Commons Sitting of 14 February 1917

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

HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Cecil Beck) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

GREEK LOAN.
Account presented up to 31st December, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
Copy presented of Account for the year 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEVELOPMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of the Receipts into and Issues out of the Development Fund in the year ended 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 20.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      CONSUMPTION or INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
      Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether any
      592
      steps have been taken in India since the outbreak of the War to reduce the consumption of intoxicating liquors; and whether, in view of the economic conditions arising from the War, it is intended to impose special restrictions upon the manufacture and sale of such liquors during the continuance of the War?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The duty on imported spirit has been raised, as has also in many areas the Excise Duty on country spirit. I am not aware that further measures are contemplated by the Indian Government.

      BURMA.
      Sir H. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the Report on the administration of the Excise Department in Burma for 1914–15, it is stated on the authority of district magistrates and sessions judges that a large proportion of crimes of violence is directly or indirectly due to drink; whether the Inspector-General of Police has suggested to the local government that total prohibition should be tried as an experiment in the Bassein district; and whether, in view of the comparative immunity of Burma from drunkenness in the past and the growth of the evil in recent years, the Government will take steps to carry out the suggestion?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative. I would refer my hon. Friend to the Resolution of the Local Government on the Police Report for 1915, which states the reasons why the Government was unable to accept the suggestion. I do not think it would be wise in me at the present time to overrule its decision.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether King Thebaw, or any of his absolute and irresponsible predecessors in Upper, or any part of, Burma, prohibited the consumption of any particular article of food and drink by any or by all classes of the population; and, if there is no record of any such arbitrary act on the part of any of the absolute monarchs who governed Burma in ante-British days, if he will, should any such prohibition be suggested, withhold his consent from interference calculated to irritate a notorious for love of

      593
      personal freedom, and to raise doubts in their minds as to the justice and impartiality of British rule?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the first part of the question, and am not particularly impressed by my hon. friend's suggestion that I should take King Thebaw as my model.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow any model that does not impose this tyrannical prohibition upon the people of Burma?

      INDO-EUROPEAN TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India what is the fixed minimum rate allowed to the Indo-European Telegraph Department in Persia in exchange from pounds sterling to krans and from rupees to krans; and what is the rate given to the troops engaged in operations in Persia and on the Perso-Afghan frontier?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Gazetted officers of the Indo-European Telegraph Department are paid in rupees converted into Persian currency at the official rate fixed quarterly on the basis of market rates. The present official rate is 280 krans per 100 rupees. Non-gazetted officers enjoy a minimum of 385 krans per 100 rupees on half their pay, and receive the other half at the official rate. A petition asking for a revision of these arrangements on account of the appreciation of the kran is under consideration. The Government of India have not informed me of the arrangements made for troops.
      Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from the Government of India as to the arrangements made for the troops?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires me to do so, I will inquire.

      ADEN FIELD FORCE.
      Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state what arrangements have been made for the organisation of the Aden Field Force similar to that of other expeditionary forces?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government of India informed me in December of their intention to issue orders placing the Aden
      594
      Field Force on a footing similar to that of other expeditionary forces. They had not then decided as to the grant of special field allowance. I am inquiring whether the orders have actually issued and what is the decision as to the special field allowance.
      Colonel YATE: Thank you, Sir; the Aden Field Force will be very grateful.

      STUDENTS' DEPARTMENT.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Students' Department is to be maintained permanently at a total cost of upwards of £5,000 per annum; and whether the existence of this Department is due to an original recommendation by, or to a subsequent acquiescence on the part of, the Government of India?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no present intention of abolishing the Indian Students' Department, but a part of the work previously done by it has now been transferred to the university authorities of Oxford and Cambridge, and arrangements have been made which will reduce the cost. The Department was established by the Secretary of State in Council after an interchange of views with the Indian Government.
      Sir J. D. REES: It is to be continued at a reduced cost?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

      ROYAL COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SERVICES.
      Sir J. D. REESasked whether it is proposed that any action should be taken on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Public Services in India before the termination of the War?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government of India have been asked to consider and report upon the recommendations as soon as possible.
      Sir J. D. REES: Does not this form one of those questions which the other day the Governor-General said were of a controversial character and which should not be dealt with during the War?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government of India consider—and I agree—that it is undesirable to postpone the consideration of this Report until after the War. Such a course would involve great delay. Whether, as the result of that, action before the end of the War may be

      595
      suggested is another question on which I make no statement and do not desire to make one at the present time. But, at any rate, I think it is desirable that we should proceed with our consideration of the Report so that we may know what action we desire to take when the time for action comes.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Sir C. K1NLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can say how many dockyard pensioners over sixty years of age are in receipt of pensions from 10s. to £1 a week; and whether, seeing that these men have served their country from twenty-five to forty years in the Royal dockyards and have little else to depend upon but their pensions, and that the cost of living has gone up some 50 per cent, since the outbreak of war, he can see his way to deal with them in the same manner as has been done in the case of old age pensioners, and give them such additions to their pensions during the period of the war as will enable them to obtain the necessaries of life?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The number of dockyard pensioners over sixty years of age in receipt of pensions from 10s. to £1 a week is, approximately, 1,200. As regards the latter part of the question, I can only repeat the information I gave my hon. Friend on the 26th October last, namely, that pensions to civilians employed in naval establishments are awarded by the Treasury under the Superannuation Acts, and the Admiralty has no power to augment allowances which are assessed in accordance with the provisions of those Acts. I would further add that the comparison which my hon. Friend makes with the old age pensioner is not altogether justified, because in the case of the dockyard pensioners the average pension enjoyed is about £40 a year.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that these men, in many cases, have worked upon large numbers of ships which are now defending our shores: is it right that these men should be left with 10s. or £1 to live upon?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: They certainly contributed their part in their day and generation to the building of our ships.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The rising generation?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; certainly.
      Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: If it is shown to the Admiralty that there are men unable to find the necessary means of subsistence on the pension allowed them by the Admiralty, will the Admiralty consider the necessity of seeing that these men get enough?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It would not be a question for us, but one coming under the Superannuation Act, which is administered by the Treasury. But if hon. Members will communicate with me I will consider the matter.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps in regard to the matter?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know that I can take them in the absence of particular evidence such as that suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Benn).
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: Have these men the opportunity of working in the dockyards now?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: There were some working at the outbreak of the War, but I do not think that many are so employed now.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are men of the Royal Naval Division now serving in France as soldiers whose wives receive a total separation allowance which is less in some cases by as much as 6s. a week than that received by the wives of private soldiers who are doing the same work; and whether he proposes to take any action?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: All men of the Naval Division serving in France hold a rating not below that of able seamen, and so, from their ordinary pay, apart from additional allowances drawn in the field, could in every instance allot 8s. a week instead of 5s., the minimum allotment which carries separation allowance for a wife.
      Mr. SCOTT: Will they get the same allowance for their children?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, certainly!
      Mr. SCOTT: As the soldier?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
      Mr. SCOTT: Then, in spite of the answer, they do get considerably less than a soldier if they have a number of children?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I think my hon. Friend is under the impression that these men are the ordinary seamen that form the subject of a later question. They are able seamen, and their pay, against that of a private soldier of 7s. a week, is: Able seamen, 11s. 8d.; marine private, 11s 1d. Then there is a field allowance of 6d. a day if not billeted, and 4d. a day if billeted.
      Mr. SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men are prohibited from making an allotment larger than 8s., the result of which is that if there are children their wives get considerably less allowance than that of a soldier's wife?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No, they have higher pay. The minimum allotment is 5s. Some of the men get higher pay, which enables them to make a larger allotment. The average allotment for the Navy is about 12s. 6d. per week.
      Mr. SCOTT: Are there men of the Royal Naval Division who are prohibited from making an allotment of more than 8s. per week?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: There is not a maximum of 8s.; there is a minimum of 5s.
      Mr. SCOTT: And maximum?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: A minimum of 5s.; the maximum depends upon the pay.
      Mr. SCOTT: Is it not the case that there is a maximum allowance they are not allowed to exceed?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.
      Mr. SCOTT: That is what I want.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say, in considering these allowances, that it is the case that the difference in the pay is explained by the fact that the sailor has to keep up his kit, whereas the soldier gets his kit supplied by the Government?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot say that. The sailor gets higher pay, and my hon. Friend's point may possibly be one of the reasons for what has been stated. He has also greater opportunities for promotion. For these and other reasons the scale of the sailor is lower than that of the soldier.
      Mr. HOGGE: He does not get the scale!
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, under the conditions of this War, promotion is much more rapid in the Army than in the Navy; and whether the better prospect of promotion in the Navy can, therefore, be said to compensate for the lower scale of separation allowances in the case of men who have enlisted only for the duration of the War?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that promotion is much more rapid in the Army than in the Navy. I would point out, further, that the initial rates of pay of men entered in the lower ratings of the Royal Navy for the period of hostilities exceed those of similar entries in the Army by from 1s. 9d. to 4s. 8d. a week in the case of the ordinary seamen and the stokers.
      Mr. SCOTT: Is it not the case that the Navy, having remained more or less of the same strength, promotion goes on at the same rate as before, whereas in the Army, which has enormously increased, promotion is much more rapid?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that the promotion is much more rapid in the Army than in the Navy.
      Mr. SCOTT: Are there no examples of men in the Navy reaching the rank of petty officer within a year?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I would not like to say that.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked (1) whether in the case of a sailor who is prohibited from making an allotment from his pay of more than 5s. a week to his dependent mother, the maximum allowance which the Admiralty will add to it is 5s. a week even in the London district; whether, in the case of a wife in similar circumstances the allowance which the Admiralty adds to the salor's 5s. is 2s. 6d.; whether many sailors' mothers are thus paid a total allowance, including allotment, which is 6s. a week less than is paid to soldiers' wives in similar circumstances; whether he proposes to take any action; (2) whether he is aware that the total separation allowance, including allotment, paid to sailors' wives and children in the lower ratings is in certain cases 6s. a week less than that paid to the wives and children of private soldiers; whether Admiralty orders have been issued advising sailors' wives under such conditions to apply to

