
    hope they will well consider the question of adopting that course before deciding on any other. Whatever the decision of the Government in this matter is to be it is certain that, once you admit that the party concerned in this case has a right to be heard, you cannot deny that right to any person in the future whose action may be unfavourably reported upon by the Public Accounts Committee. I would like to point out to the House that every year you have cases of this kind, of one sort or another, and it seems to me that you will have to alter the functions of the Public Accounts Committee, and instead of having it purely as a Committee as it is at present for the examination of public accounts, you must make it, in addition, the tribunal for the trial of all persons reflected upon by the Comptroller and Auditor-General or the accounting officers of the various public Departments. Let me point out to the House what has been, so far as I know, throughout its recent history, over a period of many years, the procedure in these matters of the Public Accounts Committee. It examines the Appropriation Accounts, hears what the Auditor-General and the various accounting officers of the Department have got to say, considers any papers that may be put in dealing with a particular case, and then comes to a conclusion in its Report to the House of Commons. The Chairman of the Committee will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right when I say that in no case has the Committee heard evidence from third parties whose conduct may have been called into question.
    Sir R. WILLIAMSmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. HAZLETON: That has been the practice. They are not called, and I am bound to say, as a member of this Committee for a number of years, that I think it would be advisable to change this old-established practice of the Committee, and I welcome the precedents of this Army hutting case and of the case brought forward by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, if they lead to that result, because every person, whether in a public or influential position or in a humble position, whose conduct is called into question, has an elementary right to be heard before being Condemned by anybody, and once you concede that principle in the case of a contractor, such as in this particular case, you cannot deny it in the

    1029
    case of more humble individuals. Either the Public Accounts Committee must themselves try all these cases or else perform the functions of a grand jury, and, if they consider that a case has been made out against any individual, report that case to the House of Commons, and let it be determined by some established and second tribunal. I remember very well a case which came before the Public Accounts Committee a few Sessions ago. Certain frauds were discovered in connection with the Customs Department, but there was no evidence to show that the heads of the firm in question knew what was going on. I took a great interest in that case, and there was a difference of opinion on the Committee as to whether the name of the firm should be reported to the House of Commons or not.
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I wanted the name given.
    Mr. HAZLETON: There was a difference of opinion as to whether the name of the firm should be reported to the House of Commons or not. There was actually a division on the point. In my opinion, it would have meant ruin to this particular firm to have taken that course, and I opposed it most strongly, as did the majority of the members of the Committee, on the very ground and for the very reason that they had not been heard in their own defence, and that, without their being heard, it would have been an unfair and an unjust course to have followed. I am not prepared to say whether that firm, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, complained, but although the name of the firm was not mentioned, firms of the kind were very few, and they may have suffered in their reputation because the facts gained wide publicity, and of course the name of the firm was common knowledge in certain quarters. These cases, the Army hutting case, and the case of the hon. Gentleman, will have served a good purpose if they change the practice of the Public Accounts Committee in this respect, and lead to what I "believe is a most desirable and necessary reform.
    Mr. SHERWELL: It has been my fortune during the last ten years to assist in a humble capacity at many depressing Debates in this House, but I think I have never assisted as a spectator or an auditor at a more depressing Debate than that which we have been favoured this
    1030
    afternoon. Like many other Members of this House, I believe, I came here to-night under the impression that we were at last, after many delays, to enjoy the privilege of a discussion concerning the control of finance which is supposed to be one of the highest and most responsible duties, as well as one of the most cherished traditions, of the House of Commons. We have had, instead, a very belated opportunity used for a discussion as to whether the Public Accounts Committee have the right to refer in their Reports to certain imperfections of contracts or other financial dealings without giving the names of outsiders who may be directly or indirectly concerned in those transactions. I have no hesitation in saying that I range myself entirely on the side of the Public Accounts Committee in holding that it is their duty, as it has always been understood to be their duty by the House of Commons from the year 1861, to investigate the audited accounts of the nation, to receive such reports from permanent officials as may be rendered to them, and to report upon any acts arising from those reports by permanent officials. I sincerely hope that the course of this Debate to-day may not give any support to the entirely novel idea and doctrine that the Public Accounts Committee had it as their duty to call outsiders as witnesses in connection with any reports that may be made to them by Civil servants. I the more regret the course which the Debate has taken today, because I have resented, as I think other hon. Members to whom financial control means something have resented, that although a Committee on public expenditure as far back as 1902 recommended that the annual Reports of the Public Accounts Committee should be annually discussed by this House, there have been only five occasions since 1902 when that recommendation was made that we have had the opportunity in the House of discussing this Report.
    The Public Accounts Committee has always exercised a very high and a very important responsibility in relation to the taxpayers of this country. I only regret that they stand as an isolated instance of control and that they are precluded by the terms of their reference and by their limited responsibilities from exercising effective control. It is a misfortune that the only control which this nation as a nation of taxpayers has

    1031
    over the use of the public Revenue is the control by a Committee which can only pronounce upon the methods of expenditure after the money has been spent. There can be no pretention of anything like effective financial control over public Revenue until we have some standing Committee that can investigate the proposed sources of expenditure before the expenditure itself has been incurred. Many of us hoped great things from the appointment three years ago of the so-called Estimates Committee. I never had a very high expectation of the work of that Committee, because by its constitution it was physically unqualified to survey the whole of the Estimates that might be placed before it by the various Departments. But still that Estimates Committee, which was the first fruits of the fulfilment of a proper demand made by this House that we should have more efficient control over expenditure, did hold out a certain promise, and during the two years in which it was allowed to meet it certainly did very valuable work, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) that the work of the Committee came to be dovetailed very greatly into the work of the Public Accounts Committee. What are the facts? When, after a great struggle—and there are Members here who remember the Parliamentary struggle which we had to get even the appointment even of that limited Committee—we succeeded in getting the Government to consent to the appointment of an Estimates Committee, that Committee is only allowed to meet for two years. As a matter of fact, it has not met since 1914, although there has been a more urgent call for the more effective supervision of the nation's expenditure.
    The recently published Report of the Public Accounts Committee plainly reveals that the machinery and organisation for the control of public expenditure in this country has gained very little from past experience and is still altogether inadequate. Again and again in the comments of that Committee there is plain evidence that since 1914 we have incurred heavy expenditure, in many cases largely unnecessary expenditure, because the lessons of the South African War, which had so much effect upon this House at the time, have been neglected by the different
    1032
    Departments of the State. I almost despair in the light of experience since 1902 that the flagrant cases of extravagant expenditure, which are indeed within the knowledge of Members of this House as having occurred since August, 1914, that even these culpable cases of gross extravagance and wasteful expenditure will leave a permanent mark upon the arrangements of this House in regard to. the control of expenditure. I do most emphatically desire to say that the Government ought to give the closest possible scrutiny to the comments and' opinions of the Public Accounts Committee. Much of the wasteful expenditure that is there noted and indicated is the result of a looseness of organisation and a looseness of administrative control which is almost incredible in the case of a highly-developed State such as our own country. I do hope, now we have secured a day for the discussion of this most important Report that the Debate may tend to emphasise certain great principles of financial control rather than dissipate itself over a wide area by the discussion of certain grievances of certain armament firms.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Member for Hudderpfield (Mr. Sherwell) has brought the House back to a consideration of the real subject-matter of to-day's Debate. It is a misfortune that in discussing the Report of the Public Accounts Committee the whole time should have been taken up with the grievances of one or two firms who happen to have come under the notice of the Committee through the evidence given to it by the Administrative Department which has had dealings with those firms. The work, of the Public Accounts Committee—I say this not from any prejudice in its favour because I have sat upon it for ten years—is of the utmost importance in the financial structure of this country. It is important in peace time, but I venture to say that it is tenfold as important now that a great War is being waged. The ordinary control of this House over finance has wholly disappeared during the War. We have no Estimates. We have the Estimates for the Civil Service, but there are no Estimates for War Office or Navy expenditure. The House of Commons has not the control which it exercises ordinarily through considering the Estimates. Treasury control has largely disappeared. Both the great spending Departments.

    1033
    which deal with the War urge that the ordinary control of the Treasury could not be exercised during the War because of the need for haste. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee pointed that out in his opening speech. He pointed out that the War has necessitated a great expenditure without any time to consider that expenditure. The result is that the Treasury is not able to consider the expenditure before the Departments, the War Office, and the Admiralty make it. The only control which is left is control after the event, and it is most important, late as it comes, that that control after the event should be as thorough as possible, and that there should be full investigation into those matters to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General draws attention in his Report upon the Appropriation Account. Although we are glad even to get the Appropriation Account in its present form, not in the form in which we shall have it after the War, nevertheless, we have sufficient detail in the Appropriation Account and in the account of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to enable the Public Accounts Committee, which deals with that Report, to know how the money of the nation has been spent, and whether the methods which have been pointed out to be bad are still bad; whether there has been improvement as the War goes on.
    The hon. Member for Galway has reminded the House of the great functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who, indeed, is the real guardian, on behalf of the House of Commons, of the purse of the nation. He is a great officer of State. He is not removable even by the Government of the day. He can only be removed on a petition from both Houses of Parliament. He is appointed expressly by this House to safeguard the expenditure of the country, and to see that the accounts are properly audited and properly appropriated for the purpose for which this House intended. There is no power in the House, nor in the Prime Minister nor in the Cabinet, to override the decisions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He is one of the greatest officials in this country. He presents his Report annually to the House. They are considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and it is not only our right, it is our bounden duty where the Comptroller and Auditor-General has pointed out matters in connection with expenditure which to him do not seem to be quite right, or
    1034
    which require further investigation—it is, I say, our bounden duty to call attention to these matters in our Report, so that the House may consider them. The functions of the Committee, of which so little has been said this afternoon, are statutory functions, laid upon the Committee by Act of Parliament. I think we are the only Committee of this House which has its duty so laid upon it. Our business is to examine official witnesses coming from the Departments who are responsible for the expenditure and who have to justify before the Committee the expenditure which their Departments have made.
    The accounting officers from the different Departments come before us. We ask them questions upon the work which they have been doing We ask them why they have entered into contracts, and we have the contracts before us. We ask why certain expenditure has been made, why so much has been paid, and why contracts were not differently worded. We investigate in every possible way that occurs to us. No doubt we are doing our work very imperfectly, but it is our duty to investigate as thoroughly as we can the expenditure and the administration on the financial side of the different Departments of the State. In the case of Departments to which a great deal of attention is drawn, because the contracts are very large in the particular year which we have had under review, the Committee has, I think, pretty steadily set its face against contracts in which a percentage is paid upon the outlay of the contractor. We are not alone in thinking that those contracts lead to wasteful and extravagant expenditure. We have the support of the War Office. We have the support of the Admiralty. We have the support of the Office of Works. Every one of these Departments, in evidence before us, has stated at one time or another that they regard these percentage contracts as an extravagant form of contract; that they are only to be entered into under the pressure of necessity, and to be ended as soon as possible. I hope our critics recognise that the beginning of the War was the time we had under consideration this year. I think we all recognise the immense pressure there was upon the public Departments, and there is no desire on the part of any member of the Committee to criticise harshly what was done in the hurried days at the outbreak of the War. But the War has been going on a long time, and it is

    1035
    quite time that the vast expenditure of these Departments was put into thorough order and system. Percentage contracts are condemned by everyone. When we find fault with the officials with having entered into these percentage contracts we inevitably, in some way or other, reflect upon the contractor who has made such an arrangement with the official. That is inevitable, because we are criticising the arrangement entered into by these people, but we are criticising from the point of view of the public service. We are criticising from the point of view of the action of the official. We examine an official as to his reasons for having entered into an undesirable contract and for not making better terms with the contractor. He defends himself against our criticisms as well as he can, and we base our report upon the statements made to us by the official witnesses.
    We go further. If we are not satisfied with the report which the official witnesses make to us, we refuse to sanction the payment. The Chairman has alluded to a case in this very year where, in regard to some witnesses in an Irish law case, it was considered by the Treasury and by others that extravagant payments had been made. The Treasury refused to sanction those payments. They referred the matter to the Public Accounts Committee to decide as to whether or not the payments should be allowed. We have refused to sanction those payments. We have gone the extreme length of our functions. We have reported to the House that the payment, in our judgment, ought not to have been made and that we refuse to endorse it. There the matter rests at present. When we are dealing with the administrators of our Departments and with public servants we are not dealing with the outside public, except in so far as the outside public come in relation to the contracts entered into on behalf of the Department. When it is suggested that we should call before us as witnesses every person on whom the official evidence reflects, I say you are laying upon a Committee of this House a duty which no Committee can perform. We have evidence brought before us of thousands of contracts. Some of them are reported upon most unfavourably, and it would be absolutely impossible for any Committee of this House to summon before it all the witnesses to whom reference may be made, and the people who may be referred to in the course of the evidence given before us.
    1036
    There is no need for us to do so. We are not a court of justice. We are not trying these people. All we are judging is whether or not the contract in question is a desirable contract for that Department to have entered into. If we Lay it is undesirable it may or may not have been undesirable for the contractor. That is a matter between him and the particular Department concerned. I venture, however, to say in all seriousness to the House that the criticisms which have been made upon the Committee in the public Press, and that have been repeated in the House to-day, have been made in ignorance of the true functions of the Committee and without consideration of what the effect would be if the functions were altered in the way suggested by those who have spoken. The hon. Member for Galway, for instance, thought we ought to call before us everyone who comes under condemnation in the course of our investigations. He will destroy the Public Accounts Committee if he attempts to make it a court of justice of that kind.
    Special reference has been made to the evidence given before us by Mr. Lever, who came from the Ministry of Munitions. I am glad that reference has been made to Mr. Lever's evidence. I would urge every Member of the House to read the evidence which Mr. Lever gave before the Public Accounts Committee. No more instructive half-hour could be spent than in reading that evidence and considering every word of it. What did we find in our examination this year? On inquiry we found at the Admiralty and the War Office that the method of supplying prices adopted by the Admiralty and the War Office—prices for ships, armaments, cordite, and for all the different materials bought by these Departments, was a comparison with what they had paid in previous years. There was no knowledge, so far as we could ascertain, in those Departments, of what was the actual cost or the actual amount of material or of labour represented in the different articles which were bought. We had from Mr. Lever most valuable evidence of the cost system, of the series of experiments that they had made in different factories under their control, whereby they had got out the actual cost in labour and material, of things like cordite, the different kinds of shells, and of most of the large material which the nation is buying in such vast quantities from the armament firms in this country. The hon.

    1037
    Member for Sheffield speaks on behalf of one of these armament firms. No names are mentioned in our Report. I do not dwell upon that, because it is quite true that the number of armament firms in this country is strictly limited, and therefore it is probable that the firm which he represents was included amongst those to which we referred. I would like the hon. Member to hear what our Report says, because be attributed a little of our Report to some of the evidence which Mr. Lever gave. Mr. Lever was an official witness, and he gave his evidence, as I have no doubt he can justify it, when called upon to do so, and it is for him to justify it. But I would like to read what the Committee says in regard to this question of prices of material sold by the great armament firm:
    "In regard to the supply of munitions your Committee have had the advantage of hearing evidence from representatives of the Ministry of Munitions as to their method of supplying prices to contractors by instituting a system of the actual cost of the various shells and other supplies. Coupled with the powers conferred by the Munitions Act and Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, the Ministry has been enabled to effect substantial reductions in prices as compared with those paid in the early days of the War, notwithstanding the increased cost of labour and material."
    That statement is either true or it is not true. Is it true or not? If it is true, what complaint have the armament manufacturers to make? What complaint have they if we say that it is as a result of the cost system at the Ministry of Munitions, as they have told us, that they have been able to reduce the cost of these munitions, and to reduce them—let the House mark!—when the price of labour has gone up day by day and week by week, and when the price of materials has mounted in the same way! Notwithstanding all this, there has been a reduction of 10, 20, 25, and even 30 per cent. in the price of some sorts of shells which have been supplied in large quantities. Take the question of cordite. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield deny that the Ministry of Munitions have succeeded in reducing the price of cordite?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I never mentioned cordite.
    Mr. JONES: No, but I have mentioned it.
    Mr. ROBERTS: I was speaking of shells. I never mentioned cordite.
    Mr. JONES: Quite so, but I am speaking of the actual work done by the Ministry
    1038
    of Munitions and by the Public Accounts Committee in investigating these matters. It is all very well for hon. Members to fix upon one particular grievance which they allege, and to urge this against a Committee which has been working throughout to save the nation. There are many manufacturers of cordite in this country, and the result of this cost-price system adopted by the Ministry of Munitions has been a reduction in the price of cordite by many pence per pound, and every penny per pound saved means hundreds of thousands of pounds saved to the people of the country! The hon. Member says that he only mentioned shells. Let me tell him—he knows it—that the price of shells has come down 10, 20, and even 30 per cent. in some cases. The prices came down after this work was done in the matter of cost prices. He says there was no connection between the two events. People must judge for themselves. I suggest and believe that there was a connection between the two. I had the honour of serving on the Estimates Committee to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) alluded. We had evidence before that Committee that there was an armament ring in this country. Why did not the armament firms in 1913 resent the description of them by the official witnesses of the Admiralty as "an armament ring"?
    Mr. SHERWELL: The term is introduced in this year's Report.
    Mr. JONES: Yes, it is in again this year. The existence of the ring was admitted before the Estimates Committee in 1913. We were told that the members of those firms were such enlightened patriots that although they were put in a position of advantage, and although they were fixing prices among themselves, they were fixing them so fairly that the country was not paying an undue amount for its armaments, shells, and so forth. That might, pass until we had an investigation made into the actual cost system with regard to shells and armaments. Immediately after that the prices of shells and armaments came down, although materials and labour had gone up in price. Is not that proof enough to a plain man that the armament, firms were charging too much for their wares, and that the prices have been brought down now under pressure of public opinion and largely as a result of the cost system put into operation by

    1039
    the Ministry of Munitions? The nation owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Lever for the evidence he gave before the Public Accounts Committee, and I hope the House will show that gratitude by not associating itself with the criticism passed upon his evidence by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) in his defence of his own firm, and that the House will look beyond that question to the result in the prices paid. The result has been a saving of millions of pounds to the people of this country in the waging of this War. Of course the men who are not involved, and who have lowered their prices, not because of but subsequent to these investigations, are not satisfied with the evidence. They ask for an inquiry and ask to be allowed to come before the Public Accounts Committee because they are not satisfied.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Mr. Hichens did ask for an inquiry.
    Mr. JONES: Did he write to the Chairman asking for a meeting of the Committee to be held? The evidence has been made public. The official witnesses are there. I cannot imagine, if any member of the public wishes to give evidence before that Committee in regard to a matter upon which he can throw light, that the Committee will not hold a meeting to enable him to clear it up. I cannot say positively, but as a member of the Committee I should urge that we should receive him. The existence of this ring was undoubtedly admitted before the Estimates Committee. No one really denies it; it has been generally admitted. One of the most interesting things resulting from our Report is that at last the nation has made a hole in this ring, and that prices have consequently come down. I hope that the House of Commons is going to protect its Committee and protect the witnesses who give evidence before it. It is not an easy thing to stand up to the great armament firms in this country. They have many millions at their back and great power and influence. It takes a great deal of courage in any man, be he official or other, to give evidence against them. They have great powers in their hands, and I think we ought to be grateful to witnesses who dare to tell the truth to the country and have the courage to stand the racket of such speeches as that which the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield has been making here to-day.
    1040
    If this Committee has not done its work properly, then change your Committee, but do not interfere with the functions laid upon them, which are most important—important in peace, but far more important in war. Support the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and support your Committee, as the House is in the habit of doing, by accepting their Report, by endorsing the action they have taken, and by making it clear that you value the work which has been done, after all, for no reward at all. What advantage is it to any member of that Committee to say there are contracts into which it may have been undesirable to enter? This is all voluntary work. There are no salaries, no great commissions, no 5 per cents., no establishment charges paid to the members of this Committee. It has been a labour of love. The work is not repulsive, as was once said by Mr. Gladstone, because the matters considered are very interesting. It is ungrateful work, because we have occasionally to come across people we have no wish to offend. I claim that the work of the Committee has been done without a shadow of party spirit. I have sat upon the Committee for ten years, and have never known anything in the nature of party spirit shown in it. The work has been done with a single eye to the public interest. I claim that in our procedure we have carried out the methods which have come down to us. We have never called an outside witness before that Committee since I have been a member of it. I believe there is only one case on record of an outside witness being called, and he asked to be called. Therefore I claim, I hope not boastfully, that the Committee has deserved well of the House in the Reports which it has presented, and I ask the House to support its Committee.
    Sir H. CRAIK: If anything were required to redeem this discussion from the criticism of the hon. Member for Hudders field (Mr. Sherwell), who described it as dull and unimportant, his own speech and that of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) will amply set aside that criticism, because they have touched upon points of the greatest importance and interest to the House. I should not be sorry if some of the personal criticism directed against the Public Accounts Committee increased the interest of the House in it and showed the House how important the proceedings of the Committee are and how worthy they are of its attention. I speak with some know-

    1041
    ledge and. appreciation of the position of the Public Accounts Committee. For about a quarter of a century I annually appeared as an accounting official for some £ 2,000,000 a year before that Committee. I know what the official felt about it. I know how much he dreaded it, and how it was necessary for him to have a clean sheet if he was to be safe in submitting himself to the inquiries of that Committee. I have subsequently acted for several years as a member of the Committee. I know how free it is from any party taint and from any personal bias. I know, also, how enormously important the questions are and how close is the touch made, closer than any other machinery of which we are possessed in this House, between the permanent officials and the House of Commons by means of that Committee. Do not let the House get into the habit, which it has got into for some years, of passing over the Report and proceedings of that Committee as if they were of no account. I would ask the House to consider the position of this Committee. It is not a judicial body. I am entirely opposed to the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) that we should call before us as witnesses all who may be involved, even directly or indirectly, in the statements made regarding them. Moreover, I do not think we ought to be a Committee of Control. It is not for us to stigmatise or to pass sentence of condemnation upon anybody. We report the facts as they are laid before us in responsible evidence. Our duty is that of investigating and reporting. It is not our duty to control or to act as a judicial body.
    Two questions, more or less personal, have arisen with which I desire to deal briefly, but upon which I desire to give no personal opinion or judgment one way or the other. First, there is the question with reagrd to hutting, and, secondly, the question referred to in a certain portion of the evidence with regard to the arrangements with certain munition firms. With regard to hutting, which has offered an easy topic for the newspapers and upon which they have offered abundant criticism, that is alluded to in only a single paragraph in the Report. If anyone will take the pains to read that paragraph and compare it with the evidence, they will see that the paragraph simply reproduces, with as small an amount of personal
    1042
    opinion as possible, the facts brought out in evidence. I refer to paragraph 51, which merely recounts, almost totidem verbae, the evidence laid before it. We were told that a difference arose between a certain contractor and the officials of the War Office with regard to the terms upon which he was to conduct his work. As all the world knows, from statements that have been made, the change was made when the contractor repudiated the offer he had made to do a certain part gratis and asked for a percentage. We say that the awkwardness of the position was pointed out. Even if the matter is to be investigated by a judicial tribunal, and we should not have done our duty or acted upon our responsibility if we had not fearlessly stated the aspect of the case that was put before us by the responsible officials of the War Office, contained in the evidence given by Major-General Sir G. Scott Moncrieff, and afterwards by the late Financial Secretary to the War Office. Both witnesses gave us identically all that we say in our Report. We point out the awkwardness of the position as shown by that evidence. If the result of an inquiry by a judicial tribunal reviewing the subject should be that they think that the evidence went too far or left an undeserved stigma upon any one concerned, no one, I am sure, will be more rejoiced to hear it than the members of the Public Accounts Committee; but we had a clear fact and aspect of the case put before us, not by one witness, but by three or four witnesses, all agreeing with one another. It would have been very easy to gloss this over, but how do you hope you will ever get anything better in the administration of public accounts or be able to detect defects, if they exist, unless you have in your Public Accounts Committee a body that is prepared, without any fear or bias one way or the other of a personal kind, to state plainly the effect of the evidence laid before them, and to leave it to the House of Commons or the Ministry of the day to proceed as they think proper. If they think it proper—I think it is a very good solution—that there should be a judicial inquiry, certainly none of us would object to it. I am sure we shall be very glad if the result should in any way lessen the implied charge in the evidence, which evidence we reproduce in our Report.
    6.0 P.M.
    The other question is one with which I will deal even more briefly, that is, the question regarding the munition firms.