      599
      the Statutory Committee; whether he is aware that the Statutory Committee refuses to grant a supplementary allowance to bring Admiralty allowances up to the level of Army allowances; whether he proposes to take any action in view of this refusal; and (3) whether, in the case of a sailor who is prohibited from making an allotment from his pay of more than 5s. a week to his dependent mother, the maximum allowance which the Admiralty will add to it is 5s. a week, even in the London district, making a total maximum allowance receivable by the mother of 10s.; whether the maximum allowance, including allotment, receivable by a soldier's mother in the London district is 15s. a week; and whether he proposes to remove this disability imposed upon the dependants of men serving in the Navy?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of question No. 11 is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I think my hon. Friend has used the word "wife" when he meant to use the word "mother." The allowance made in respect of an allotment of 5s. to the wife of a sailor of the lowest rating is 9s. 6d. a week, if she is a London resident. The allowance made in respect of an allotment of 5s. in favour of the mother would be 5s. in the case of a Reservist or a man entered for the period of hostilities, and 2s. 6d. in the case of active service ratings, subject to the measure of pre-war dependence in each case. As regards the last part of the question—and, again, I think my hon. Friend intended to use the word "mothers" instead of the word "wives" —the situation he depicts here, and in question No. 13, depends upon the twofold considerations of pre-war dependence and allotment from pay. Given a fairly high standard of pre-war dependence, it would be open to the soldier's mother, in consequence of the scale of allowances, to receive 6s. a week more than the mother of the ordinary seaman whose level of pre-war contribution to his mother's maintenance was lower.
      I am satisfied that our allowances are framed so as to secure for the Service, as a whole, and in its many grades, what it amply deserves, fair and adequate consideration. There may be individual cases of hardship, and it was for the very purpose of dealing with those cases that the Statutory Committee was set up. I gather from my hon. Friend's question,
      600
      No. 12, that the Statutory Committee refuses to grant a supplementary allowance to bring Admiralty allowances up to the level of Army allowances in these cases. I am communicating with the Statutory Committee, particularly with regard to the case of the ordinary seaman with children.
      Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUXI asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Admiralty have stated that naval pensions for long service are in reality deferred pay; whether naval pensioners whose total earned incomes and pensions amount to over £120 a year and under £300 a year are at present taxed at unearned income rate upon their naval pensions; and whether, in future, naval pensions may be taxed at the earned income rate when the total income from all sources does not exceed £300 a year?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Naval pensions are chargeable to Income Tax at the ordinary earned income rates appropriate to the total incomes of the pensioners.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any decision has been arrived at regarding the stoppage of separation allowances to dependants, especially wives, when they are being treated for illness in a public institution?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): These cases must be considered on their merits, and may be dealt with better by the Statutory Committee than the War Office. We have been in communication with them on the subject, and I hope a decision may be announced shortly.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he told me exactly the same three or four months ago? How are the wives of soldiers who are in hospital, and therefore deprived of separation allowances, to keep the houses going in which the children reside while they are in hospital?
      Mr. FORSTER: I told my hon. Friend three or four months ago that these men are being looked after either by the Statutory Committee, or the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. Friend aware that they are not being looked after? The Statutory Committee has no regulations which deal with them, and it has

      601
      taken four months to do what my hon. Friend suggests now and they have not yet done it.
      Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will address his strictures to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the number of wives and dependants in receipt of separation allowances up to 31st December, 1916?
      Mr. FORSTER: In rough figures, three millions.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the annual cost of the recent in crease in separation allowances?
      Mr. FORSTER: Approximately twelve millions for the Army.

      PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Mr. BLISSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent information he has regarding the condition and treatment of British prisoners of war in the hands of the Turks?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The efforts of His Majesty's Government to obtain permission for the inspection by the American Embassy of the camps of internment in Turkey have so far been unsuccessful. Certain camps have, however, been inspected recently by delegates of the International Red Cross Committee, whose report His Majesty's Government hope to receive shortly. The information which reaches His Majesty's Government from various sources is to the general effect that, while the conditions under which officers are interned are tolerable, the situation of the prisoners of other ranks is most unsatisfactory.

      AFTER-WAR SETTLEMENT
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether the Governments of the Allied Powers propose in the after-war settlement to grant independence to the nationalities to whom they at present deny this right?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I have nothing to add to the statements
      602
      which have already been made regarding the objects which the Allies have in view.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Would it not be best for the Government to set a good example by granting independence to Ireland instead of to other subject nationalities?

      CZECHO-SLOVACS.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether, in view of the general lack of knowledge as to the Czecho-Slovacs, for whose independence the Allies are fighting, he will issue an official statement as to the territory they claim and the form of government they desire to be established?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I do not think such a statement is necessary.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the rumour going about that the Prime Minister has been making inquiries as to who the Czecho-Slovacs are?

      IMPRISONED VENIZELISTS.
      Mr. LYNCHasked whether all the followers of M. Venizelos, who had been imprisoned in Athens on account of their sympathies with his movement have been released?
      Mr. BALFOUR: So far as can be ascertained all persons imprisoned in Athens on account of their sympathies with Monsieur Venizelos have now been released.
      Mr. LYNCH: Docs that mean all the persons imprisoned at the time the order for release was given, or is it a fact as has been widely stated, that a certain number of these prisoners were killed or executed previously to the liberation of the others?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have no certain confirmation of any rumour of that kind. I can only speak to the question of the position of the Venizelist prisoners at the present moment. Some of them may have been killed earlier in the course of these unhappy occurrences.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries upon this point which is exercising the minds of a great many people?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

      GREECE (ALLIES' POLICY).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the policy of this country and of the Allies generally in regard to Greece?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think that the present is an appropriate time for a general view of the Greek situation.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that such a statement has been made in the House of Lords? Why can it not be made here?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am not aware that there has been any such general statement.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May we be assured that the cordial relations between His Majesty's Government and King "Constantino" are still being maintained?

      DOMINION PARLIAMENT (ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS).
      Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will state what provision for the supply of alcoholic liquors, if any, is made in the Dominion Parliament buildings at Ottawa and in other legislative buildings throughout Canada?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Walter Long): I regret that I am not in possession of the information.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LABOUR CORPS (MALTA, GIBRALTAR, AND CYPRUS).
      Colonel YATEasked whether, considering the shortness of labour for agriculture and other purposes, His Majesty's Government will consider the question of applying the Military Service Act to Malta, Gibraltar, and Cyprus, and enrolling all available men in these places in Labour Corps for service in France, so as to relieve the British Labour Corps now employed there for work at home?
      Mr. LONG: The circumstances of these Dependencies are of a very special nature, and a portion of their male population is already being employed on services con-
      604
      nected with the War. I have been very anxiously considering this question, and am consulting the local authorities with regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

      SOLDIERS UNDER AGE.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Thomas M'Kessy, of Newcastle West, county Limerick, a boy of 16½ years of age, as his certificate of age forwarded to the military authorities proves, joined the South Irish Horse, and that his father applied to the military authorities for his discharge on the ground that he is under military age and not of robust health, which application has been refused; and whether, for the reasons stated, his discharge will now be granted?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Inquiries are being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon Gentleman give the House, definitely, the legal position with regard to such a question: Whether it is legal to hold boys at the age of sixteen in the Army against the wishes of their parents?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot discuss that within the limits of question and answer.
      Mr. LYNCH: Does not it simply require an answer, yes or no?
      Mr. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member is asking a question on some legal point, he might put the question down. Legal points require consideration.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the minimum age at which a boy is eligible to join the Army? Is there anything definite?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The minimum age is really eighteen, but we get a great many patriotic young boys who come forward and give a wrong age.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Having regard to the fact that this boy's father has stated, and that I have written to the military authorities saving, that he is not in robust health, what is the use of keeping him in the Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have told my hon. Friend that I am making inquiries, and if the facts are as stated in his letter the matter will get full consideration.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that a boy named Maurice Quinlan, of Newcastle West, county Limerick, who was under seventeen years of age when he enlisted in the South Irish Horse, stationed at Cahir, was retained against the wish of his father, who made application for him, while another boy, named John Flynn, who enlisted after December, 1916, in the same regiment, was discharged; that Maurice Quinlan's health was bad, as his father informed the military authorities, that he had to be conveyed back to barracks from his home against the local doctor's wishes at Christmas, and that since his mind got deranged, and he is now in a lunatic asylum; and whether, when in future the father of a boy under military age asks for his discharge, it will be granted by the military authorities?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is the fact that the discharge of Quinlan was refused in accordance with the general practice. He is at present in an asylum, and as soon as he is fit for removal, he will be brought before a medical board for discharge from the Army. I have no information as to Flynn, and inquiries are being made. The discharge of soldiers under military age is not now authorised, unless under very exceptional circumstances, and I regret therefore that I cannot give the assurance asked for.

      IMPEEIAL CONFERENCE.
      Sir HENRY NORMANasked whether any communications have been received from Dominion Governments, in connection with the coming Imperial Conference, relating to the question of Home Rule for Ireland?
      Mr. LONG: I have received no such communications.

      REMOUNT DEPOTS, DUBLIN (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware of the conditions of employment at the remount depots in Dublin; if he is aware that the wages paid and the hours worked are the worst of any employment in the United Kingdom, and that the labourers in many cases are being paid from 17s. to 23s. per week, and
      606
      receive no war bonus, although promised to all Government employés, established and unestablished; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and (2) if he is aware of the conditions of employment at remount depots in Dublin; if he is aware that the wages paid by the Government and the hours which the men work cannot be equalled in any sweating den in London; if he is aware that these men wear war badges, work seven days a week for ten hours a day, and in many cases are being paid from 17s. to 23s. per week without war bonus; if he is aware that the war bonus was promised in the House to be paid to all Government employés, established and unestablished; if he will say whether these men will receive bonus; and, if so, will it be retrospective and be paid to all employés at depots?
      Mr. FORSTER: Instructions were given by the War Office on 26th October last, under which these men should have had 26s. a week. They will now receive that rate with arrears from that date.

      ARMY SERVICE CORPS MOUNTED TRANSPORT.
      Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary for War if Driver E. J. Phillips, No. 192571 Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), 2nd Army headquarters garage, British Expeditionary Force, aged thirty-six, married, one child, voluntarily enlisted in November, 1915, and was put in Group 40 as driver mechanic in the Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport) at the rate of pay of 6s. per day; if he was called up in June, 1916, and shortly afterwards was sent to France and for the last six months has been driving at the 2nd Army headquarters; if, when he got his pay-book, his rate of pay was 2s. 4d. per day; and, if so, will he explain why this man's pay has been reduced as it falls heavily on his wife, to whom he can only allow 1s. 9d. a day instead of 4s. 6d., and who consequently gets, with the child's allowance, £1 6s. 3d. instead of £2 5s. 6d.?
      Mr. FORSTER: A group man could not be enlisted at a special rate of pay unless he joined immediately. When this man joined the special rate of 6s. a day was not in force.

      WAR OFFICE STAFF.
      Mr. HOGGEasked how many officers employed in the War Office have seen active service during this War's?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when Secretary of State on 27th November last on this subject, and also to the answer given on 7th March by my right hon. Friend, who was then Under-Secretary of State, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Enfield Division. I have nothing to add to these answers. I regret there are no figures available.
      Mr. HOGGE: Are the numbers greater or less than at the period of that answer?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think they are about the same. I would like to point out that no men are more anxious to go to the front than those at the War Office, but in the interests of the service we must keep them here.