    1043
    The hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield resented a very innocent interruption of mine. I asked a very simple question, namely, to which part of our Report he referred. He resented that interruption and gave us the evidence of Mr. Lever. He gave us not a bit of the Report but merely the small print which is contained after the Report with regard to the proceedings of the Committee. He pointed out the paragraph which states a plain fact, that somehow or other, by one means or the other, the cost of these articles was lessened. That is a fact which there is no gainsaying. It cannot be challenged. We said it. We did not bring any charge in that paragraph either against anyone or against all munition firms. We simply stated the fact. If my hon. Friend had read the evidence very carefully he would have seen that we investigated that. I myself cross-examined that witness. I suspected that he was perhaps assuming a little too much that he was the cause of all the reduction in price. I may have been right or wrong. I was probably in a minority in the Committee, but I felt the suspicion that that witness was rather taking to himself the whole influence of what had been brought about by various competing causes. I pointed out to him that one reason which would lead to an enormous reduction in the charges would be the vastly increased amount of production. Of course, if you are producing by millions where you produced only a few thousands the cost of production is enormously reduced, and if my hon. Friend would only look at my cross-examination he would see that I called very careful attention to that, and he will see further that we left the thing as it stood in his evidence. We stated merely the facts of the reduction. We did not say what caused the reduction, and we never meant for one moment that there was anything of the kind on the part of these munition firms. I hope the House, having had its attention aroused by the personal element that has come into this case, will not neglect in future, even if there is no personal element, its duty and responsibility of examining these Reports by the Public Accounts Committee. You. have your engine in the Public Accounts Committee. If it is insufficient, add to its powers; if it is wrong, challenge it, but take care that you take up the plain evidence that the Public Accounts Committee lays before you, and do not neglect
    1044
    the invaluable opportunity which it gives of finding out what is really wrong in the public accounts.
    Mr. BRADY: I do not rise for the purpose of defending the Public Accounts Committee. In view of the speech to which we have just listened I think that would be unnecessary, and certainly in my case, having regard to my brief experience on that Committee, it would be an impertinence But I cannot help thinking that the House has heard a great deal about this Committee to-day which may result, perhaps in the early part of next year, in a very keen rivalry amongst Members of this House to obtain seats on the Public Accounts Committee. If that be the case, speaking for myself, in consequence of the great profit and pleasure I have derived from being a junior member of that Committee, I am certainly not prepared to give way if the Selection Committee honours me by naming me again next year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who so ably presides over the deliberations of the Committee has given us a very interesting account of its genesis and of its operations, extending now since 1860, and I think most people who have heard that statement will agree that the Public Accounts Committee discharges duties of a very important character to the nation. I have only risen for the purpose of echoing the remarks made by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) and the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) as to the impotence of this Committee in point of its control over financial affairs. I adopt the phrase so aptly used by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) when he spoke of the futility of control after the event. That is a matter which I find has been dealt with in successive Debates in this House when the Public Accounts Committee's Report was presented to it. Year after year, extending back now for the last ten or fifteen years, emphasis has been laid on the point of the futility, to use no stronger word, of the Public Accounts Committee examining accounts which have been settled and paid, sometimes two and three years before they come under the Committee for review.
    If that be true regarding financial affairs so far as Great Britain is concerned, it is a fortiori true so far as regards the financial aspect of the case from the Irish standpoint. The hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) had an experience this year which very aptly illustrates my meaning. On one of the Irish accounts, I forget

    1045
    which of them, the hon. Gentleman naturally required some information and I was very anxious to have it myself, hut what happened? The accounting officer—of course I make no reflection on him—who was in the chair at the moment, was unable to give any information about this transaction. I think the incident to which I am referring was a question raised as to the transfer by the Crown to the Corporation of Dublin of a certain small portion of land in Clontarf, which is a portion of the City of Dublin. The transaction was one calling for examination and investigation, but the officer was unable, naturally, to give any information upon it. He was a gentleman of very great experience as far as affairs in Whitehall were concerned, but he did not know anything about financial or any other affairs as far as the City of Dublin was concerned. The thing was investigated by correspondence, and it turned out that it called for no adverse comment whatever. It was found that this piece of ground was useless as an adjunct to the police barracks at Clontarf, and could be very advantageously used to enlarge the highway at this spot, and it was transferred to the Dublin Corporation for no pecuniary consideration, and we were satisfied that it was a perfectly proper transaction.
    Again, I had an experience of the kind myself when another matter turned up very intimately concerning the City of Dublin. I forget for the moment what it was. I am not reflecting on these witnesses, who were doing their best to deal with circumstances with which they were not familiar. I asked this witness what explanation he could give of this item, and he said he could not give any, but if I wished he would communicate with the officials in Dublin. I do not think I am exaggerating in suggesting that as far as Irish financial affairs are concerned, proceedings of that kind are an absolute futility. I should like to use a stronger word, but it might not be a Parliamentary expression. The Chairman of the Committee pointed out to me that had I told him beforehand that I required this information, he would have summoned a proper witness from Dublin. But the question might be one of very trifling importance, and I would not take the responsibility, merely for the sake of getting an answer to a single question, to ask the Chairman to summon a witness from an Irish Department—to take him away from his official duties, not to speak of the not incon-
    1046
    siderable expense involved by a journey to London. Perhaps I carry with me the opinion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hazleton) when I say that, as far as Irish experience is concerned, the Committee does not serve a very practical purpose. I gladly endorse the suggestions which have been thrown out by the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) and the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones), who is an experienced member of the Committee, that the jurisdiction and powers of the Committee might now well be amplified, and that some arrangement might be come to by which we could inspect these accounts at the beginning, rather than at the close of the financial year, or sometimes two or three years afterwards.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): My hon. Friend's behind me, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir H. Craik) have called the attention of the House to the greater issues which are involved in this discussion, and in respect of which Mr. Lever and myself were asked to give evidence before the Public Accounts Committee. I take it that the question which is really involved, certainly as to which we were asked to give evidence, was the methods which could or should be adopted in Government Departments to ensure, as far as possible, efficient control over expenditure. It is only too often that the critic comes in when it is too late, when the expenditure would have been incurred and waste committed, and the Public Accounts Committee is considering what practicable steps can be taken with a view to preventing excessive expenditure before the Departments are committed to contracts. In calling the attention of the House and the country to that very important question the Public Accounts Committee has rendered, and is rendering, a very conspicuous service to the nation. I am quite sure it is there where the leakage is, but what is really necessary is that we should have in the different State Departments an efficient critical machinery and efficient control over commitments before a Department is actually committed to any particular expenditure, and only by the institution of some machinery or other which experience may prove to be practicable to achieve that end, shall we ever really prevent gross waste. By no amount, it seems to me, of attention drawn to mistakes after they have occurred shall we prevent their recurrence, unless a consequence of the

    1047
    criticism is that efficient machinery is introduced into the fabric of a Government Department to prevent waste at the earliest possible moment. In respect of the evidence which has come under criticism by the hon. Member (Mr. S. Roberts) and others, such as was tendered by the Minister of Munitions, the first thing that struck us—and, of course, being a new Department I recognise that it might perhaps have a special weight—was that we had not a basis of ascertained facts at our disposal upon which we could proceed. We were suddenly called upon to buy vast quantities of shells, fuses, copper, brass, aluminium, and a thousand other things and it was quite evident it appeared to us, that if we were to make contracts which were justifiable as contracts we must have accurate information as to what the costs of production were. The system which Mr. Lever explained in his evidence to the Committee, and which has been adopted throughout, is to gradually build up machinery which will inform the Departments as to the costs of production. When you have obtained that information, you are in a position to make a businesslike bargain with the contractor. Until you have that information at your disposal you are groping about in the dark. it was in order to obtain that information, and to make the fullest possible allowances for all relevant contingencies, that this machinery was set up. I contend that no sound contractual system could be based on any other principle than a fair and sufficient knowledge of the costs of production. I take it that there is no complaint on that score.
    The method which was adopted, and which has since that date been considerably extended, was that a system of checking costs on an elaborate scale was introduced in all our own factories, and, I am glad to say, by the assistance of many employers in their own works, on a standard system. I have here a photographic representation of the system as applied to an 18-pounder shell, and I will tell the House one or two of the results of this system. If any hon. Member cares to inspect this card, he will see that the card and the information which it sets out allows for all proper contingencies, depreciation, overhead charges, labour, materials, scrap, and so on. There was no purpose, so far as we were concerned, to arrive at any other than a
    1048
    fair and true ascertainment of costs. It was quite evident that we must recognise that in the exceptional circumstances of the War there were special circumstances which should enter into this calculation. This system was not adopted simply to provide us with a basis upon which we could conduct a businesslike bargain, though that is, in itself, sufficient to justify it. I suggest that when the time arrives for the Public Accounts Committee or some other body to investigate these matters in detail, it will be shown that the adoption of this system has been of incalculable benefit, to industry itself, because there is nothing that I have seen in the course of my experience at the Ministry of Munitions which enables us to put our finger upon inefficiency with such unerring accuracy as a system of that kind. We applied it in the first place in our own factories, and we found one factory producing an 18-pounder shell at a cost of 12s. 6d., and another factory producing an identical shell, with identical raw materials at the same price, and labour at the same price, at a cost of 17s. 6d. Obviously there was something wrong. The result of pursuing this analysis in our own factories has enabled us, I am quite sure, to improve their efficiency. Indeed, many employers, with whom I am glad to say we are on the friendliest terms, have paid their tribute to these efforts on many occasions. I am quite sure that this system has enabled us to show up inefficiency in management or in method on innumerable occasions.
    It is quite open—and I should like to take the opportunity of correcting an impression on this point as far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned—for people to say: "You have reduced the 18-pounder shell bodies from 18s. 6d. to 12s. 6d., and, therefore, you assume too lightly that the price which was paid before was unnecessarily high." There are certain qualifying observations which I think ought to be made here. At the beginning of the War many firms, without regard to what might happen in the future, spent their money freely in laying down new plant, which afterwards, possibly, would be little more than scrap iron. Therefore they were fully entitled to have a large writing-off in the early contracts. Then again, a good deal of expenditure was necessarily incurred in the early contracts before they had overcome the initial difficulties. You had to allow for that. I am quite sure that the

    1049
    Department has endeavoured with the utmost fairness at all times to take all these facts into consideration. Although we have had a complaint to-day in the name of one particular firm, seeing that we are doing our best to make proper bargains for the State on an unprecedented scale every day, I think that the firms themselves, great and small—and there are thousands of them of one sort or another—may say that we have tried our best to be fair and reasonable. I am quite sure that it is correct to say that our relations hitherto have been of the friendliest possible kind with the large firms to which the hon. Member has referred, and I sincerely hope that the rash interposition of Mr. Hichens will not in any way interfere with those good relations. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. S. Roberts) and Mr. Hichens, in his letter, made reference to Mr. Lever's evidence, and, in justice to our own officers, I must take the opportunity of stating a few facts. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that this occasion has not been sought by us. Mr. Lever is an officer who, like many others, is a volunteer. Many of the heads of the staff—and it is a very large staff—are volunteers also, and are giving their time, early and late, to the service of the State. Therefore, the least we can do is to defend them whilst they retain our confidence, as they do.
    The hon. Member for Ecclesall, for some reason or other, used certain expressions to which I will refer. He speaks of Mr. Lever's statement as a scandalous charge. Then he invokes the law of libel. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know what he is referring to there. Then he speaks of a false statement and various other expressions of a similar kind. When you come to accuse a man in a very difficult public position of making a false statement and making a scandalous charge against people, it is just as well to investigate the facts before you give undue publicity to them. It may perhaps be desirable to inspect your own evidence, and if you do so you might express yourself differently. I am not going to say anything except about this particular case on which we have been challenged. I do it with the utmost reluctance, but I must defend a gentleman who has been most unjustly attacked. We had a series of meetings with the different firms, after the cost of shell bodies had been ascer-
    1050
    tained, and those meetings were of the friendliest kind. The result was that notices were given, in accordance with the terms of the contract, that we proposed to revise the prices after a certain date. Subsequent to this, meetings were held with individual firms, and, finally, in order to bring the matter to a head, certain leading firms met together in my room on two occasions, and the matter was gone into. On the first occasion, when we discussed matters, the Ministry of Munitions suggested what they thought the costs ought to be, and the result was that the firms agreed to come back a few days later and say what they could do to meet the Ministry. I said at the time that these prices were what we believed in substance to be fair prices to pay after allowing for a decent profit, and that we made these suggestions on the basis of ascertained facts. I further said to them, "If you object, we suggest that you shall discuss your price with us, and show us from your own costs that we are unreasonable, and we are prepared to listen." In the case of all the shells, except the 18-lb. high explosive and the 4.5-in. shell, we arrived at an agreement. This particular firm were not making the large shell; they were making the smaller shell. The two sizes upon which we did not come to an agreement were the 18-lb. high explosive and the 4.5-in. shell. Therefore, there was only a small difference between us, and the matter was left on the basis of an understanding, which was quoted in the Minister's letter to Mr. Hichens—that is to say, that our prices should be taken as the ruling prices, but that if they could show later on that our prices were not reasonable, we would pay more, up to, but not exceeding, the price which the firms had suggested. The fact, however, is that we have not had to pay more than our own price 12s. 6d. We are in our own national factories getting some of them made for 9s. 4d., and we are getting many of them made for 10s. Mr. Lever is accused in reference to this particular firm of making a scandalous charge, and various things of that kind. Mr. Lever stated a fact. We had ascertained the cost. We carried on quite friendly negotiations and in the end we have come to an agreement.
    Let us make the fullest possible allowance for the early excessive charges which have been made. I do not want hon. Members to lose sight of that. It does not follow

    1051
    because in the second year of the War we ask a man to make an 18-lb. shell for 12s. 6d. that he should have been asked to make it for anything like that in the first year. That should be emphasised. It applies to shells, cordite and other things. In this particular case we have as a fact had the contract for the 18-lb. shell at 20s. Notice was given to revise the prices. I have here a letter from the firm dated the 19th September, 1915. We had not stated what our proposed price would be, but the price then was 20s. per 18-lb. shell. This firm declined to accede to our suggestion. They claimed that they should go on making the 18-lb. shell on the basis of the existing contract for the whole duration of the War. It is quite true to say that we had these two meetings, and it does not follow that you should not pay less now simply because you have paid £ 1 a shell in the early days, which might have been fair. I do not venture any opinion on that; quite likely it was fair. We gave notice, "Now the time has come to reduce it, and we suggest that 12s. 6d. would be a fair price." Two months later, at this meeting in my room, the firms suggested that 14s. 6d. for the 18-lb. shell would be a fair price, which was a very reasonable way of meeting the Ministry, but we did not agree with that, and the result was the price that was paid eventually was 12s. 6d. When dealing with shells, of which you are making hundreds of thousands every week, a very little calculation will soon show that if you reduce your shell price from 20s. to 12s. 6d. or from 18s. 6d. to 12s. 6d., a saving of 5s. or 6s. a shell, or whatever it is, soon mounts up.
    I do not know what the scandalous charge is. I still want to know what it is. Mr. Lever said that certain investigations were made into the cost, and the end of it was that reduction was made. The firms recognised that reductions should take place, and they met us very well, but we should not have been in a position to say what the price should be unless we had made those investigations. That is the point of Mr. Lever's evidence, which hon. Members miss altogether, that we were in a position to suggest that this is a fair price, and to say, "If it is not, then show us your cost, and suggest what it is." Certain alternative suggestions were put before us, quite of a reasonable kind, as a result of which we agreed, except in these two cases. That is what Mr. Lever
    1052
    said we did. He has not made a scandalous charge against anybody. It is not insulting a man, when you buy anything from him, to say, "I do not think that I ought to pay so-and-so for it." If a man wants to sell me a horse, and asks me fifty guineas, and I only think that it is worth forty-five guineas, I am not insulting the man by telling him so. The point is that there is nothing scandalous in suggesting that we have been paying hitherto more for a particular article than we should be called on to pay and we think that we should pay less. We had this meeting. There was the utmost courtesy all through, and we maintain, and I hope shall continue to maintain, the most friendly relation with these great firms, who have responded to our demands without exception in a most patriotic and ready way. I myself deplore the interposition of Mr. Hichens. I do not think myself that the sequel is going to be at all fortunate for Mr. Hichens. The facts are as stated. Previously we paid a pound. We suggested 12s. 6d., and we are paying 12s. 6d. Give what explanation you like, those are the facts. I see no reason whatever why Mr. Lever should apologise to Mr. Hichens, or why the Ministry of Munitions should do so. If he attacks our officers in this way, it is very unfortunate, and it is right that it should be gone into; but I cannot see what Mr. Lever's offence is, and I do not believe that the House of Commons can see it either.
    Mr. JONES: Attacking the armament firms.
    Dr. ADDISON: Innumerable meetings have been held with these great firms. I had a meeting with them myself, only last week, when we discussed in the most friendly manner possible the price for certain munitions. We made certain suggestions, and they made certain suggestions. These things were going to and fro for months before ever the meetings were held to which reference has been made. We really have tried, and I am quite sure that we succeeded throughout, in carrying these firms with us. We have said, "These are our figures. If you object to them and say that they are wrong, show us where they are wrong." That is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take up, and on many occasions—I remember one that was referred to indirectly in one of the Debates—we spent a long time with some great firms in going over every

    1053
    detail of fractions of pence of the cost, and finally between us we agreed on a price, but it was not—
    Sir E. CARSON: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. The complaint was that they were not heard before the Accounts Committee. That is my point.
    Dr. ADDISON: The point that I was referring to was in reference to the attack on the Ministry.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am talking of the procedure of the Committee.
    Dr. ADDISON: I think that I have placed the House in possession of the facts of the case, and I should like to take this opportunity—
    Mr. NOLAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes away from the question of the cost of the 18-pound shell, would he tell the House what is the cost of the complete shell?
    Dr. ADDISON: No; I do not think that that enters into the discussion. I have confined myself solely to the one case which was challenged. It is very undesirable that we should wander outside that. I should not have stated any of these facts, but I was bound to state them in justice to the gentlemen whose conduct was called to question.
    Mr. NOLAN: Is there any means of ascertaining what is the price?
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will consider it. I think that we ought to recognise that these gentlemen who have carried out these most important and difficult inquiries have deserved well of us. I think that the fact that they have conducted this difficult business so long up till now without challenge is a great tribute to the discretion and efficiency with which they have done the work. This I can say, that the work which they have done is of first-rate importance in assisting this country to continue the War. The economies which have been exercised, and the savings which have been made, as the result of information which has been gathered together and collected and applied in a scientific way, amount to many millions of pounds. They sometimes have amounted to millions in individual great contracts, and if we were paying to-day the prices which we were paying eighteen months ago for shells, shell components, and all the other
    1054
    necessary munitions of War, they would cripple and handicap this country in an incalculable manner in the continuation of the War, and we owe it mainly to these men that enormous reductions have been brought about. They have shown the way and created the machinery and assisted the State to achieve these results, and I am satisfied that in cailing public attention to this system of controlling expenditure inside the Department before the commitment is made the Public Accounts Committee has rendered a great service to the cause of public economy.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I think we might almost leave the subject, after the speech of the Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, who has shown a very imperfect appreciation of what it was that caused the undue indignation with which my hon. Friend behind me addressed the House. It may have been that he showed too much indignation and used language which went beyond what was necessary, but he was not the only one to show indignation in this Debate. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), in referring to these armament firms, spoke with not less indignation than my hon. Friend behind me. What does all this point to? I submit respectfully that it points to the procedure of the Public Accounts Committee. There is no more venerable institution than the Public Accounts Committee, nor is there any Parliamentary institution which is more deserving of veneration than that Committee. They are entitled to our special consideration, sympathy, and added respect on the very ground that when they are making investigation it is inevitable that such investigation should lead them to inquire into particular cases as to personal conduct, a matter clearly beyond their powers or resources of time to go into them. That necessarily places them in a very great difficulty. You cannot complain or be surprised when a public officer comes forward and says that they had certain powers which they threatened to exercise, and that certain other people had lowered their prices, that these people considered it was a case of post hoc, propter hoc. The whole thing was not a question of fact at all, but a question of opinion, and I must say that this House should see that somehow or other means be found by which evidence of that kind should not be given without the circumstances being tested in some way, and opportunity afforded for the necessary replies to be

    1055
    given by the only parties in a position to give them. That is a matter of elementary justice.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions practically admitted the whole case of the armament firms, that as soon as the question of cost was mentioned an agreement was arrived at. But I would point out that the firms did not do so by giving way to pressure or to unused powers, and I think, on the whole, that the armament firms have some right to complain. There have been references to my own personal position. I wish to say two things about my personal position. Very injurious things have been said about these great firms, which, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions said, and properly said, have from first to last behaved in a most patriotic manner. I happen to be trustee of the debenture holders of two great firms. That position gives me no right whatever in the smallest degree to interfere, and I have never interfered. It does not make it necessary that I should hold a single share, nor do I hold a single share. I have had no correspondence with either of the two firms since this dispute in any way, and there is nothing in the surrounding circumstances of this matter which could possibly justify the inference which has been drawn. We know that prices have been reduced, but at the beginning of the business it was stated that they could make nothing out of the shells. They had to train lads, who were immediately taken for recruits; then they had to start training girls for the work, until in time it began to be apparent from orders for shells on an enormous scale, on which alone in this war they can be given, that the cost must go down, and the prices be reduced; and prices have been reduced because of those reasons, and not in the least because of the exercise of unused powers or pressure. That is the first observation I wish to make on the personal point. My second observation on this personal matter is this: If the position of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division was right, then a disgraceful ring has been operating against the public.
    Mr. JONES: I did not use the words "disgraceful ring."
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: That is the true inference; that is what it really means.
    Mr. JONES: I did not use the words
    1056
    "disgraceful ring"; the words were used by an official witness in 1913.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: What is the use of referring to an investigation that has been held and the verdict arrived at? I have been thirty-six years in this House, and if what has been said of these firms were true, what would be the sort of thing they would have asked of me if they were the kind of people they have been represented to be, namely, as anxious to promote war and to promote expenditure on arms and munitions? Never once in all those years have I been asked by them to intervene, nor have they ever made a single suggestion that expenditure should be increased on naval or any other armaments, never once. Whatever may be the attitude of the firms in foreign countries in matters of this kind, of what, I ask, would have been the attitude of the firms to which I refer, had they been of the kind described? Surely they would have pressed me to take up what is called a jingo attitude, and to call for naval expenditure in this country. I have never once been asked to do so, never once, and that fact bears most materially on the patriotic action of these firms. One more word about the Public Accounts Committee. No man in this House feels greater respect for that Committee than I do, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish University and the Member for the Rushcliffe Division must feel, in effect, that the Report of the Committee has adopted the language of these people, and that it conducted, not a post hoc, but a propter hoc inquiry. I think we have some right to complain of our good friends, the Public Accounts Committee. The Department disclaimed that the firms had reduced the cost, and the Department having made that claim in that way, we have some right, I say, to complain that the Public Accounts Committee adopted that suggestion by a particular witness without calling the only witnesses by whom such a suggestion could have been refuted.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am very glad of this discussion of the Public Accounts Committee. I have been eleven years in this House, and I have never yet heard a discussion which could be called worthy of the name of a discussion on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. I think that Members of this House are very greatly to blame that they do not give attention to the Report of the Committee on the expenditure of Government Departments, and do not have a

    1057
    discussion of the Public Accounts Committee. If there had not been a certain air of private inquiry in this matter, I do not suppose there would have been as many Members present as there are tonight. I speak as one on whose Motion the Estimates Committee was created. I am very glad this discussion has been raised, because I think, before I have done, I will be able to point to the real culprits, who are not these two firms. I am quite conscious that the Ministry of Munitions has done very great service in keeping down the cost of material, although at the same time, they are running up the cost of their own Department. I think there is something in this discussion which is rather unfair to these armament firms. It was not, I submit, the report which was the essence of the thing discussed, but it was really the innuendoes in the Press which followed upon the inquiry. My hon. Friend below me spoke of shells made by firms who were charging 20s. last year, and that these shells are now being produced at from 12s. 6d. to 14s. But nobody has taken the true element into account, and that is the fact that the relaxation of the rules of trade unions has enabled the cost to be reduced. I was in a factory where they were turning out these shells at the rate of 30,000 a week. The engineer, a friend of mine, showed me the whole process. The 18-pounder shells, in cast steel, were there, and they had to be bored. He stated that before the rules were relaxed, what had cost 20s. at one time, now, since the relaxation of the rules, only cost from 12s. 6d. to 14s. That is an element—I am not saying whether the price is too high or too low—that anybody should have frankly stated, because anyone can see that the relaxation of the trade union rules had a most critical effect upon the cost of the shells. Will my right hon. Friend listen to this? At the inquiry the Admiralty representative was asked about the price of armour plating:
    "In regard to this armour plating, and the price given to you, have you formed a judgment as to whether it is a right price or a wrong price; do you, as a representative of the Board, say that this is a fair price for the article for which we have asked?"
    The answer is:
    "The whole question of the price of armour is a matter which the Board regards at the present time, and has for many years regarded, as strictly confidential, and they hold that it is against the public service that prices should be disclosed."
    I hope we have got away from those days.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HENDERSON: They never put in an estimate of the cost per ton; never one. That is what we found then, and what you will find afterwards, unless, after the War, something is done by the Government towards making these armaments themselves. Years and years ago the Government of the day made this their policy: "We have certain docks where we build warships. We have Woolwich, where we meet the requirements of the Army, but we think that it would be good policy to encourage private firms to lay down the necessary plants, so that in the case of emergency we would be able to produce armaments of war in greater quantity than we could by leaving the matter to our own control and our own practices." They created the armament firms; they are five in number only, for the reason that it requires enormous capital to lay down the necessary plant. There they are, creatures of the Government's own creation. Whether they have done right or done wrong, I think you must recognise that; but the result was bound to be when you had only five firms which could make armour plate and three able to make gun mountings that you were thrown into their hands, and it would be more than human nature if they did not take advantage of it. My right hon. Friend has stated quite frankly that they have acted patriotically in this matter and throughout the whole of the present War.
    The point I wish to emphasise is this: It is not fair to suggest that because we have paid 20s. in a year before the War that therefore they have charged more than they ought to have charged, seeing that subsequently it could be done for 12s. 6d. or 12s. I have explained, I think, to the House that there is no necessity for any reflection upon the armament firms in that respect, and there would have been none if the wording of the Report had been different and if the Press had refrained from making the innuendoes which they did make. With regard to the contract in which a very large sum was paid, and I will not mention the name because the Report does not, who' is to blame for it? When you appoint a Secretary, say, for the War Office, who knows nothing about business, but, be-