      OVERSEAS ACTIVE SERVICE.
      Mr. HOGGEasked how many officers and men have not yet seen any active overseas service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 30th November last to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester. Every effort is made to send to the front all officers and men who are physically fit. I regret that there are no figures available.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why so many men who are physically fit are given so much service at the front, and so many who are physically fit are given so much leisure in this country?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: We are always trying to exchange the men who have been at the front with those at home.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how they are getting on with that practice? How many men are they exchanging each week?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the hon. Gentleman make some arrangement for revising the staffs of the Home Command, which are only used for training purposes, and are far too large?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: So far as I understand, every single individual in the training staff at home is necessary for training.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      PRISONERS or WAR (DAILY RATIONS).
      Mr. GEORGE FABERasked what is the present scale of allowance for bread, meat, and sugar per week for prisoners of war in this country, both officers and men, compared with the Food Controller's dietary list, in respect of those articles for the people of this country generally?
      Mr. PETOasked whether the rations allowed to German prisoners of war have now been reduced to the level, in respect of meat, bread, and sugar, of the allowance per head Indicated in the recent communications from the Food Controller's Department as applicable to the civilian population in this country?
      Mr. FABERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present scale of allowance for bread, meat, and sugar per week for interned enemy civilians in this country compared with the Food Controller's dietary list, in respect of those articles for the people of this country generally?
      Mr. HOPE: The daily ration hitherto issued to prisoners of war in this country is: meat 8 ozs., bread 1½ lbs. or its equivalent in flour, and sugar 2 ozs. No rations are issued to officers, who pay for their own food. The question of the scale to which these rations should be reduced is, as I have already said, the subject of enquiry by a Committee representing the Departments concerned, and their Report may be expected immediately.
      Mr. FABER: Is Donington Hall under the eye of the War Office?
      Mr. HOPE: Very much so.
      Mr. FABER: What is the scale of bread, meat, and sugar per day, or per week, in regard to Donington Hall?
      Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I do not know, because the officers at Donington Hall have, I understand, to order their own rations.
      Mr. FABER: The civilians in this country have to order their own rations, and they are asked to conform to a certain standard. Has the same plain request and the same plain demand been made upon the officers at Donington Hall?
      Mr. HOPE: Hitherto the scale for prisoners has been the same as for the combatant rank and file, but that does not apply to Donington Hall. The whole of

      609
      this matter is to be revised by a Committee representing all parties, the War Office and the Home Office, who are hard at work revising it.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will this Committee be asked to consult with the Food Controller as to what is a reasonable allowance for these men?
      Mr. HOPE: I am not a member of this Committee, but I understand a representative of the Food Controller is one of the members of the Committee.
      Mr. PETO: When was this Committee set up? Did it not occur to anybody that it would be wise to consult the Food Controller before he issued his suggestions to the British population as to why there should be a double allowance for these German prisoners?
      Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I do not quite follow the hon. Member.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask a simple question? When was this Committee first started?
      Mr. HOPE: Last week.
      Mr. PETOrose—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put down any further questions.

      ME. TBUSTRAM EVE.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister if he can state the nature of the appointment held by Mr. Trustram Eve in connection with food production; and what is the amount of his salary?
      Sir HENRY NORMAN: Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I say that I put an unstarred question on this subject last Thursday, and it has not yet been answered?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am very sorry. I did not know it had been unanswered. I drafted an answer to it, and I will inquire why it was not given. Mr. Trustram Eve was appointed by the War Office about the time of the recent changes in the Ministry to stimulate the production of oats for Army requirements by the direct cultivation of War Department Lands now under grass and the encouragement of similar cultivation by farmers through the placing of forward contracts for the crops of 1917. Mr. Eve succeeded my right hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall as chairman of the Forage Committee. As
      610
      he had to devote his whole time to the work he is compensated for loss of business at £250 a month. The changes which have since supervened have necessitated a reconsideration of the nature of this appointment, and the matter is now under my consideration.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Would it not be far better that the Board of Agriculture should have control of the production of food?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think it is most desirable that all these matters should be under the control of one Minister, but at the time this appointment was made, owing to circumstances on which I need not dilate nothing special was being done. I saw that there was a very urgent demand for oats for Army requirements, and after consulting my advisers I deemed it necessary in the interests of the Army to make a special appointment, with a view to pushing on the production of throats. I consulted my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, and also my Noble Friend the Food Controller, since he was appointed, and I asked if either of them would be prepared to take charge of this work at once and push on with it. I told them what we wanted. They asked me to continue until they were prepared to deal with it themselves.
      Sir H. NORMAN: Is this salary free of Income Tax?
      Mr. FORSTER: Certainly not. It is subject to Income Tax.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: How long have we to pay this salary?
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that this gentleman's business is now closed?
      Mr. FORSTER: What I said was that the necessity for this appointment was being examined and that I had the matter under consideration.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I mean his private business.
      Mr. FORSTER: He is not able to attend to it.
      Mr. G. FABER: Is there any written contract with the Department?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think the arrangement is expressed by interchange of letters.
      Mr. FABER: What notice would be required?
      Mr. FORSTER: A month.

      PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS.
      Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, with a view to enable our mercantile marine to increase the stocks of foodstuffs in this country, His Majesty's Government will, without further delay, prohibit the import of everything not absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the War or for our national existence?
      he PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. His Majesty's Government are at present considering the imposition of further restrictions with the object that the hon. Member has in view.

      GRASS LAND (CULTIVATION OF OATS).
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the nature and terms of the arrangement made by the War Office with farmers for breaking up grass land for the growing of oats?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The terms are set out in the contract, a copy of which I shall be happy to give the hon. Member. In effect it offers a bonus to farmers who plough up grass land in order to sow oats for the 1917 harvest, for the use of the War Office.

      NEW BREAD (SALE).
      Colonel YATEasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether he has received a petition from the Allied Union of Operative Bakers, Confectioners, and Allied Workers, at Leicester, begging in the national interests for the prohibition of the sale of new bread, and the consequent abolition of night work for bakers, by the issue of an Order that bread is to be baked one day and sold the next; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in regard to the same?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): A copy of a Resolution passed by this Society in favour of the prohibition of the sale of new bread was sent to the President of the Board of
      612
      Trade, and has been forwarded by him to the Food Controller, who is, at present, conferring with representatives of the baking trade on the subject.

      POTATOES (PRICES).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the hon. Member for Wilton whether the Department fixed a contract price for potatoes of the 1917 main crop; whether this contract price has since been withdrawn in favour of a minimum price guaranteed by the Government; and whether the minimum price to the farmer carries with it any protection against an extortionate price being charged to the consumer?
      Captain BATHURST: The prices announced for potatoes of the 1917 main crop were fixed by the Food Controller on the advice of the Agricultural Departments of Great Britain and Ireland. They are guaranteed minimum prices at which the Government will be prepared to purchase potatoes of the best quality. The question of protecting the consumer against extortionate charges will be considered should the necessity arise.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the first part of the question, whether a contract price was first fixed and whether that has since been changed for a minimum price?
      Captain BATHURST: I think that accurately describes what took place.

      BREWING INGREDIENTS.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the hon. Member for Wilton if the Food Controller, in view of his statement that the barley, sugar, and other ingredients used in brewing are required for food, will explain why the continuance is allowed of their present rate of waste in brewing for another six weeks and thereafter at the rate of one-half that in 1914, or more than twenty-five million bushels of grain and more than one and a-half million cwts. Of sugar; and what further steps he proposes to save this foodstuff for the food of the nation?
      Captain BATHURST: The decision to restrict the use of materials in brewing to approximately 50 per cent, of the prewar level, as from 1st April, was taken by the Government after full consideration of all the existing circumstances. The Food Controller will not hesitate to recommend further restrictions if the necessity should, in his opinion, arise. The assumption that

      613
      the conversion of foodstuffs into brewers' materials will continue undiminished till 1st April is inaccurate. This conversion as regards barley takes place when the barley is malted, and it is intended that further malting shall be stopped as soon as sufficient malt for the reduced output of beer has been made.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect parents now to stint their children of food, while these ingredients are being used for the production of alcoholic beverages?
      Captain BATHURST: I understand the whole question is about to be raised in Debate this afternoon, and I dare say the hon. Member will have an opportunity of presenting his views to the House.

      MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that, although the contracts between the War Office and dental officers and the War Office and medical officers are to a very large extent identical, dentists do not draw ration allowance, consequently dental officers have to pay a higher rate for messing than is paid by medical and other officers; and can he see his way to place dental officers in respect to ration allowance on the same footing as medical and other officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: The question of giving dental officers ration allowance was further considered, as promised in my reply to my hon. Friend's question of 7th March last, and it was decided that no alteration in the terms of the contract was necessary.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the duties of the medical officers and the dental officers are practically identical?
      Mr. FORSTER: That is not the ease. There are material differences.

      BRITISH NAVAL AND MILITARY LOSSES.
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the under-estimates of our losses
      614
      as compared with the French losses and the losses of our Colonial troops invented by the enemies' agents in France and America, he will state what to date have-been the total losses of men suffered by the Army and Navy of the British Empire since the beginning of the War?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Hanley on November 21st last. As stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 21st August last, in answer to the hon. Member for North Somerset, there is no objection to any Member being shown privately and confidentially from time to time the total casualties for all theatres of war.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: In view of these under-estimates as to our losses, made by the enemy, in France and America, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the advisability of making an authentic publication of what our losses have been?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will consider that.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the publication of these lists to Members of this House have any effect in meeting the false statements of enemy agents?

      BEER CONSUMPTION (ARMY).
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether nearly half the present production of beer goes to the Army; whether this would represent a consumption of over four barrels (144 gallons) per man per annum; if not, what quantity was actually supplied during 1916; and, if this quantity is not used by the Army, will he say what steps he will take to punish, under the Defence of the Realm Act, those who make such statements, which are detrimental to the Army, and likely to shake the confidence of our Allies who have either prohibited or severely restricted the use of all alcoholic liquor by their troops?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of the source of the statements quoted by my hon. Friend, but whether detrimental to the Army or not, they are wholly at variance with fact. The consumption of beer through canteens at home was for

      615
      last year approximately 1,500,000 barrels. This, I am informed, represents not one-half, but one-eighteenth of the total consumption of beer on the reduced basis in the United Kingdom. It is not proposed to take the action suggested in the latter part of the question.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Am I to understand that persons are to be privileged to issue false statements detrimental to the Army without any action being taken by the Government?

      DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

        SUPPLY OF MATERIALS OF WAR.
        Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War, having regard to the fact that the conduct of Captain Stomm and Lieutenant Somerset has been a matter of complaint in relation to "heir dealings with Sir Theodore Cook and Mr. Blanch, whether the terms of reference to the promised Court of Inquiry will be so framed as to allow full investigation of the conduct of these officers?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir. But it is well to point out now, in fairness to these officers, that their conduct is not by any means the most important part of the Inquiry.
        Mr. MCNEILL: Will the scope of the inquiry include their conduct?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
        Mr. McNEILLasked whether the promised court of inquiry into the circumstances of the raid on Sir Theodore Cook's premises will be constituted under the Army Act Amendment Act, 1916; whether the inquiry will be held in public; whether the court will be given power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and to take evidence on oath; and whether the parties interested will be represented by counsel?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope to make a full statement on this matter to-morrow?
        Mr. McNEILLasked how soon the promised court of inquiry will be set up to investigate the circumstances of the police raid on the premises of Sir Theodore Cook; and if in the meantime Mr. Blanch, whose presence in France has been requested by the French Government, will
        616
        be allowed to proceed immediately to Paris on his giving an undertaking to return to attend the inquiry?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: Mr. Blanch will be permitted to proceed to Paris if and when the French Government officially request his presence in France, on giving a substantial undertaking that he will return to this country to attend the inquiry, and any further proceedings that may follow it. I may add that no such request has yet been received from the French Government.
        Mr. McNEILL: Will a request be accepted from the French Government, even if it does not come from Captain Stomm?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: If a request comes to us in an authentic form from the French Government, it does not matter through which channel it comes, we will accept it.
        Mr. McNEILL: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that this gentleman came from Paris in December last and carried with him a permit from the War Office in France, requiring him to return to Paris in the early days of January?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member must realise that I cannot answer that without notice.
        Mr. HEMMERDE: Will Mr. Blanch be allowed to communicate with Paris? Is it not a fact that at present all his letters are being held up?
        Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that without I have notice of the question. If the hon. Member will put down the question I will inquire

      ARMY RESERVE (MUNITION WORK).
      Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether the pay of men transferred from the Army to Army Reserve for munition work, as well as the separation allowances of their wives, ceases on the date of transfer; whether he is aware that a considerable period frequently elapses before they receive any wages; and whether he will take steps to remedy the hardship thereby caused?
      Mr. FORSTER: Army pay and allowances cease on transfer. I am not aware

      617
      of any serious delay in the payments of wages, but; if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases that have come under his notice, I will inquire.

      PARCELS TO WAR PRISONERS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that supplies of clothing and food can be sent by parents and friends to officers and civilians interned as prisoners of war in Germany but are forbidden to be sent to private soldiers; will he say what is the reason for this distinction; whether lie is aware that the Central Prisoners of War Committee, in accordance with the War Office rules, can only allow one suit of underclothing and two pairs of socks to be sent to each private soldier once in six months; whether the Central Committee has approached the War Office to get this rule altered; and if he will have the Regulations amended so that civilians, officers, and private soldiers may be accorded equality of treatment?
      Mr. HOPE: Under War Office Regulations, parcels for both civilian and combatant prisoners of war in Germany must be sent through the Central Prisoners of War Committee, or one of its authorised associations, except in the case of officers. Among other difficulties, it has been found by experience that private parcels required examination in the Censor's, Department, and it would not be practicable to enforce the censorship in the many thousands of cases of parcels addressed to civilians and private soldiers. The allowance of clothing that may be sent to prisoners in Germany is as follows: One pair of boots, one pair of canvas shoes, two pairs of socks, two pairs of drawers, two vests, two shirts, one cardigan, one pair of gloves, one pair of trousers, one jacket, one kit bag, one cap, three handkerchiefs, and two towels (every six months), and one greatcoat (every year); for German camps in Russian territory there are, in addition, one fur or skin coat, one pair of long boots, and two pairs of lumbermen's socks or stockings (every six months). The amount of the above allowances has been recently discussed between the Central Committee and the War Office, with the result that the authorities have been unable to see their way to sanction an increase. I fear the only effect of carrying out the suggestion in the last part of
      618
      the question would be to impose some disadvantage on one class of prisoners with no compensating gain to others.

      ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (PROMOTION).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) why, although the establishment of both branches of the Royal Regiment of Artillery has been increased during the present War and the promotion in the field branch has corresponded with such increase, to the extent that the last promoted major in the Royal Field Artillery (Major B.) has twelve years and two months' commissioned service, the promotion of the officers of the Garrison Artillery, i.e., heavy and siege batteries, which has been frequently specially mentioned by the Commander-in-Chief, is so slow that about 150 to 200 officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery who passed out of the Royal Military Academy some three years before Major B. did still only hold the substantive rank of captain; and (2) whether he is aware that in the Royal Garrison Artillery there are 175 captains with thirteen years' service and upwards, but in the Royal Field Artillery there are none, all having been promoted; whether he is aware that the twenty junior majors in the Royal Garrison Artillery have fifteen and a half years' service and the same number of junior majors in the Royal Field Artillery have only thirteen years' service; will he explain why a branch of the Artillery which has done such splendid service during the War has been so treated; and whether a further "Gazette" can be shortly published bringing the promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery up to the level of the rest of the regiment?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The statement contained in the questions are correct. The question of the state of promotion in the Royal Garrison Artillery has been considered and it was decided that no action should be taken during the War.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is there any possibility, having regard to those serious statements and their admitted correctness, of reconsidering this very important matter, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is causing great dissatisfaction amongst the unpromoted officers of the heavy Artillery?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware of that, and I will consider it.

      PRIVATE BILLS.
      Sir W. ESSEXasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes in the present. Session to restrict the introduction into this House of Private Bills for objects not connected with the necessities of public health or in assistance of the national efforts engaged in prosecuting the War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it is not possible for me to add anything to what I said during the Debate upon the Address on 8th February.

      GENERAL SIR OWEN THOMAS.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause the full Report of the Court which inquired into the case of General Owen Thomas to be published, and also the evidence tendered to the Court?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not proposed to make any further publication of documents relating to the cases into which this Court was appointed to inquire.
      Mr. DAVIES: In view of that answer will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why General Sir Owen Thomas was removed, and whether it was owing to inefficiency as stated on 28th June, or owing to military rearrangements as stated on 23rd December; and whether, in view of the fact that General Sir Owen Thomas has been charged in this House with inefficiency, he will now state to the House that that charge was not substantiated, or in the alternative publish the Report fully so that the House may judge for itself?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As the hon. Gentleman will remember, I made a very full statement with regard to General Sir Owen Thomas in the statement I made before the rising of the House in December. He will also remember that I pointed out that General Sir Owen Thomas's conduct was cleared, and my hon. Friend will excuse me if I remind him that only yesterday he appeared in the Honours List.
      Mr. DAVIES: May I ask whether or not Sir Owen Thomas was removed owing to inefficiency, or in view of certain rearrangements in military matters, and if he has been cleared let the hon. Member say so?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the very full answer which I have given.
      Mr. ROCH: May I ask why he cannot publish the Report, or why he will not?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think it is in the public interest to publish it. I think we have published sufficient to justify the disciplinary action which was taken.
      Mr. DAVIES: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall go into this matter on the Motion for Adjournment on Tuesday next.

      NATIONAL SERVICE.
      Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of steps being taken for avoiding the call for volunteers by the Director-General of National Service for coal-mining, as the pits in the North are not fully engaged and much broken time is being experienced by miners already willing to work?
      Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Director-General of National Service has laid down the principle that men should not be brought into a district to do work for which there are already men in the district equally capable; and this principle will be applied to mining no less than to other essential industries.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Captain BARNETTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continued increase in the cost of living, he will 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?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Junior Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. For the reasons given in my reply of the 12th instant to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division His Majesty's Government are not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the National Conference of Friendly Societies, representing more than 6,000,000 persons,

      621
      in September last passed a resolution which, while welcoming what had already been conceded to certain old-age pensioners during the War, declared it urgent that all other old-age pensioners should receive an additional sum of half-a-crown a week owing to the increased cost of living; and whether he is prepared to -accede to the request?
      Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. He has received the resolution in question, but, for the reasons given in my reply of the 12th instant to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring -Division, he regrets to be unable to accede to this request.
      Mr. WARDLE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the account which appeared in the newspapers only yesterday of an old age pensioner who died because he had not sufficient nutrition to keep him alive?
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the Report of the deputation which waited upon the late Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the granting of 2s. 6d. per week to all old age pensioners not benefited by other concessions; whether the deputation represented all parties in the House and all the findings of conferences representing several millions of people; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Houghton-le-Spring Division on the 12th instant.
      Mr. ANDERSON: In view of the feeling that exists in regard to this matter, would it not be possible for the Government to grant some time for a discussion to hear the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House on the question?
      Mr. BALDWIN: That question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Has the hon Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that, owing to the increase in the cost of living, which has gone up over 80 per cent, since the Pensions Act was passed, it is not possible for an old age pensioner to subsist on any sum from 5s. downwards?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I may say in reply that we have just as much sympathy with the old age pensioners as the hon. Members who have put questions. This arrangement was only made three months ago, and I do not think it is unreasonable to wait a little longer.

      PETROL SUPPLY.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owners of private motor cars were not given intimation until the latter end of last month that the supply of petrol would certainly be restricted, if not altogether curtailed; whether he is aware that the majority of owners had already taken out licences for the year 1917; and whether, in view of the latest announcement of the Petrol Committee, the proportionate amount of their licences will be returned when facilities to obtain fuel cease?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If the effect of further restriction on the supply of motor spirit is, as contemplated by my hon. and gallant Friend, I shall be glad to consider his suggestion.

      LONDON RIFLE BRIGADE (MISSING MEN).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have received any further information regarding the number of men of the London Rifle Brigade who were missing in the attack of the 1st July last; whether he is aware that no intimation of their being killed or wounded has been forthcoming; whether no letters have arrived from any of them; and whether there is any reason to suppose that there are a number of our prisoners compelled to work behind the German lines and forbidden to write home?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret to say that there is a large number of men of the unit named who were missing on 1st July of whom nothing has since been heard. It is feared that the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are now dead, and steps will shortly be taken to accept their death officially. There is no evidence before the Department to suggest that prisoners are over long periods of time prevented from writing home.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In this particular case may I assume, for the assurance of the parents of the men, that every possible inquiry has been made?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend may assume that.

      CAST ARMY HORSES.
      Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the total number of horses bought for Array use during 1915 and 1916 which have had to be sold again and which were offered in the various sales as suitable for tradesmen, jobmasters, and others; and what is the total loss sustained by the nation in each of the two years mentioned through these purchases?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It is undesirable for military reasons to give figures, but the number of horses cast and sold in all theatres of war and including the United Kingdom, but excluding Mesopotamia, during the twenty-nine months from August, 1914, to December, 1916, inclusive, amounts to 5.6 per cent, of the total numbers acquired. The total loss from all causes is 24.7 per cent., or less than 1 per cent, per month.