    1059
    cause, possibly, he is a Fellow of Balliol, how can you expect him to make a proper bargain? The thing is ridiculous, and that is what is happening all through with our contracts. For the first time in the history of the Government, we have some men who know how to make contracts under a proper system of taking out the costs. I hope that the Government will extend the system which my right hon. Friend has explained into all the Departments. I can only hope that the Estimates Committee will be re-established, and that it will have the power of overlooking proposed expenditure before it is actually spent, and that the Public Accounts Committee will have the opportunity of overhauling the actual expenditure afterwards. Above all, I wish the constituencies would insist on their Members coming here and looking after Finance, because that is at the bottom of the whole thing. If you had not the question of personality introduced into this Debate, you would not have the interest you have in it. Unless the constituencies will insist on the Members taking a practical interest, and criticising all the expenditure reported by the Public Accounts Committee, and bringing the Departments who are responsible for any excess to book, you will never get sufficient control. I hope we shall use this as a lever in the future to see that we have more complete and thorough control than we have had in the past.
    Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Member who has just spoken made some reference to changed systems of working in munition shops. He referred to the fact of the system of dilution as being a factor in cheapening production. I should like my hon. Friend to be good enough on some convenient occasion to give particulars regarding the case to which he referred. If he will give the name of the firm where a reduction in one working operation has been made from twenty minutes to six minutes, I think trade unionists in his constituency will be extremely obliged to him.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Do you deny what I said?
    Mr. JOWETT: I should like proof and the name of the particular instance. As a member of the Accounts Committee for some years, it seems to me that we are very much behind the fair. Our inquiries are held at such a time that they cannot
    1060
    do the utmost amount of good. I do not mean to say they do no good. A Debate like this must necessarily do an immense amount of good. The very fact that the circumstances are related and disclosures are made is good, but something more is necessary, and that something I wish to suggest is continuous inquiry and continuous association with the spending Departments of the State. It is not sufficient that every Session a Committee is set up to make inquiries into the Auditor's reports. What is needed, I contend—and I am sure many hon. Members agree with me, and I have heard them say so—is a Committee associated with the actual spending Departments, and, like the Public Accounts Committee, a non-party Committee, because such a Committee works extremely well. We ought to have such a Committee, in order to find a remedy before so much mischief is done; or, in other words, to lock the stable before the horse escapes. The Public Accounts Committee at present meet usually at two o'clock in the afternoon, and therefore the proceedings overlap the ordinary business of the House, so that sometimes it is extremely difficult to know where one's duty lies—whether it is upstairs or in the House itself. I suggest that either the meetings should be held in the mornings, like those of the Local Legislation Committee, or on days when the House does not meet, so that undivided attention could be given to the business in hand. It has been stated—and one must recognise the strength which lies behind, such a statement—that the permanent officials would find it difficult to appear in the morning. I suggest, then, that the only alternative is to meet on days when the House is not sitting.
    Referring to the value of these discussions, I regard it as a lamentable circumstance that a Session should be allowed to pass without a full discussion on' the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. As an illustration of how important it is that these opportunities should be found for discussion of the Public Accounts Committee's work, let me mention the Report of 1913. That Report was never discussed in this House, and yet there was contained in it something that ought to have obtained the publicity that has been given to some of the contents of this present Report.
    One of the things contained in that Report was an account of a firm of tobacco manufacturers which for a series of years

    1061
    extending from 1904 to 1910 had escaped payment of a large sum of Excise Duty by means of a trick, the trick being the placing of a four-pound weight of lead in the tare, so that after the lead was taken out each subsequent weighing left four pounds of tobacco unaccounted for so far as Excise Duty was concerned. The firm was allowed by the Department concerned to repay the estimated sum of which the Exchequer had been deprived by this mean process, and, will the House believe it, that sum was £ 26,000 odd! There was no disclosure of the name The firm were not called before the Committee. If a humble shopkeeper had been detected with his scales half an ounce out of balance his name would have been disclosed and he would not have been allowed to pay up the amount involved. But in this case that was allowed. It is reported that of the Customs officials, some of them highly paid, employed in the warehouse in question over the period during which these frauds occurred, five were deprived of their jobs by being removed to some other employment, but did not lose any remuneration whatever. I give that as an illustration of the value of discussion in this House. If there had been a discussion on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee in that year this House would have had something to say about the Department which allowed a firm to repay £26,000 defrauded in this mean manner, and visited with no sort of punishment whatever, other than that which I have mentioned, the officials involved. The name has never been publicly divulged to this day. I therefore submit that a discussion on the Public Accounts Committee's Report should take place every year, and oftener if possible; certainly no Session should be allowed to pass without such a discussion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) has recalled to the House the more general considerations which should have been in our minds in the course of this Debate. Unfortunately, the fact that in respect of two parts of the Report personal questions have arisen has diverted the attention of the few Members present from the real value of the function performed by this highly important Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the work of the Public Accounts Committee is not in itself sufficient to achieve the object which this House should have in view—in other
    1062
    words, that not only should we have a Public Accounts Committee as a means of ascertaining how money has been spent, but that there should be a similar Committee in touch with the Departments in settling the estimates, who would see beforehand that the appropriation was made on proper lines. An attempt was made in this direction by the Estimates Committee instituted at the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. Henderson). It is regrettable that at the present time that Committee is not in existence. I believe that much good would have been done had there been such a Committee, and that some of the irregularities which have arisen as the result of deficiency of Treasury control would have been averted had the House of Commons been able to act through an Estimates Committee.
    The Public Accounts Committee and the Ministry of Munitions are to be congratulated on the result of the discussion this afternoon. The Ministry of Munitions is to be congratulated on the record which it has been able to set up in respect of its vigilance regarding the expenditure of public money. For the first time one of the great spending Departments has shown itself capable of devising machinery for checking contractors' costs The alarm and indignation displayed by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) wore to me a very sinister aspect. He talked about disgraceful slanders and false statements which would lay the Ministry of Munitions open to actions for libel. But it struck me that his real indignation was directed to this new and highly valuable departure on the part of the Ministry of Munitions. He was indignant not only at the statements of the officials of the Ministry of Munitions, but also at the statement in the Committee's Report which he endeavoured to challenge with singularly little success. There is one statement in this Report which, the House should observe, he never endeavoured to challenege. It is in paragraph 14:
    "It is greatly to be regretted that no such system seems to have been adopted before the War in order to break down rings which were known to exist among contractors."
    Here is a perfectly clear and definite statement that rings were known to exist among contractors and that no effort was made to break them down. But this hon. Member, who appears professedly as the champion of a particular firm in this House, and his right hon. colleague in the

    1063
    representation of the same city, did not challenge this statement made by the Committee. That is the most significant thing that has occurred in this Debate. We may take it that it is admitted without question by the representatives of the armament firms that there were armament rings in this country before the War, that those armament rings continued to exist after the War, and that no Department—neither the War Office nor the Admiralty—made any attempt to break down those rings.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We had not the power.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I will come to that point. I was merely dealing with the tacit admission on the part of hon. Members opposite. When you have a tacit admission of that kind I think it justifies all the vigilance that can be displayed by a new Department, and that this House should lend not the slightest countenance to any attempt to discourage such vigilance. If the speech means anything, it is meant to check the action and discourage the vigilance of those men who in our public Departments are endeavouring to safeguard the interests of the public purse. I am glad that from no quarter of the House, apart from the isolated individuals who represent the armament firms, has the slightest encouragement been given to any such attempt. I was going to refer to the reason why this evidence was given before the Committee and why this passage was introduced into the report. As I understand, at this period the Public Accounts Committee were considering the expenditure on Admiralty contracts, and the question had arisen why the Admiralty had not entered into this question of costs. It was admitted that the Admiralty lad not attempted to do it, and in consequence, in order to ascertain what could be done, the Committee very wisely asked for evidence regarding the experience of the Ministry of Munitions. I think it was the obvious thing to do, and that the Committee have discharged a great public service in calling attention to what the Ministry of Munitions has done, and in making an effort to see that other great spending Departments follow the same course. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says that the Admiralty had not the power. They had the power at the time this step was taken by the Ministry of Munitions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Report deals with 1914–15.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I admit that. But I take it the Admiralty never asked for these powers, and I have some ground for believing that they looked with some disfavour upon these powers being conferred by Parliament. They did not think the powers were desirable, and we have no evidence as to whether after the powers were conferred they actually began to exercise them.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is stated in a paragraph of the Report.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Yes—"quite recently." But the question arises whether they began to exercise them as soon as the Ministry of Munitions did. I think it was established by the Report that they did not. As to "quite recently," it is a very vague and ambiguous expression. I did not intend to make any detailed reference to the other contract which also has been referred to in the course of the discussion. I understand that a judicial inquiry is to take place into certain matters relating to that contract. Personally, I regret that any judicial inquiry is to be held. I think that, after all, this matter could have been threshed out on the floor of the House. I do not understand why a judicial inquiry should be given to one powerful gentleman who has influential friends in this House, when similar treatment will not be given to humbler individuals. I understand that in regard to the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) mentioned, which took place some years ago, of the frauds upon the Excise, that the Excise officers who were dismissed had no judicial inquiry into their case, and I do not understand that there was any judicial inquiry in regard to that particular firm.
    Mr. JOWETT: They were removed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Oh, they were removed! But when the contractor happens to be a powerful Member of this House, or at least to have influential connections, a judicial inquiry is granted by the Government—a rather easy-going Government. This raises a very wide question, and that is as to the whole relation between Members of this House and Government Departments. We all know that this is a one-man company; that it is only through

    1065
    the technicalities of our company law that this gentleman is able to have a contract with the Government at all. Had he been, like the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Sir S. Samuel), a member of a private firm, this contract could not have taken place, or if it had, for every day he sat and voted in this House he would have been subject to certain penalties which could be claimed by a common informer, as the hon. Member for Whitechapel discovered. Surely it is a most anomalous thing that simply by setting up a company which has no real existence—because everybody knows that the man who carried out this transaction was the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir J. Jackson), and that no one else had a voice in the matter—he should be able to evade the operation of the Statute passed by this House with regard to contractors and Government Departments. I think the matter requires further consideration, and that the House in its own interests should put an end to such an anomalous and objectionable position.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have not heard as much of the discussion to-day as I should have liked to hear. An important question of this kind which we are able to review on so few opportunities in the House is one, I think, on which one is entitled to make some general observation. If there is one thing that must have struck many new Members who have been coming into this House in the past few weeks it is the fact that the House of Commons has not that financial control over its own finances that it ought to have. One frequently finds that on those which are considered by the House, and in which large sums of money are involved, other questions than financial questions are raised, and that as a result the House is unable to concentrate its attention upon the mere financial side of the question and allows its interest to be dispersed. I think the plea that has already been made to-day for the creation of a General Estimates Committee is one that ought to be pressed. I think that if the House were divided into sections of Members who are keenly interested in those various affairs, the knowledge and business experience which they could bring to a discussion of them would be extremely useful to the whole House, and I very much hope that that
    1066
    opinion which has been expressed to-day will receive due consideration from those whom it concerns mainly.
    I am glad also that so much has been made of the competing interests of our great Departments. That has been emphasised so much that I need not elaborate it, but everyone of us knows that not only in financial matters but in other political matters the large Departments somehow or other prefer to get up against each other rather than to co-operate with each other. If the criticism urged to-day leads to closer co-operation between the great Departments in economising for the sake of the country, this Debate will not have been held in vain. I remember putting a question to the Prime Minister in the very early days of the War referring to the experience which we have had as a country in the South African campaign. I had in my mind the scandals which were afterwards reviewed by Committees, and which shocked the conscience of the community. I remember distinctly the Prime Minister saying—I have not the reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT in my hand—that the Government were taking precautions to avoid the kind of thing that had occurred in the South African War. Certain things have emerged now which lead us to think that there may be worse to follow, and that when this War is finished we may find ourselves in no better position than we were at the close of the South African War, having committed again a great many of the mistakes that, with great care, we got Committees set up to warn us against in any subsequent war. The final point I want to put is, that I am glad the House of Commons has to-day defended generally in debate the only Committee it has to protect it against extravagance by the great spending Departments. It is not an ideal Committee, but it works faithfully and well, and I think the House is indebted to it for the care with which it has examined the accounts. I only wish its Reports were not so belated, and that the House could get at them and discuss them before the subject-matter of the discussion has receded so far into the past. If these things have been achieved by the Debates we have had, I think everyone will agree that we have spent the afternoon profitably.
    Resolved, That the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee be now taken into consideration.

LARCENY BILL [Lords.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Receiving.)
(1) Every person who receives any property knowing the same to have been stolen or obtained in any way whatsoever under circumstances which amount to felony or misdemeanour, shall be guilty of an offence of the like degree (whether felony or misdeameanour) and on conviction thereof liable—

(a) in the case of felony, to penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years;

(b) in the case of misdemeanour, to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years;

(c) in either case, if a male under the age of sixteen years, to be once privately whipped in addition to any punishment to which he may by law be liable.

(2) Every person who receives any mail bag, or any postal packet, or any chattel, or money, or valuable security, the stealing, or taking, or embezzling, or secreting whereof amounts to a felony under the Post Office Act, 1908, or this Act, knowing the same to have been so feloniously stolen, taken, embezzled, or secreted, and to have been sent or to have been intended to be sent by post, shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof liable to the same punishment as if he had stolen, taken, embezzled, or secreted the same.
(3) Every such person may be indicted and convicted, whether the principal offender has or has not been previously convicted, or is not amenable to justice.
(4) Every person who, without lawful excuse, knowing the same to have been stolen or obtained in any way whatsoever under such circumstances that if the act had been committed in the United Kingdom the person committing it would have been guilty of felony or misdemeanour, receives any property so stolen or obtained outside the United Kingdom, shall be guilty of an offence of the like degree (whether felony or misdemeanour) and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "receives" ["receives any property "], to insert the words "or has in his possession." This and the two further Amendments deal with small matters which we think ought to be put right by Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Arrest Without Warrant.)
(1) Any person found committing any offence punishable under this Act may be immediately apprehended without a warrant by any person and forthwith taken, together with the property, if any, before a justice of the peace to be dealt with according to law.
(2) Any person to whom any property is offered to be sold, pawned, or delivered, if he has reasonable cause to suspect that any offence has been committed against this Act with respect to such property, shall, if in his power, apprehend and forthwith take before a justice of the peace the person offering the same, together with such property, to be dealt with according to law.
(3) Any constable or peace officer may take into custody without warrant any person whom he finds lying or loitering in any highway, yard, or other place during the night, and whom he has good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit any felony against this Act, and shall take such person as soon as reasonably may be before a justice of the peace to be dealt with according to law.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Act" ["any offence under this Act"], to insert the words "except an offence under Section 31."
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Session and Chapter.

Title or Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

How Reproduced or otherwise Dealt with.

33 Hen. 8. c. 12

Section thirteen

Not reproduced.

6 & 7 Vict. c. 96.

The Libel Act, 1843

Section three

31.

14 & 15 Vict. c. 100.

The Criminal Procedure Act, 1851.

In Section five, so far as it relates to Ireland, the words "stealing, embezzling," and the
words "or for obtaining by false pretences."

40 (5).

Section eighteen, from the words "and in cases" to the end of the section.

40 (2).

17 & 18 Vict. c. 112.

The Literary and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854.

In section twenty-six, from "steal" to "chattels of the institution, or."

1, 40 (4).

23 & 24 Vict. c. 16.

The Municipal Corporation Mortgages, &c, Act, 1860.

Section seven

20 (1) (iii).

24 & 25 Vict. c. 96.

The Larceny Act, 1861.

In section one, from "the term 'trustee'" to "bankruptcy or insolvency"; and from "for the
purposes of this Act, the night" to "succeeding day."

46.

Section 1

Section 2

Sections two to eleven, both inclusive

Not reproduced.

Section 3

1.

Section 4

2.

Section 5

40 (5).

Section 6

40 (6).

Section 7

37 (1), (2), (3).

Section 8

Section 9

Section 10

3.

Section 11

4.

Section 18

In section eighteen, from "and whosoever" to the end of the section.

5 (1).

Section 19

In section nineteen, from "and whosoever" to the end of the section.

5 (2).

Section 20

Section twenty

5 (3).

Section 26

In section twenty-six, from the beginning of the section to "simple larceny and."

1 (3) (ii), 2.

Section 27

In section twenty-seven, the words "shall steal, or."

2.

Section 28

In section twenty-eight, the words "shall steal, or"

7 (1), 40 (5).

Section 29

In section twenty-nine, the words "steal or"

6, 40 (5).

Section 30

In section thirty, the words "shall steal or"

7 (2), (3), 40 (5).

Section 31

Sections thirty-one and thirty-two

8 (1), 40 (5).

Section 32

8 (2).

Section 33

In section thirty-three, from "and whosoever having been twice convicted" to the end of the section.

8 (2).

Section 36

In section thirty-six, from "and whosoever" to the end of the section

8 (3).

Section 38

Section thirty-eight

11.

Section 40

Sections forty to sixty-four, both inclusive

14, 23 (2).

Session and Chapter.

Title or Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

How Reproduced or otherwise Dealt with.

24 & 25 Vict. c. 96—cont.

Section 41

44 (1).

Section 42

23 (3).

Section 43

23 (1).

Section 44

29 (1) (i).

Section 45

30.

Section 46

29 (1) (ii), (3).

Section 47

29 (1) (iii), (3).

Section 48

29 (2), (3).

Section 49

29 (4).

Section 50

24.

Section 51

25.

Section 52

25.

Section 53

46 (2).

Section 54

27 (1).

Section 55

26.

Section 56

26.

Section 57

27 (2).

Section 58

28.

Section 59

28.

Section 60

13.

Section 61

13.

Section 62

9.

Section 63

15.

Section 64

15.

Section 67

Sections sixty-seven to seventy-four, both inclusive

17 (1).

Section 68

17 (1).

Section 69

17 (2), 39 (1).

Section 70

17 (2), 39 (1).

Section 71

40 (5).

Section 72

44 (2).

Section 73

19.

Section 74

15, 40 (5).

Section 77

Sections seventy-seven to eighty-one, both inclusive

20 (1) (i).

Section 78

22 (1).

Section 79

22 (2).

Section 80

21.

Section 81

20 (1) (ii).

Section 88

Sections eighty-eight to ninety-six, both inclusive.

32, 40 (1), 44 (4).

Section 89

32.

Section 90

32.

Section 91

33 (1).

Section 92

40 (5).

Section 93

40 (3).

Section 94

44 (5).

Section 95

33 (1).

Section 96

39.

Section 98

In section ninety-eight, the words "except only a receiver of stolen property."

33, 35.

Section 100

Sections one hundred and

45 (1), (2).

Section 101

One hundred and one

34.

Section 114

Section one hundred and fourteen

39 (2), (3).

30 & 31 Vict. c. 35.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867.

In section nine, the words "either" and the words "or otherwise."

45 (3).

31 & 32 Vict. c. 116.

The Larceny Act, 1868.

Section one

1, 40 (4).

34 & 35 Vict. c.112.

The Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871.

Sections sixteen and nineteen.

42 (2). 43 (1).

Session and Chapter.

Title or Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

How Reproduced or otherwise Dealt with.

39 & 40 Vict. c. 20.

The Statute Law Revision (Substituted Enactments) Act, 1878.

Sectionthree

20 (1) (iii).

45 & 46 Vict. c. 60.

The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.

Section one hundred and seventeen

20 (1) (iii).

45 & 46 Vict. c. 56.

The Electric Lighting Act, 1882.

Section twenty-three

10.

59 & 60 Vict. c. 52.

The Larceny Act, 1896.

In section one, sub-section two, the word "extorted," and the words "embezzled, converted, or disposed of."

33 (3).

In section one, sub-section three, the words "felony or," and from "according as" to the end of the sub-section.

59 & 60 Vict. c. 57.

The Burglary Act, 1896.

The whole Act

38.

1 Edw. 7. c. 10

The Larceny Act, 1901.

The whole Act

20 (1) (iv) (2).

4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 58.

The Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914.

Section thirty-five

29, 31.

Section thirty-nine, sub-section two The Third Schedule.

44 (3).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill."
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move after,
"'59 and 60 Vict., c. 52,' in Column 3, to leave out the words "In Section one, Sub-section two, the word ' extorted,' and the words ' embezzled, converted, or disposed of.' In Section One, Sub-section three, the words ' felony or,' and from ' according as' to the end of the Sub-section," and to insert instead thereof the words "The whole Act."
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill, put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

CHARITY BILLS.

  BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Scheme.) The said scheme is hereby confirmed, Provided always that nothing in this Act or in the said scheme shall be held to interfere with the ordinary jurisdiction over endowed charities now exerciseable or
  1074
  hereafter to become exerciseable by the High Court of Justice and the Charity Commissioners.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I notice that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Captain Sir Owen Phillips) has an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (8) of the first Clause, and in order to ascertain whether the Government have met the point in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman I desire to move the Amendment in his name. I do this very largely because it seems to me that we are establishing a great many new religions this evening, and that it is very important for the House to know to what religious commitments the country is being put by all this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member who has this Amendment on the Paper (Captain Sir Owen Phillips) has it as an Amendment to move out Subsection (8) of Clause 1. Clause 1 has not any Sub-section at all.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The following Bills were also considered in Committee, and reported without

  1075
  Amendment; read the third time, and passed:
  Holligrave Charity Bill.
  Stony Stratford Charities Bill.
  Burnham-on-Crouch Chapel Charity Bill.
  Bradford (Infirmary Street) Baptist Chapel Charity Bill.
  Bradninch Chapel Charity Bill.
  Bethlehem Chapel (Tryddyn) Charity Bill.
  Pisgah Chapel (Tryddyn) Charity Bill.
  Moriah Chapel (Broughton) Charity Bill.
  Bethany Chapel Charity Bill.
  Congregational Chapels Charities Bill.
  Plymouth Workhouse Charities Bill.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVELS' FOUNDATION.
  Resolved, "That the statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1916–17 be approved." [Dr. Macnamara.]
MILITARY SERVICE.

  ATTESTED MEN OF FORTY-ONE.
  Wherepon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd of February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. G. TERRELL: I desire to say that I do not propose to move the Motion which stands in my name to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot!"] I understand that the Government will give a day to the discussion of the whole question of man-power, and are also going to inquire into, and, if possible, extend the time of appealing to men of forty-one, and grant them further time before requiring them to join up.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There are other Members of the House besides the hon. Member opposite who are interested in this question, and I am afraid we cannot agree to this summary dismissal of this matter. Like many other Members of this House, I have had quite a number of letters from voluntarily attested men who have been called up under the Army Notice of 12th
  1076
  October, and yesterday I got into communication with the War Office and asked them what reply I should give to these men. I was told that I must wait for a reply to the question which was going to be given to-day, and that I should find that to be a perfectly satisfactory answer. The question was put and the answer was given, and I venture to say that there is not one Member of this House who heard the reply who can make anything at all of that answer. The men in the country who are affected by this are anxious to know what their position is, and they have a right to know whether they ought to respond to this notice or not. They want a definite "Yes" or "No" to that. I want a reply to that question, and I want also from the Secretary of State for War an explanation of the reason why this notice was issued calling up attested men who have passed the age of forty-one, because that is a direct violation of very definite pledges that have been given in. this House. So far back as last February a question was put to the then Under-Secretary of State for War. A man who lives in Rochdale submitted his own case, and in reply he received this letter, dated 29th February:
  "In reply to your letter of the 23rd February, addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for War, I am directed to say that as you have attained the age of forty-one, you automatically pass into the Army Reserve.
  Yours faithfully,
  JESSE HERBERT."
  who was writing on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for War. This man, who had attested on 8th December, attained the age of forty-one on 9th January last. When the first Military Service Bill was before this House, I addressed, on behalf of the attested men, a question on this point to the representative of the War Office, and I would like to read the terms of my question and the terms of the reply given by the Under Secretary:
  "Mr. Snowden asked if an attested man who has not been called up who has reached the age of forty-one before the Military Service Act, 1916, was passed, will be released from his attestation and be exempt from military service, in view of the promise of the Government that attested men would not be placed in a worse position than unattested men who come under the Military Service Act, 1916?
  Mr. Tennant: A man who reaches the age of forty-one before he is actually called up for service, whether he is a voluntarily attested man or a man deemed to be attested under the Military Service Act, is not called up, but is passed to the Reserve, and would not be subject to be called up for military service unless the age of military service is, in future, extended. Instructions on this point were issued some time ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1916, Col. 1341, Vol. LXXX.]
  8.0 P.M.
  There is nothing equivocal in that reply. It is clear and definite, and there are thousands of men in the country who have accepted that reply in good faith. They have passed the age of forty-one and have considered themselves exempt from military service. Many of them have made business and other arrangements which will involve very considerable sacrifice if the Government are not prepared to stand by his pledge. When the second Military Service Bill was before this House, I asked on the 17th May, this question:
  "If under the new Military Service Bill men who have reached the age of forty-one before they are actually called up for service will be exempt so long as the age is not extended?"
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Tennant) replied:
  "The new Military Service Bill does not apply to men who have attained their forty-first birthday before they would otherwise require to present themselves for service with the Colours."
  Questions of a similar character were put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. Edmund Harvey), and the Under-Secretary for War in reply, said:
  "If an attested man reaches his forty-first birthday before the date at which he is required to serve with the Colours he will be left in the Reserve."
  That was in confirmation of the reply given three or four months before. Then quite unexpectedly, like a bombshell, came this Army notice of the 12th of this month. This is not a matter in which delay can be tolerated. These men are required to come to the Colours, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State for War to relieve these men from anxiety. I cannot possibly imagine that the right bon. Gentleman can give any but one reply, That he will carry out the promise given by the representative of the War Office. I am quite sure that he will not run away on the plea that he is not bound by promises given by Ministers who are no longer at the War Office, and I think he will frankly state that he was not aware that such a pledge has been given, that the Army Order referred to has been issued under a mistake, and that there is no intention on the part of the War Office to call up attested men who have passed the age of forty-one.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: This question is an important one, but at the same time the whole question of man-power is one which requires immediate consideration, and I am glad to hear that the Govern-
  1078
  ment has agreed to give a day for the discussion of that question. I suggest that you cannot discuss this subject piecemeal. The men have to be got. Everybody knows that there are great difficulties at the present time, and, so far as I am concerned, I think it is far better that any remarks I have to make on this subject should be reserved until we get to the day which has been promised, and then we can discuss the whole matter.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): There is a good deal to be said for the course which has been suggested, but I would like to point out that it is scarcely possible to deal with one part of the problem of man-power without putting the whole case before the House. This is not the only difficulty, and our difficulties are not those of hon. Members who represent certain constituencies and who are naturally affected by considerations of this kind. The difficulty is one which the whole country experiences in mobilising its resources for the purpose of the conflict which involves life and death to so many. My hon. friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) said very properly that I should not repudiate pledges given on behalf of the War Office. I repudiate no pledges, but those pledges when they were given applied to existing conditions, and the pledge was that the full powers of the Military Service Acts would not be exercised under existing conditions. As the hon. Member knows, under the Military Service Acts persons who are not forty-one of a certain date were liable to be called up, but under the conditions which then existed it was not thought to be necessary to call up men who were forty-one at the date when notice was served upon them. That was under existing conditions, but those conditions are different now.
  Mr. PRINGLE: There was an express statement made on this point by Colonel Henderson, the Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Derby.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I have not the reference with me, but he was speaking on behalf of the War Office, and he said that until it was decided to raise the age, these men would not be called up.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The position is this, that when that pledge was given it was considered unnecessary under the then