      UNQUALIFIED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
      Mr. BLISSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the officials of the Army Medical Department have yet decided to accept the services of Mr. H. A. Barker for manipulative treatment of wounded and injured soldiers, in view of the fact that many officers are being successfully treated by Mr. Barker and enabled to return to active duty at the front?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South Down.

      MOTOR-CAB FARES.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the shortage of motor cabs in the provinces as well as in London is caused almost entirely by the fact that the fares allowed
      624
      to be charged are, with the rise in petrol-oil, tyres, and wages, unremunerative to owners; and whether, seeing that the raising of the initial fare in London from 8d. to 1s. would have the immediate effect of placing many scores of cabs on the streets and so providing an additional revenue as well as adding to the comfort and convenience of the public, he will consider the advisability of authorising such an increased fare?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have re-received representations from certain owners of motor cabs to the effect that the fares now allowed to be charged are, having regard to the present price of petrol and other circumstances, unremunerative to the owners, and I hope shortly to have a conference with the representatives of the owners and drivers on the subject. I am not satisfied, however, that an increase of the initial fare would have the effect suggested in the question, as I understand that the Petrol Committee have intimated that they are unable to-grant petrol certificates to any additional motor cabs.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (INCOME TAX).
      Mr. WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether workmen employed on Government work and who travel considerable distances to such work on their bicycles, and who have to pay for the storage of their machines, are allowed to deduct such expenditure from the amount of their income returned for Income Tax purposes.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Where owing to exceptional conditions mainly arising out of the War a weekly wage earner, chargeable by quarterly assessment, is at the present time employed at a considerable distance from his homo and necessarily incurs exceptional expenses in travelling daily to and from his place of employment, a deduction is allowed in the calculation of his Income Tax liability in respect of the actual cost of such travelling. If, in such a case, the taxpayer travels by bicycle expense necessarily incurred in the storage of the bicycle would be regarded as an admissible deduction for Income Tax purposes.

      RAILWAYS (STATE CONTROL).
      Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to make any public statement or publish accounts showing the profit or loss to the taxpayer from the State control of our railway systems combined with a guaranteed minimum dividend to shareholders; and, if not, can he say generally whether the control and guarantee has resulted in a profit or loss for the years L915 and]916, respectively?
      Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is not proposed to publish any accounts of this character, and at present I can only say generally that there would appear to be no reason to regard as financially unsatisfactory to the State, the arrangement under which military and naval traffic is carried free on the railways in consideration of the guarantee by the Government of the companies' net receipts in 1913.

      WAR LOANS.
      Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of holders of the Four per Cent War Loan free of Income Tax, the Government will undertake that if they decide to reduce the amount of income over which Super-tax is payable they will exclude the holders of the Four per Cent. Loan from the operation of Super-tax or allow a proportional reduction?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the prospectus of the new War Loan definitely states that although dividends on the Four per Cent. Loan will be exempt from liability to assessment to British Income Tax, they are liable to Super-tax at the same rate and subject to the same conditions as income derived from any other source.
      Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been able to arrange with those in this House who are responsible for the control of party funds to make adequate contributions to the War Loan out of those funds?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a general appeal to the public, and I am informed that those in control of such funds have liberally responded to it.
      Mr. HOGGE: Would not this suggestion perpetuate the party funds by keeping them intact for thirty years, which would be a great disadvantage?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that would not be the case, because the Loan would be saleable.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of modifying the present system of investing in War Loan by substituting for the existing method the issue to investors under £50 of bearer bonds with interest coupons attached, which the investor might buy over the post office counter as simply as he may now purchase a book of stamps, such bonds to be numbered consecutively, and each postmaster to be held responsible for the numbers entrusted to him for issue, of which re would keep a record and make returns of the numbers sold and the names of the purchasers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Experience shows that the small investor does not like beaver bonds, and much prefers a nominal document. The fact that interest on inscribed or registered stock can be paid without deduction for Income Tax, whereas tax must be deducted at the source in the case of coupons is a further objection. The War Savings Certificates have proved a very popular and simple form of Government security suitable for the needs of investors of the kind which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. These will, of course, continue to be on sale after the close of the period of subscription for the War Loans.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Is it not a fact that the War Savings Certificate is one that carries deferred interest payable five years hence, and, in that respect it is differentiated from the class of security referred to in the question, which is analogous to what is issued in France and has proved a tremendous success there?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As I informed my hon. Friend our experience is that the public do not like bearer bonds.

      WAR RISK INSURANCE (NEUTRAL VESSELS).
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to extend

      627
      the War Risk Insurance schemes to cargoes of neutral vessels which are trading between neutral ports and those of the Allies?
      Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The question of the war insurance of essential cargoes carried on neutral ships to Allied countries is being carefully watched. At present I am advised that adequate insurance is obtainable for these essential cargoes at market rates through the ordinary insurance channels.

      AGRICULTURE (MOTOR TRACTORS).
      Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if motor tractors for agricultural purposes are liable to tax and, if so, whether he will suspend it for the present; if he will suspend the petrol tax on petrol for agricultural purposes; if he will suspend the import duty on imported American motor tractors for one year to enable tillage to be carried out as rapidly as possible, in view of the fact that in many tillage districts the severe weather has prevented ploughing practically since Christmas?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Baronet will, I think, find that motor tractors and motor spirit used for the purposes referred to are not charged with these duties.
      Sir T. ESMONDE: What about the import tax on American vehicles?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The import tax does not apply to motor vehicles used for such purposes as these.

    REBELLION IN IRELAND.

      INTERNED PERSONS COMPTTLSORILY ENLISTED.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain persons previously interned as of hostile association for their participation in the Irish rising are now serving compulsorily in the Army under the provision of the Military Service Act because of previous residence in England; whether it is the policy of the Government to coerce persons who have taken up arms against the system of government which existed in Ireland; whether the persons, one and all, refused to submit to military
      628
      orders of any kind and have in consequence been court-martialled and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; whether such persons have been court-martialled a second time upon their first sentence expiring and sentenced to further terms of imprisonment; if the methods of repression countenanced by the late Government are to be sanctioned by the present Government in connection with the second sentences, and in particular if his attention has been called to the continued punishment of the brothers King and the brothers Nunan who, though originally interned as Irish rebels, have all been court-martialled twice for refusing to obey military orders and have been undergoing punishment in the Army ever since they were released from internment; whether, seeing that the severest punishment must continue to be utterly unavailing to break the spirit of these men, he will now cause them to be released from further punishment and discharged from the Army; and if he is aware that their release would go far to remove the bitterness caused in Ireland by their persecution?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The position of men who were concerned in the Irish rebellion and who are at present serving in the British Army has been under consideration, and it has been decided that men who have been imprisoned or interned in consequence of having been concerned in the Irish rebellion are not to be enlisted in the British Army, and that men who have been imprisoned or interned and are at present serving in the Army are to be discharged from the Service if they are unwilling to serve and did not join the Army voluntarily.

      VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
      Mr. ORDE-POWLETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that, under a recent Army Order, members of Volunteer Aid Detachments are now compelled on enrolment to sign an agreement consenting to dismissal without reason assigned; whether the War Office will take into consideration the cancelling of this Order and of giving the right of appeal to these girls, say, to a tribunal of three or more detachment commandants, before dismissing them from work voluntarily undertaken, seeing that

      629
      such unconditional dismissal might cause injustice, cause reflections on their characters, and affect their future careers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This is not an Army Order, but one of the conditions of enrolment for members of Voluntary Aid Detachments made by the Joint Voluntary Aid Detachment Committee of the Territorial Force Association, the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. In order to make the conditions of service of Voluntary Aid Detachment members uniform wherever employed it was decided to apply the same rules to Voluntary Aid Detachment members in military hospitals.

      RAILWAY REGULATIONS (COMPETING LINES).
      Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that railway companies with competing lines between the same places, whilst permitting passengers to travel on either line with a return ticket, decline to allow season-ticket holders a like privilege; and, having regard to the increased number of season-ticket holders caused by the increase of ordinary fares and the inconvenience this Regulation causes, will he suggest to the railway companies that it should be withdrawn?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that, having regard to the object of the present restrictions on railway travelling, it would not be possible to make a general Regulation extending the existing arrangements as to the interavailability of tickets to short-distance season tickets, to which I gather the hon. Gentleman specially refers. Due consideration would, however, be given to any request for interavailability of tickets by any particular route.
      Mr. RENDALL: I meant long-distance season tickets.

      RETURNING SOLDIERS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
      Mr. FLAVINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has taken into consideration the position of those men who have, in distant neutral countries such as the United States, the
      630
      South American Republics, China, etc., come at their own expense to the Mother Country to join the Colours and fight in the present War, in many cases giving up important positions; and whether, in view of the sacrifices those men have made, the Government have come to any decision as to the giving of free transport to these men on their return to their homes at or before the conclusion of the War?
      Mr. FORSTER: Arrangements have already been made. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the Regulations governing the question.

      COAL SUPPLY (LONDON).
      Mr. MACMASTER(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in London and surrounding districts people are unable to procure a supply of coal for protection against the inclemency of the weather, to say nothing of its necessity for cooking purposes; and is he aware of the number of deaths which have taken place, and been publicly reported, apparently attributable to no other cause than exposure; and what steps does he propose to take in regard to coal dealers to secure delivery by them, and, if not by them, what other means he has to effect delivery and to prevent what has become a veritable coal famine?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I only received notice of the question on coming into the House, and therefore can only find such a reply as comes into my mind. I am aware that there has been great difficulty in the distribution of coal in London and the surrounding districts. My attention has not been directed to deaths attributable to exposure, nevertheless I will cause inquiry to be made on that point. I have already stated to the House that, in conjunction with the Army authorities, arrangements have been made for the use of a number of motor lorries, in order to facilitate the distribution in London and other places. I am hoping that these arrangements will result in removing the difficulty and in ensuring the delivery of coals to all.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Are they doing it?
      Mr. PRINGLE: In cases where gratuitous distribution is given by the War Office is the coal merchants entitled to charge a price which covers the cost of carriage?
      Mr. ROBERTS: The prices chargeable to the consumer are definitely fixed, and it will be seen by a notice issued this morning that drastic action is taken in order to see that those prices are not exceeded.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the prices fixed in connection with the Coal Prices Limitation Act include the cost of carriage, therefore his Department should see that when there is gratuitous distribution the cost should be taken from the price?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I will take that point into consideration.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the hon. Member taken any steps yet to see that the carmen and porters are doing their work in getting the coal?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I think I replied to a similar question only yesterday. Our attention has been directed to the fact that there has been some irregularity on the part of carmen, and I instanced measures which are being taken to induce them to work a certain number of hours.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is it intended to take Orders 6 and 7 on the Paper tonight (Grand Juries [Suspension] Bill and Ministry of Food [Parliamentary Secretaries] Bill)?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We may take No. 6, but not No. 7.
  Mr. R. MCNEILL: Shall I be in order now in putting a question to the Under-Secretary for War? I put a question to him, and he replied that he intended to make a statement on the subject tomorrow. I should like to ask him whether he will make that statement in a form which will admit of discussion, because if he is not prepared to do so I will take the opportunity of saying something in the Debate to-day. Otherwise I shall have no opportunity. If, on the other hand, he makes his statement in a form which will admit of discussion, I need not trouble the House to-day.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The opportunity will be the same to-morrow as to-day. It covers the same ground as the Report of the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That Government Business, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  Mr. LOUGH: Might I ask what business the right hon. Gentleman intends to take under the Motion, and if, after the experience of yesterday, it is necessary to make this Motion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Motion to-day is even a more formal one that it was yesterday. It is simply in order that the First Beading of the Consolidated Fund Bill may be got to-night.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will that be taken immediately after the first Order, or after the second Order?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not say, if it should happen—I do not expect it—this is done at an early hour, that we may not
  658
  take some other business, but no other business will be taken after eleven o'clock.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand, if the Report stage of the Vote of Credit is concluded fairly early in the evening, the right hon. Gentleman then intends to ask the House to take either No. 3 (Supply —(Civil Services Supplementary Estimates) or No. 4 (Supply—Committee? I think it is important we should know. This is the second occasion upon which the House in the first week of the Session has been invited to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. I do not think this has ever been done before, and I do not see why it should be done now. If you wish to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, why not suspend it for the whole Session? That is a reasonable proposition, but to take it casually in this way means that it is merely intended to relieve the Government Whips, who are now more numerous than at any other period in history, of he necessity of keeping 100 Members in he House to secure the Closure. I do lot think the House should connive at this method of relieving these hon. Gentleman from attending to their duties.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend misunderstands both the intentions of the Government and the feeling of the House of Commons.
  Mr. PRINGLE: They want to go away.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a result which can be easily obtained. The object of the Government is not to prevent the necessity of keeping 100 Members here in order to impose the Closure, but I sincerely trust that no such necessity is ever likely to arise. It is simply done for the general convenience of the House itself.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would not take No. 6 (Grand Juries— Suspension—Bill, Second Reading)? Will he take it after eleven o'clock?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I distinctly said that I would not.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Government Business, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed.

SUPPLY [12TH FEBRUARY].

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1916–17.
  Resolution reported,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeling £200,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Experses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, aid Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, rising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The Government are asking us to place at their disposal the largest sum, considering the two Votes of Credit together, for which any Government at any time has ever asked. There will be no unwillingness in any quarter of the House to give them the money they require for the conduct of the. War, but, when we are asked to vote these vast sums we are entitled to ask whether the best use is being made of the money which is being provided, and whether the Government are safeguarding in every way the resources of the country to enable it to bear the great burdens that now rest upon it. A mischievous tendency is growing up of estimating the cost of any enterprise in the number of weeks or days or months of the cost of the War. It is said, for instance, that such and such a thing will only cost a day or a week of the War. It is said that the pooled salary of a Cabinet Minister represents one minute's cost of the War. If that is done to make us realise the great cost of the War there is no harm in such a comparison, but it is dangerous if it suggests that Cabinet Ministers are cheap. Are the
  660
  Government saving all that they can? Are they leading the country in the path of economy which they invite the people to tread. I do not want to try and answer that question to-day but I do say to the Government: If they are to enforce economy upon the people they must themselves set the example in the first instance. They have certainly not succeeded yet in fully impressing upon the country the great need that there is for saving. I want to draw attention this afternoon, especially to the expenditure of this country upon drink. I regret to have to tell the House that there is every reason to fear, in spite of the appeals that have been made by the Government and by men in authority throughout the country, that the expenditure upon drink in the year 1916 is far and away the greatest upon record. The expenditure in 1915 was £18,000,000 more than the expenditure in 1914, and I think it will be found, when the figures are added up, that the expenditure of 1916 is at least another £18,000.000 more than the expenditure in 1915.
  Mr. G. FABER: That is the price.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. JONES: Certainly, it is the price. The public have to pay the price, and it is precisely that which I am pointing out. The public in the year 1SSI6 paid for drink a sum closely approaching, if not surpassing, £200,000,000. That, as the hon. Member points out, is owing to the price of liquor. It is not owing to increased taxation. There was very little increased taxation put on in the year 1916. There was only the extra shilling upon beer. The net cost of it all is that out of the £200,000,000 the Government have received some £7,000,000 less than they received out of the £182,000,000 expended in 1915. Since the War began the public of this country have paid for liquor a sum not loss than £450,000,000. That is the direct expenditure of the country upon liquor since the War began. What a contribution a sum like that would be to the present War Loan, or what a fund for the taxation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it had been invested in productive enterprise instead of being wasted upon this expenditure upon drink! It has been worse than wasted. It would have been better for this country had that £450,000,000 been thrown into the sea. The country would have been stronger, financially, physically, and morally. No

  661
  one who has investigated this question puts the indirect cost of the liquor traffic at less than the direct expenditure, and anyone casting up the account, taking the direct cost and the indirect cost in sickness, death, insanity, and disease of every kind caused by drink, will find that the cost since the War began is not far short of £900,000,000. With those figures before it, the House, when engaged in a war of this magnitude, should think once, twice, and three times before allowing the present system to continue any longer.
  I will, however, discuss the question today solely from the point of view of the food supply of the country. Last Thursday we had a Debate upon the production of food. All who listened to that Debate received the impression, which I received, that the amount of food we shall grow in this country in the coming year, in spite of the efforts that are now being made, will be less than the amount which was grown last year. It seems equally certain that we must look for a diminished instead of an increased supply from abroad. That being so, we are face to face with a serious food situation. It is not that I attach much importance to the throats which Germany is making of sinking all the ships which come to this country. The Germans have been doing their worst to this country for some time past, and I do not suppose that we owe anything to any forbearance on the part of Germany But it is the case that the menace to our slapping is of a most serious character. It is the case that our depleted shipyards are not able to build merchant ships as rapidly as they are being destroyed by submarines, and, that being so, there is no time to be lost by the House and by the Government in facing the situation and in creating a national food reserve which will make us safe against the starvation of our people.
  The Government to-day have a tremendous weight of responsibility resting on their shoulders. I do not know that any man need envy any member of the Government for the task which he has before him, and no sensible man will rashly criticise the deeds of the Government in trying to discharge that tremendous responsibility. I do not think they will find any disposition in any quarter of the House rashly to criticise the Government or to condemn them too quickly for any mistake which they have made. But there is one mistake which this country will not
  662
  forgive, for which no repentance will avail, and no excuse can be accepted— that is if, being in full possession of the facts of the case, they fail at this moment to build up a national food reserve to sale-guard the people against starvation. If three months hence the people are short of food there will be short shrift for the Government which did not display the necessary foresight in dealing with the case. The Government cannot plead ignorance upon this matter. Months ago four Members of the new Ministry signed a great appeal to the Government to establish prohibition during the War. Among the signatories are the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Food Controller in this House, and the right hon. Member the Under-Secretary to the Board of Agriculture. The First Commissioner of Works warned his colleagues that this is the necessary and right policy for the Government to pursue. He made the speech in November, before the new Government came into office, and I want to ask him now if he is ploughing up Richmond Park in order to grow barley for the brewers or is lie going to give effect to the prohibition policy which he advocated when he was only a member of the Liberal Ginger Group?
  But the Government do not rest for information solely upon the opinions of their own members. One of the far-sighted acts for which we owe thanks to my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade was the appointment of a scientific expert committee of the Royal Society to consider the whole question of food supply of the United Kingdom. The Report of the Committee has just been issued. They have made an exhaustive examination of the sources of food available for the people, the scientific value of the different forms of food, and the amount of the different kinds of food necessary to maintain the health of the people, especially of the workers of the country. The Report has been issued by the Board of Trade after a delay, of which I would like some explanation. The final part of it was signed on 9th December, and we have had to wait eight weeks for it. On page 18 of the Report the Committee point out what margin of food there was in the country in normal times before there was any special diminution due to the shortage of the home-grown supply or the failure of the supply from abroad. They say that up to the present the supply of food has provided a general

  663
  margin of about 5 per cent, above the minimum necessary for proper nutrition. The House will observe that the margin of food in normal times is not large—only, 5 per cent, above the requirements. The Committee warn us that we may have to make a correction for the feeding of a larger population, which would altogether swallow up that 5 per cent, margin. They say if a reduction of 5 per cent, should happen it can be borne without injury to the community, but only on one condition, that is, that the existing food supply should be equally distributed among the population of the country. Under the present system the food is not equally distributed, and there is too good reason to fear that great sections of the community are being insufficiently nourished even at the present time.
  The Committee point out the grave consequences of any reduction below this minimum standard. This 5 per cent, is possibly not existing now because of a misestimate of the population of the day, and certainly any reduction below that minimum means a large diminution in the working efficiency of the individual. That is the situation with which the Government of the House are face to face. The Committee go on to consider possible methods of economising food supply. They suggest five methods on page 25 of this invaluable Report. The first is the recovery of 80 per cent, flour instead of 70 per cent, flour. The second is increased economy in meat production. The third is increasing the protein available for human consumption by increasing the manufacture of cheese, if need be, at the expense of butter-making. The fourth is the diversion of a certain quantity of material now used for stock feeding to human food. That suggestion gains point by the statement made by the President of the Board of Agriculture the other day that the animal population of the country is larger than ever it was. But the fifth, and the greatest economy suggested by this Committee, is in the use of food materials used in brewing and distilling.
  The fourth section, on page 29, is devoted to a consideration of the economy of food which might be effected by the prohibition of brewing. On that I ask a question of such member of the Government as is able to answer it. On that page it says,
  "The Committee understand that the greater proportion of the distilleries which before the War were
  664
  engaged in the production of potable spirit are now preparing industrial alcohol. They therefore do not deal at all with the use of food in the making of spirits."
  I ask the Government is it true that practically no potable spirit is now being made? If not, I want to impress on the Government that they should stop immediately the making of potable spirit. I see no justification whatever for going on with the manufacture of spirits for drinking purposes. There are 140,000,000 gallons of spirits stored in this country at the present time—more than five years' consumption, certainly at the reduced rate, which I hope will be shown for last year, and none of the spirit now made under the existing law can be consumed under three years. That being so, it does seem to be monstrous to allow another bushel of corn to be used in making spirits during the War which cannot possibly be consumed for three years from now.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): Practically no potable spirit is now being made.
  Mr. JONES: Having obtained that most valuable information from the Government, I will ask another question. Is it not possoble to use the 140,000,000 now in store for munition purposes? Is it necessary to go on destroying food which is wanted for consumption when you have a store of alcohol so vast which might, by rectification, be made available for munition purposes? I understand that this is being done in other countries, in Russia in particular, and I do not sec why the Government of this country should not follow their example, and prevent at any rate this sort of wastage of food material. Now I turn to beer. The, quantities with which we are dealing are very large. In the Report the quantities are given in metric tons, and it should be understood when I merely speak of tons it refers to metric tons. The amount of barley used for the manufacture of beer on the reduced scale of 1916 is given in the Report as 943,000 tons of barley, 55.000 tons of rice, grits, etc., and 118,000 tons of sugar. Those are large quantities when you compare them with the national consumption. The total national consumption by human beings of cereals is given in this Report on pages 2 and 3 as 4,865,000 tons, so that the actual quantity of material used in the making of beer on the reduced scale of last year is in weight one-fifth of the