  1079
  conditions to summon men who were forty-one at the date of the notice. The conditions, of course, in a great war must naturally change. No one can forecast how long the War will last, and no one can quite forecast the drain upon our resources. To say that any pledge had been given that under no circumstances would the full power of the Military Service Acts be exercised, that is a pledge which no one could give. I do not mind saying that if such a pledge had been given I think the first consideration is the exigencies of the War. The pledge was given in reference to conditions which existed then, but which no longer exist It was especially stated that the pledge had reference to the then existing conditions. If we did not use this power, let the House realise for a moment what it would mean. It would mean that we should lose the equivalent of at least two army corps, and I cannot take the responsibility of doing that when we need every man, especially in relation to a pledge given distinctly in relation to existing conditions.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does that number include all the medically unfit?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It does not include the medically unfit. If you include everybody it would be equivalent to nearly our army corps. Just see what that means. We are dependent upon these reserves for the manning of our new Artillery, and unless we get them I do not know where we can find the men for that purpose. Does my hon. Friend mean that it was a pledge that you would not raise the age to forty-two or forty-three? You must take a rational interpretation of the pledge, and it is a perfectly rational interpretation to say that if we consider it is sufficient for the moment to extend the limit of age by a single year, why should we be compelled to raise it by two or three years when we do not need it? For the moment we think it is sufficient to raise the age limit to the limit of the Act, and then we are told that unless you raise it beyond that, although you do not require it, you are breaking a pledge. We are keeping our pledge in the spirit and in the letter. We need these men, and the pledge which we feel bound to carry out in this respect is that there should be no distinction between the attested and the unattested men. We have pledged ourselves not to place the attested men in a worse position than the unat-
  1080
  tested men, and that pledge we propose to carry out to the very letter. We propose that the Act of Parliament shall be carried out to its very limits. It is necessary to get the men. We are raising the age up to the very limits of the Act and that we propose to do. We do not think it is necessary to raise the age beyond that, and therefore we are carrying out the pledge given on three separate occasions by my hon. Friend.
  We need the men, and Parliament has given us the power to get the men. We shall carry out the pledge given to the attested men to be put into the same position as the unattested men, and that is all we propose to do. I do not think we should ask Parliament to raise the age limit beyond what we want, merely in order to carry out what appears to be a very futile and foolish interpretation of a pledge. We should not summon these men to the Colours unless Parliament had given us power to do so. We propose to carry out the pledge by raising the age limit to the age of the Act, and notice will be given to that effect in a day or two, and if there is any confusion in the mind of anyone, it will be cleared up by the Order to be issued on that subject. I am very glad that the hon Gentleman opposite (Mr. G. Terrell) has decided that the best way to raise this question is by raising the whole subject of man-power. It is a very serious question, upon the solution of which victory in this War depends. The Prime Minister has given a pledge that a date will be given for the discussion of the whole subject of man-power. I cannot, without consulting the Prime Minister, name the date, but I hope the House of Commons will regard that promise as satisfactory. With regard to the other two points raised, I have already promised the hon. Member that we will inquire into them.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I cannot help thinking that this matter is of far greater importance than the Secretary for War has suggested. If those of us who associate ourselves with the view taken on this subject by the hon Member for Blackburn have any weakness, it is not that we are straining a definite pledge in any extraordinary way, but simply that we have been assuming that plain statements made from the Treasury Bench in plain language were intended to be construed in the sense and with the meaning which usually attaches to the words used. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentle-

  1081
  man. the Minister for War that it would be unreasonable for us to ask the Government to propose legislation in excess of the needs of the War Office, but surely it is important that a Government conducting a war of this kind, which touches aspects of the national life and national interests in a perfectly unprecedented way should smooth their own course as far as possible by attracting the maximum amount of sympathy rather than alienating any part of the sympathy of the nation by a sense of injustice. It is very unfortunate, in connection with the legislation and the arrangements of the War Office in this War, that this is not an isolated instance of a distinct breach of a pledge or undertaking. We all of us—those who followed closely the discussions of the Military Service Bill—remember the positive assurance given by the Prime Minister as to the exemption of the only son of a widow. Experience has shown that not the slightest value or weight has, in practice, attached to that very positive and distinct pledge. We even had the Chairman of the House of Commons Appeal Tribunal the other day declining to hear a single word of explanation or of statement from two applicants, one of whom was the only son of a widow, solely on the ground that those applicants were tinder thirty years of age. He dismissed all question of the merits of the application on the sole ground that he could not consent to a man under thirty, whatever his circumstances, receiving two minutes' attention at the hands of that tribunal. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he carefully studies the history of this particular pledge, that he will find that it was much more positive and much more explicit than he at present imagines it to have been. I do suggest to him, and to the Government generally, that they are not helping the successful conduct of the War and that they are not creating a favourable atmosphere for any further appeals that they may make to the nation—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What pledge does the hon. Member say has been broken?
  Mr. SHERWELL: I will give the right hon. Gentleman an answer at once. The explicit assurance was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) earlier this evening.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is the pledge that has been broken?
  Mr. SHERWELL: The pledge broken is that a man would not be called up after he had attained the age of forty-one.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Shall I read the reply?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I am not asking the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) makes an accusation against the Government in this respect of having broken a pledge.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There is the reply, Mr. Sherwell. (Handing a document to the hon. Member.)
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He does not even know the pledge he accuses us of breaking!
  Mr. SHERWELL: I will, in common with the right hon. Gentleman, read out the distinct words.
  Mr. L. WILLIAMSmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman charges me with having said that I do not care whether it is broken or not. I beg his pardon. I said that it was a pledge given in reference to existing conditions.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman cannot find those words "existing conditions" in the pledge given on 7th March, and he himself said that if there had been a pledge given under present conditions, he would have no hesitation in breaking it—a Prussian doctrine!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I said that a pledge given in reference to present conditions had no applicability when those conditions changed, and that is obvious to any man of common sense.
  Sir E. CARSON: Let us lose the War!
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These are the words:
  "If the man attains his forty-first birthday before he receives the individual notice calling him up for service, he would not be taken for service under existing conditions."
  Those are the very words—
  "He would, however, be liable to be called up if it should happen that the standard of age for

  1083
  military service were raised in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1916, Col. 645, Vol. LXXXII.]
  We raise it up to the limit of the Act, and is it to be said that we are breaking our pledge because we do not raise it by two years when we do not want to do so?
  Mr. SHERWELL: Since the right hon. Gentleman has challenged me, I will read to the House what I regard as a distinct and positive pledge. It is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to take a different interpretation, but I will submit the words once more to the House. This is what the late Under-Secretary of State for War stated on 7th March this year:
  "A man who reaches the age of forty-one before he is actually called up for service, whether he is a voluntarily attested man or a man deemed to be attested under the Military Service Act, is not called up, but is passed to the Reserve, and would not be subject to be called up for military service unless the age of military service is in future extended. Instructions on this point were issued some time ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1916, Col. 1341, Vol. LXXX.]
  I submit that is in the most explicit terms. Then, with reference to something said by an hon. Friend a moment or two ago, Lieut.-Colonel Henderson, who was Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Derby, wrote on 16th February:
  "No man who attested under Lord Derby's scheme will be in any less favourable position than those who become attested under the Military Service Act. When a man reaches his forty-first birthday, he automatically becomes ineligible for military service."
  I submit that those words justify everything that I have said to-night concerning the danger of the assumption of a breach of pledge on the part of the Government. No one wants to cripple the effectiveness of the War Office in the conduct of this War, but I do submit to the right hon. Gentlemen that the Government are not placing themselves in a favourable position in the face of the country, nor in a position which is calculated to bring them the maximum strength, unless they do disabuse the country's mind of the impression that a pledge given from that Front Bench is not to be observed owing to what they deem a change of circumstances. If the circumstances change in the estimation of the Government, then let the Government come down to the House and frankly say that the circumstances have changed and ask for what they require. That is the straightforward course, and I submit that it is the course which will pay best in the long run in the conduct of this campaign.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised that the Secretary of State for War should have resorted to the subterfuge that he has in relation to this pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] The words in the answer quoted from Mr. Tennant were:
  "Unless the age of military service is in future extended."
  What does that mean? The age in the Act of Parliament at the present time. This was a relaxation from the age standard in the Act of Parliament, and the relaxation was to continue until the age was in future extended. Those are the words. The present age is forty-one. A concession was made. I am not entering into the question whether it was wise to make the concession. I certainly doubt whether it was wise, but, haying made the concession, and having made it on these terms accompanied by a pledge, I think it was the duty of the Government to stick to it. After all, their credit in the country is worth something.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it?
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is worth something to improve its credit.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Hear, hear!
  Mr. PRINGLE: I know hon. Members opposite do not think much of their credit in the country at the present time, but these things are not improving their credit and their prestige in the country. After all, we had this same thing occur in connection with the pledge about the widow's only son. We know how it suited tender consciences on this side of the House to be told that the only son of a widow was not to be taken. I had a letter this morning from a widowed mother who has her own mother also living. Both of these women are unable to work for themselves, and are at the present time dependent upon an only son.
  An HON. MEMBER: What has that to do with it?
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is an illustration of their method of dealing with pledges. It is not creditable to the right hon. Gentleman that this should have gone on. This man is called up. Then we were told that the man who was the head of a single-man business, whose business depended entirely upon himself, was not to be called up. That pledge is also forgotten. Why, practically every pledge that was made in the course of the passing of the Military Service Act has been absolutely thrown