  665
  amount consumed by the whole population of this country. I admit, of course, as the Report points out, that we cannot use for human consumption the whole of that weight of barley, but we can use a great deal of it. The Report points out that we might use for direct human consumption 60 per cent, of that barley—you could use the whole of the sugar for human consumption—while the remaining 40 per cent, could be most economically converted into human food indirectly through the pigs. In that way you would obtain out of your barley a total of 70 per cent, for human food. That is the amount given in the Report— a maximum of 70 per cent.
  But in addition to that, land is now engaged in growing hops, and that, again, is a matter which must not be lost sight of. The Report states that 31,000 acres in this country are now given up to hops. I do not know how far that has been diminished by any measure taken by the Government recently, but last year the land under hops was 31,000 acres. I put it to the members of the Government who are connected with labour, that the graving of hops is very costly in labour. It takes five or six men to the acre all the year round, and very much less labour could be used on those acres to grow even during the; present year—and that is what the Committee points out—150,000 tons of potatoes, and 300,000 quarters of oats. I ask the Government, is it right, in face of the threatened food shortage, and when they are at their wits' end to know where the people are to get food, to leave for the growing of hops land which could grow 150,000 tons of potatoes and 300,000 quarters of oats? The Committee recommend that barley flour should be mixed with wheat flour. They have tried the experiment on themselves, in a heroic spirit, and they mixed 15 per cent, of barley flour with the wheat flour, which makes a most palatable loaf. And so they built up the case for us. As to barley, they have come to the conclusion that the theoretically best use that can be made of the materials now used in brewing is to use them for direct human consumption in the way of which I have been speaking, and I put it to the Government that the theoretically best use is the only use which they ought to allow in a time of crisis like this. I do not want to argue the point, on which I know that there are strong differences of opinion, but I will read to the House
  666
  what is the opinion of the Committee in regard to the use of alcohol. They say:
  "Repeated experience has shown that regiments not supplied with alcohol marched farther, and were in better condition at the end of the day, than others to which it had been given. Experiments in mountain climbing have given similar indications, the total work done being smaller under alcohol, and the expenditure of energy greater. In particular, the record a of American industrial experience are significant in showing a better output when no alcohol is taken by the workmen,"
  I will not argue that point to-day; the House knows my opinion upon it; but I remark that the Committee points out that we lose nothing by not using alcohol, and gain very greatly in the condition of the inhabitants of the country. I now turn to the Food Controller, whose appointment is proof of the situation in which we find ourselves. The Food Controller and his colleague the President of the Board of Agriculture, who described this country as being like a beleaguered city, are rationing the people of this country, and they are putting them on a ration which is less than half in the matter of meat, bread, and sugar than is thought necessary to give the soldiers at the front and in our camps at home. The ration is probably not such as the people of this country could take for any prolonged period without suffering in health. The Food Controller, having to deal with the situation, and with this Report before him—because I assume the Report was available to him, although not presented to the public-—makes an Order on 24th January, and gives his reasons for the Order. I will trouble the House first with the reasons which the Food Controller gives, because his reasons are very much better than his conclusions. He says:
  "These steps are in no way to be deemed measures of temperance or social reform."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not know why the Food Controller should be so eager to repudiate either social or temperance reform. He goes on to say:
  "The bald fact is I that the barley, sugar, and other ingredients used in brewing are required for food. In fact, I may say it is really a question of "Bread versos Beer."
  These are words of the Food Controller. He goes further: It is not only food that would be saved, but there is the question of transport. He says:
  "On the transport side there would be, first of all, a large saving in mercantile tonnage: and, further, a very considerable saving in laud transport, such as railway and other forms of haulage. Then will also-be a consequent reduction in the amount of labour employed and fuel consumed in the process of manufacturing beer. It will further have a directly favourable effect on the production of meat and milk."

  667
  And there I must leave him to fight the question with his colleague the President of the Board of Agriculture. The Food Controller claims that as a result of his measures there will be 40 per cent, of offal available for stock, while the President of the Board of Agriculture only makes it 25 per cent, as coming from it. Those are the reasons of the Food Controller on the question of Beer versus Bread, and I submit that all he is concerned with is the safeguarding of the bread of this country. Why should we sacrifice bread for the beer of a section of the community] "We all require bread, and it is for the Food Controller to see that no one goes short of bread in the months that are coming. Why should there be this half-measure? Why does he not make an end of 100 per cent, of this waste? Is there any tonnage to spare? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where to get tonnage? Are there any transport facilities to spare? Are there railways sufficient to carry this material, and is there labour to spare? Why cannot you turn this labour into more directly useful channels? I put to the Food Controller this: Is he confident that in the months to come even the present rations are going to be preserved, or will he ask for a further reduction of the amount before long? A reduction of 30 per cent, is to be made on the 1st of April. Why 1st April? Why not immediately? Food is required now. The reserves should be built up now. The German submarines are at work now.
  Mr. G. FABER: So they were last year!
  Mr. JONES: Why do not the Government act now? What are they waiting to see? Whose is the unseen hand that is holding them back? I can tell them that public opinion expects action from the Government—far stronger action than has yet been taken in this matter. I have received resolutions from public bodies throughout Scotland, and throughout even the slower country of England, which is beginning to move in the matter. The Clyde shipbuilders were asked the other day to suggest measures by which the building of mercantile marine tonnage could be more rapidly increased. What was their answer? They said that the first thing you have to do if you want to quicken the building of ships is to prohibit the liquor traffic. I want to know
  668
  what the Government have done to meet the recommendation from the Clyde shipbuilders. There has been a memorial got up in this country, signed by thousands of people, a memorial which represents the brains of the people of this country, a memorial which the right hon. Gentleman himself signed, demanding prohibition of the manufacture and sale of liquor during the War. The right hon. Gentleman was not then a Member of the Government. Why does he not now act upon the memorial which he signed when be was not in such a position of power and influence as he now is? It has been said that the country will not tolerate a measure of prohibition. To that I would like to read to the House some words addressed by the Home Secretary to a war savings meeting a few days ago, and appropriate words they are, if I may be allowed to say so, because, if the people only followed his advice, there would be more money to spare for investment in the War Loan. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking at Mortlake on Wednesday night, according to a newspaper report I have here,
  "referred to the need for economy and said he was interested to see with what full acquiescence the cutting down of the beer supply had been received. He had not had a word of complaint. He believed that when the consumer felt the full effect of the measure tie would not complain, but would be content to do away with the drink for the success of the War."
  I agree with the Home Secretary. The consumer would not complain if the Government were to put it to him clearly that it was the success of the War which demanded the sacrifice. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) has said the worker is not going to have prohibition crammed down his throat by me. Of course he is not. I have no idea of attempting that operation. I should not expect the workers to take it from me. Why should they? Indeed, I gather they are very angry with me for suggesting it, and I received an anonymous postcard only the other day in which it was stated that if I inflicted any more prohibition on this country a prominent politician would be assassinated. I do not know whether I would not take it at the price —if I may be allowed to choose my politician, but I say this the more readily because there was a postscript to the letter which said—
  "Your insignificance saves you."
  Of course the country would net take prohibition from those who are labelled

  669
  "Temperance reformers." but the country would take it from the Government if the Government said it was necessary in order to win the War. As one of my hon. Friend's near me reminds me, they have taken Conscription at your hands. They were not eager for it, but they submitted to it when told it was necessary to win the War.
  Mr. O'GRADY: The bulk of these people are anti-compulsionists.
  Mr. L. JONES: No, a very small minority. I put it to the hon. Member, we were all anti-compulsionists at that time. The bulk of the opinion of this country was against compulsion until it was shown to be necessary for the winning of the War. The hon. Member is a leading trade unionist, ho is an honoured member of the Labour party, he knows how great are the sacrifices the workers have made in giving up trade union rules which were devised to safeguard the interests of labour, and yet they have done this readily at the invitation of the Government. It is for the Government again to came forward on this occasion, or to justify their refusal to do so; but I do suggest that if they come forward and say that in order to win the War, in order to bring it to a more speedy conclusion, it is necessary to adopt this policy of prohibition, I do not believe there are ten, I do not believe there are-five, I do not believe there is even 1 per cent, of the workers who would raise any protest at all.
  The Government is upon its trial in this matter. The Prime Minister said at Bangor two years ago that drink was doing more harm to this country than all the German submarines together. That was not a flight of fancy: it was the fact. Drink during the War has destroyed more food than all the German submarines put together. Drink during the War has used up as much tonnage as the Germans have sunk with all their submarines. Drink during the War has killed more men than all the men who have been killed by German submarines. The Prime Minister failed to act upon the advice he gave in Wales. He may plead he was then a subordinate Minister and had not the power to put the measures he suggested into force. To-day he can make no such excuse. He is the supreme head of a small Cabinet, which is obedient to his slightest nod. He will be judged, and rightly judged, not by his
  670
  intentions, however excellent, not by his phrases, however forcible and eloquent, but by the courage and by the thoroughness with which he gives effect to his often-expressed determination to leave nothing undone that can lead to a complete and speedy victory.
  Mr. D. MILLAR: My right hon. Friend has made a powerful appeal to the Government, an appeal which he has strengthened very largely by the plain statement of facts he has presented to the House. I desire, as representing a Scottish Constituency, to associate myself with the appeal which has been made, and I do so with the more confidence because I believe that in Scotland public opinion at the present moment is very strongly in the direction of further action being taken upon this important question. If I may do so, I should like to put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman, who is leading the House, whom we in Scotland regard as a true Scotsman, who is always prepared to give a perfectly fair answer. I should like to ask him this. We have got a Food Controller and a Shipping Controller. These two Ministers hold very important offices at the present time. What did they report to the Government? Have the Food Controller and the Shipping Controller been themselves controlled? Has effect been given to the recommendations which they made to the Government on this important subject? Reference has been made to the reasons advanced by the Food Controller when dealing with the output of beer. I should like very briefly to refer to those reasons for one moment, because it seems to me that the very reasons which were given by Lord Devonport certainly did impress the country with the view that the Government ought to carry the matter a great deal further than they have gone. Do not the Food Controller's arguments, as submitted to the. War Council, justify the Government in going further than a 50 per cent, reduction on the pre-war output of beer? Why say the "pre-war output"? When the question of the reduction of beer output was under consideration in the Act of last year, the basis of the reduction was not the pre-war output, but the output for the year 1915, which was 6,000,000 standard barrels less. In point of fact, there is a difference of that amount between the two years, and it alters the figures and results obtained under the present proposal to a very considerable extent. The Food Controller pointed out what would