  1085
  aside. I do not mind you getting your Military Service Act if you will be honest about it. I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member to Dublin University would have preferred the Government to be honest in this matter. That is the difference between the Government and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Sir E. CARSON: The only thing I am concerned about is to get on with the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman professes to be honest with the country in getting on with the War. I quite agree with him to that extent; but I do not, I admit, agree with him on many points. I admire the honesty and frankness with which he puts his policy before the country. That is the difference between him and the Government. The Government cannot be straight with the country. They put forward their measures as small steps, and half-measures, as if they were not going to affect anybody. And the country may think that compulsory military service will not make an body a penny the worse. There is the widow's son; the man who is at the head of a single-man business, and the man who reaches forty-one before he gets notice. All these people were calmed, soothed, and conciliated until the Government got their Act. Having got their Act, and these people's fears having all been quietened and soothed, you turn round and say, "I have given a pledge which was only to act under existing circumstances." Existing circumstances! I thought the right hon. Gentleman would not have fallen to a method of defending himself so poor as that. After all, he is courageous. He has not been afraid to put forward a policy. Why then does he not say, this is absolutely necessary and we are quite prepared to go on as we promised to do.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Just what I say.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No you did not. The point is that these men were to be free until the age was raised.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Will you vote for it being raised?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I shall be prepared to deal with that question when it arises.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Supposing we required 100,000 men and we could get them by raising the limit up to the limit
  1086
  of the Act, we could not do so the hon. Gentleman says, unless we brought in an Act of Parliament which would enable us to get 300,000 men. We do not want that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I say that is what you promised to do. After all, I do not think it is a bad thing if you are going on with this policy to be able to lay your hands on 300,000 men whenever you want them. It is extremely important, for everybody knows that 100,000 men are not going to look at the problem at the present time. It is hypocrisy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that 100,000 men is the essential thing. It is nothing like the demands of the War Office, and he knows that perfectly well. He knows that before very many months are over it will be necessary to come to Parliament for further measures.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will you oppose them?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, I will, but I will be honest in opposing them as my hon. Friend opposite will be in supporting them. Why not do the honest thing both before Parliament and the country? What I object to is to get measures by promises which are not fulfilled and which were never intended to be fulfilled. I would also like, if you are going to get further legislation, to get rid of the whole mockery of tribunals. They are a fraud upon the country. Everybody knows now that any tribunal is not allowed to have a mind of its own. If the members go against the military representative and the Advisory Committee they are appealed against. Why get these men to waste their time in judging cases? Why not say definitely that everything is now in the hands of the local military representatives to be done by them? That is another example of your fraudulent methods. If you are going to have compulsion, let us have honest compulsion. Do not let us have compulsion tainted with fraud.
  Mr. McNEILL: In one respect I am. bound to say that I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I do myself think that if a good deal of this legislation had been more thoroughgoing in the first instance, and a good many of the qualifications had not been put in, it would have been better. But I think the hon. Member is one of the very last to use that argument. The Government bring in a Bill of urgent importance for carrying on the War, a Bill for military service or

  1087
  something of the kind, and the hon. Member and his Friends exert all their influence and all the power, take out as much time as possible, and put every possible difficulty in the way of the Government carrying out that legislation. That has been done time after time. In deference to the persistence of the hon. Member and his Friends, those qualifications have been put in. Then hon. Members come down to the House and say, "Why in the world are you doing these things; no honest person wants them; sweep them away," while all the time the hon. Member and his Friends were responsible for these qualifications going in at all. So far as this particular measure is concerned, I am very glad that my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Terrell) brought the matter up at Question Time, and has taken this opportunity of telling the Government that this matter is one which is exciting a good deal of attention in the country, and of procuring from the right hon. Gentleman opposite a promise that the whole matter shall be discussed at a later date. But I am sorry and surprised that the hon. Member who has just sat down has allied himself, for the present at all events, with the hon. Member for Blackburn, who started this discussion. I will do the hon. Member the justice to say that I believe he really wants to win the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I allied myself this afternoon with the hon. Member for Chippenham.
  Mr. MCNEILL: The hon. Member wants "to win the War?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes.
  Mr. McNEILL: I do not know that I could say the same of the hon. Member for Blackburn. If that hon. Member does wish to win the War, then his methods are peculiar to himself. With regard to the alleged pledge, I have listened to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and I absolutely and entirely accept his interpretation. I go further. I say that, supposing that upon the letter of the speeches which have been made that the interpretation was not tenable, fair, or above board, what did the hon. Member for Blackburn mean? Supposing that pledge had been given by a past Member of the Government; that the Government were not going to call men who might be required, does the hon. Member for Blackburn mean to say that
  1088
  the country would tolerate any right hon. Gentleman who refrained from getting the men necessary to win the War on account of something said by his predecessor?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No; what the country would expect would be that the Government would come before it in a straightforward way and not by subterfuge.
  Mr. McNEILL: With all respect to the hon. Member, may I say that it is humbug to speak of subterfuge! What the hon. Member wants is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, to raise the age to forty-two instead of forty-one. Is that what he means? If he does not mean that, does he mean anything? Supposing the Government were to bring in a Bill to-morrow to raise the age to forty-two, would the hon. Member support it?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly not.
  Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. He makes attacks upon the Government because they do not do what he calls the honest way, and then he says, in answer to a question, that if they did the honest way he would oppose it.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I find it very difficult to appreciate the meaning which is attached to the word "pledge" by many of my hon. Friends in this discussion. A pledge seems to be regarded as a kind of bargain in which some Members of this House offer certain concessions, and in return for those being granted, as a result of an honourable bargain, the Government undertake to do certain things. There is a very great distinction between a declaration of intention and a pledge which is one side of a bargain. It may be suggested that this pledge was given as a condition of getting the Bill through.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It never was.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I cannot conceive of a Government giving a pledge somewhat of this nature: "If you will give us certain power in a Bill we will give you a pledge that we will not exercise it." The so-called pledge seems to be a simple and plain declaration of intention, and it seems that the Government have changed their intention in regard to this matter. Every declaration of intention must be given under existing circumstances. Every declaration of intention must obviously be given

  1089
  under existing circumstances. If we are to say that in. a War of this kind the Government, having declared its intention, is never to change it, then we absolutely tie its hands and make it imposible for it to wage war successfully. So far as I am concerned, there is only one question in regard to this matter; that is: "Are these men needed?" If they are needed they ought to be taken. Of course, it is very deplorable that we should have to take men of forty-one. It is deplorable that we should have to take men of forty or men of thirty-five.
  Sir W. BYLES: Or take them at all.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Quite so! So far as I am concerned, the one question which governs the whole matter is: Are these men necessary? From that point of view I can see no other alternative than that the Government ought to be supported.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I have been trying in the course of this Debate to come to some conclusion as to what its object really is. I can understand the Motion for the Adjournment upon which the whole question of the man-power of the country was to be considered, but I have listened to a Debate which I can only liken to the prewar proceedings in this House. I have often heard Debates in this House the avowed and obviously the only object of which was to damage the Government in power at that moment. I can see no object whatever in the attack which has been made to-night except an attempt to damage the Government in power for the time being. What is the position? There are certain people above the age of forty-one. Nobody wants to call them to the Colours if it can possibly be avoided. There have been those who are championing their cause. It is not only those who have spoken who have an intense desire to save men of forty-one, if they can be saved, from joining the Colours, but is the object of this to prevent men who are forty-one years of age from going to the Colours in any circumstances? No! That is not the object. The only object is to prevent them going unless men of older age are also required to go.
  I could quite understand it if the object of this attack was really to save the men of forty-one, and to make it quite certain that in no circumstances would they be called up. On the showing of hon. Members themselves, what does it mean? That
  1090
  if the Government chose to come down and ask for powers to raise the age to forty-two or forty-three, then men of forty-one are bound to go. The Government knows perfectly well that if they came down here and said that they were satisfied that for the winning of this War men of forty-two or forty-three should be called up, they would get a majority of this House for the Bill, and the men of forty-one would have to go to the War. Not only would they get a majority in this House, but I believe that in the present state of public opinion they would get an overwhelming majority in the country who would say, "Let us be satisfied that these men are wanted and they shall be forthcoming." If that is so, what is the good of getting up here and ostensibly trying to prevent men of forty-one being called to the Colours, and making that an occasion for an attack upon the Government for a breach of faith—an attack in which the breaking of pledges by our enemies is compared to the Government's detriment? Is that kind of thing likely to do any good? Personally, I deplore the fact that those who wanted to deal with this subject could not have waited until we are given the day which has been promised, when the whole question can be considered upon its merits. I am satisfied—my opinion may be worth nothing—that sometimes some of us are more inclined to accept the opinion of the country as being reflected by a particular narrow opinion of those with whom we come in contact politically. So far as the country is concerned, at this moment, men of forty-one will have to go, men of forty-two will have to go, and men of forty-three will have to go if the Government come down here and satisfy the majority of this House and the country that that is necessary. The attack made to-day upon the Government, ostensibly in the interest of the men of forty-one, is not going to do the man of forty-one any good. It can only have the effect of weakening and damaging the Government, which appears to me to be the real object of the attack.
  Mr. HOGGE: There is one point I want to put before the Debate closes, and I am rather sorry that the Secretary of State for War has gone before it is possible to get an answer. There was a phrase which he used in his speech which suggested to

  1091
  me that a further question ought to be put. The right hon. Gentleman said that we required these men of forty-one in order to man our new artillery. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War is not here. I see his private Parliamentary secretary is here, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman could be brought to answer this question, because it does open up an avenue of thought which ought to make the House pause, if it is true. If it is true that men of forty-one are going to be used for the purpose of manning the new artillery, they are going to be put upon one of the most strenuous tasks open to anyone in the British Army.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: What about the Infantry?
  Mr. HOGGE: I am in this position, that I always take off my hat to the British Infantry, because if there is any man who has done more nobly than any other it is the Infantryman in the trenches. If you put a man of forty-one into the Artillery, apart from the practical fact that it may be a safer position in the field than in the trenches, it does lay these men open to very great fatigue and hard strain. I have reached this point with regard to the raising of men for the Army. I am not so much concerned now with the age of a man as with the fitness of a man, and I would rather see the Government taking fit men up to forty-five than taking unfit men at forty-one, especially as my hon. Friend suggests that they are for the Artillery, where they have to ride horses, to sit on the gun-carriages, learn to fire the gun, and so on. It is sometimes forgotten that one of the penalties of being forced to raise men in this way is that the community is being saddled with an ever-increasing burden of pensions. It is current opinion at present, strongly held, that the Medical Board, apart altogether from the question of age and eligibility, are passing into the Army men who break down very quickly. In fact, we have the contradiction of men being admitted into the Army fit for the purpose of fighting, and a few months later, having broken down in health, being denied a pension because the disability is not supposed to have been due to service. That is going to be the case more than ever with men who have reached the age of forty-one. I notice, for instance, that
  1092
  the Secretary of State for War stated that if he included all the men there would have been four Army Corps instead of two, and that suggested to me that the Secretary of State for War was cognisant of the fact that out of every two men who were eligible one was medically unfit. I should like an assurance that in taking these men of forty-one, my right hon. Friend will put personal pressure upon medical boards not to take a man of forty-one who is married if he is not absolutely physically fit, because if he is taken, within a few weeks or months he is going to be a burden upon the community, and I am sure he does not want that, but I should like, in view of the phrase he used about Artillery, to have it made plain.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, I did not suggest that they would all go into the Artillery, but we certainly expect to get assistance from them in manning the Artillery. We should not take unfit men, especially for a task of that kind on which so much of the success of the Army depends. I can also assure my hon. Friend that unfit men will not be taken for general service. There are other services in the Army which are equally essential to the working of the organisation where men who are not fit for general service could be utilised. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying it is better to get a fit man of forty-five than an unfit man of forty-one, and that, you may depend upon it, the heads of the Army will take that into account.
  Sir W. BYLES: I was unfortunate in not hearing the speech of the War Minister, but I think he delivered it before the time which was given to us when this Debate would begin. The only point I am concerned about is that the pledge given by the Government should be kept. I have a correspondent in my Constituency who says:
  "Attested men are not in as favourable a position as unattested men or conscripts. The Prime Minister stated that in no case would this be allowed."
  Lieutenant-Colonel Henderson, Parliamentary Secretary to Lord Derby, wrote on 16th February:
  "I have to inform you that no man who attests under Lord Derby's scheme will be in a less favourable position than those who become attested under the Military Service Act."
  Now, I understand, they are in a worse position. This man who has attested is

  1093
  called up before other men who are unattested, and he complains that younger men are left when he is being called, and that that is contrary to the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I understood at Question Time that that inequality was to be removed, and I suppose is removed from this point, and that henceforth attested men will be in no worse position than unattested men. If that is so, I am content.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I have been flooded with questions from my Constituents, as I dare say many other hon. Members have been, in the matter of the age of forty-one, and I have my own opinion still about the answer given by the Gov-
  1094
  ernment, but the moment that the Minister for War says he wants men I have nothing more to say, whether there was a pledge given or whether there was not. I should have preferred my right hon. Friend saying that the late Under-Secretary for War had rather given the show away, though it would have been hardly respectful to a colleague, but I still remain under the opinion that the Government gave a promise at that time. The necessities of war ride paramount over everything, and whether a promise was given or not, it is perfectly right now to take them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Nine o'clock.