  671
  be the favourable effect of this restriction on meat and milk production so far as the agriculturist is concerned, and he took the opportunity of again disputing the truth of many statements which have been made by those associated with the brewing trade—that any reduction would have an indirect injurious effect on the foodstuffs used by agriculturists. I think the House ought to take note of the fact that in his opinion, instead of having an injurious effect, exactly the opposite would be the case.
  What does he say? He says that these restrictions in the output of beer would
  "give a far greater yield-the difference between 25 per cent, and 40 per cent. of offals for the service of agriculturists."
  The effect of a 50 per cent, reduction is that it still leaves 650,000 tons of barley, 52,000 tons of sugar, and 39,000 tons of grits employed in the manufacture of beer. I wonder if the Government have taken into account one of the most important considerations of all with regard to food supply, and that is the question of tonnage? I put a question the other day in this House as to the tonnage required in order to provide the necessary materials for brewing and distilling, and the answer which I got from the Board of Trade was that the total tonnage used for conveying brewing materials alone was 900,000 tons net register. Half of that is 450,000 tons, and that represents, I submit, an amount for which a considerable fleet of vessels at the present moment would be required, in order to bring it to this country, so as to enable this trade to be carried on. But we are living in times of war, when the public outside this House are taking these matters very seriously, and I feel that, in discussing a question of this kind in this House, we are bound to take account of public opinion, which is urging individual members, as we all know from the representations sent to us, and the Government to have regard to the seriousness of the situation. It is not a lime for panic, but it is a time for the Government to decide very carefully as to what their action is to be, having regard to the immediate future. If there is likely to be any shortage they alone will be responsible.
  What is the position to-day] We were told in another place yesterday that only 25 per cent, of the mercantile marine of this country is available for supplying the needs of the civil population, whilst 75 per
  672
  cent. is required for the purposes of the Army and Navy and of our Allies. We were told that new construction was needed for 500,000 tons in order to meet the submarine menace. Why are the Government, therefore, not prepared to go further than a 50 per cent, reduction of the pre-war output of beer, although that still leaves 450,000 tons net register required to bring these brewing materials to this country? We have also to take into account the fact that neutral shipping, unfortunately, for the time being is being reduced by the submarine menace, and that the distances required to be covered by ships bringing these materials is very long and in many cases it takes a great deal of time for grain cargoes to be brought here. I hope it is the intention of the Government to act on the lines of the Noble Lords who spoke in another place yesterday. I would like to refer particularly to what was then said by Lord Lytton, representing the Admiralty. He declared:
  "It is now true to say that it is an absolute condition of our success that the whole available cargo supply of the available ships shall be given up to absolute necessities only…. Everything that can be dispensed with must give place to absolute necessities."
  That was enforced by Lord Curzon in his statement that at the present moment he was engaged with his colleagues in the Government in working out an important scheme for a further considerable restriction of imports and the total prohibition— observe the words—of non-essential commodities now coming into the country; and he went on to say that that would impose undoubtedly a great strain upon certain trades. I hope it may be possible this afternoon to obtain some statement from the Government which will make it quite clear to us how far they are prepared to go. We have had proposals for rationing the whole country, and I find, and I dare say a good many hon. Members have had the same experience, that there is great indignation in many quarters at the proposal to ration the country on meat and sugar and bread, and yet that there is no proposal to deal with this question of the prevention of wastage of foodstuffs required for intoxicants. How are you going to justify to the country the rationing of necessaries of this kind if you are going to allow as much beer and liquor to be consumed in the country without any limit whatever being placed upon it? That is a position which it is very difficult to explain to the workers, and may I suggest that in this matter the real burden

  673
  is being thrown on the shoulders of those who can least afford to bear it. With a limited supply of foodstuffs available and so much destroyed in the manufacture of certain articles which no one can say are necessaries, the supply is diminished to that extent. Those who can afford to pay the extra cost thereby created are those who suffer least, and the burden falls upon the poorest of the community. We have been told in very influential quarters—and the War Savings Committee has rubbed it in at every point—that if more grain were available, the grain used for brewing purposes, both for man and beast, the prices of bread and meat would be lowered. That is true. We are told also by the Committee to which reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke before, that any curtailment of supplies, even to a limited extent, would result in the poorer classes obtaining less than is needful for the margin of safety. That is a very serious situation for us to face. I venture to suggest to the Government that in this matter they will have to justify their policy to the country, as a whole, and to prove that they have gone as far as they possibly can go to conserve the food supplies, with a view to the immediate emergency. Reference has been made to the question of distilled liquor, and I should like to associate myself also with the questions which were put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) as to the existing stocks. We have got a very large quantity of distilled liquor in bond. I believe the figure is 140,000,000 gallons, and at a time when we are drawing upon the whole of our national resources surely it is a fair question to put to the Government, what do they intend to do with this? Is it intended to continue to destroy foodstuffs in order to distil further liquor? I was very much interested in the answer we got from the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of the output of the distilleries, but may I ask him whether he intended, in his answer, to cover the case of pot-still distilleries? We are all aware that the patent still output has been very largely taken over for munition purposes, but I am informed that there is still a portion of the patent still output which is not taken over, and that practically the whole of the pot-still output has not yet been made available for that purpose, at least so far as Scotland is concerned. If that be so, I may refer him to the state-
  674
  ment which was contained in the "Times" Trade Summary for the year, in which the following occurs:
  "Nevertheless it has been suggested in authoritative quarters that the output of strong spirit might be increased by passing the product or the pot-still distilleries through the Coffey patent still."
  I understand that the suggestion is a possible one; and also I would refer to the suggestion in the same statement that other sources of supply for manufacture of explosives are the stocks of maturing whisky in bonded warehouses. May we ask the Government to consider whether these stocks are not to be made available, and, if so, to what extent they will be made available without going on distilling any more liquor at the present moment for munition purposes so long as there is a sufficient supply available in this country. I do not think it is asking too much of the Government to adopt heroic remedies at a time like this. May I remind the House that there is a precedent for the action proposed, namely, that there should be complete prohibition of the manufacture of liquor during the War. That precedent was set during the time of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1795 there was an Act of Parliament passed, 35 Geo. III. Cap. 119, prohibiting
  "the malting of low wines or spirits from wheat, barley, malt, or any other kind of grain or from any meal, flour, or bran,"
  under a penalty of £500 sterling. And that was found to be so successful that in the following year another Act was passed of which I would like to read the preamble to the House:
  "Whereas the Act hereinafter mentioned has by experience been found useful and beneficial and is near expiry,"
  and so forth, and it was continued again for another period, and in that second Act sugar and potatoes were added to the other lists. We have therefore got a precedent which was adopted at a time of war but not nearly at so great a time of crisis as at the present. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman that surely if there is anything that is going to convince the nation of the determination of the Government to see this thing through it is drastic action. I think the most popular thing that any Government could do to-day is to make the nation feel that they are asked to sacrifice. What are the words in the Speech from the Throne? I should like to quote them, because reference was made there to the sacrifices

  675
  which are being asked of the country, and in the Gracious Speech from the Throne we were told that
  "The accomplishment of the task to which I have set My hand will entail unsparing demands on the energies and resources of all My subjects. I am assured, however, that My people will respond to every call necessary for the success of our cause."
  That appeal was not made without the personal example of His Majesty, and I think I am entitled at least to suggest to the House that in a matter of this importance, where the Prime Minister himself was the vehicle of communication to the King of the facts which determined him to take personal action, we in this House of Commons and the Government which is in power to-day ought to follow that example and do everything in our power to secure that there is complete prohibition throughout the country. The nation is ready to respond to any appeal made to it I am certain that in Scotland the feeling is strongly in favour of prohibition, and that they are ready for any sacrifice. That is proved when you remember the fact that all the large municipalities in Scotland have passed resolutions on this subject. We had one the other day from the largest municipalities— Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and a number of others—all in favour of the prohibition of spirits; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not time to give effect to these views which are being expressed throughout the whole country. Is it not time to give effect to the opinion which is held in so many quarters throughout this land, and in this House, too, I believe? If this matter were put to a straight vote I believe you would find that there was an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of immediate action. And may I remind the Government that until something further is done to conserve our food supplies there will be a feeling of anxiety and unrest throughout the country that we have not done all in our power to meet the submarine menace? It is not for us to exaggerate that menace. Certainly my Friend the right hon. Gentleman who spoke, and others who are pressing this course on the Government, do not desire to raise any panic, but we do desire that where all are called upon to make sacrifices there should be no exception made in any one or more particular trades, that all
  676
  should bear their burden, the burden of necessity which arises, and that the public interest should come first. And we would appeal to the Prime Minister that he himself should fulfil the pledges which he has given, now that he is in a position to do so, and that his Government should take the action which he was the first himself to suggest.
  Mr. SHERWELL: My right hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) has addressed this House on innumerable occasions in recent years on this most difficult and complicated question, but I think I may say, as one who has listened to most of his utterances, that he has never previously addressed a House so entirely sympathetic with the spirit and the object of my right hon. Friend. I wish to say at once that in my view no case more logically irresistible has been presented to this House than the case presented by my right hon. Friend. Unhappily, neither executive nor legislative action is, or ever can be, based upon strict logic. If it were otherwise, the whole problem of practical statesmanship would be enormously simplified. What is the real difference between logic and practical statesmanship? Logic would have action and damn the consequences. Practical statesmanship can only act after it has weighed and measured those consequences. Legislative action, especially on this particular problem, must always be based, if it is to be safe, upon a plain and frank recognition of facts. Now, I confess that I find myself in full sympathy with the purpose which my right hon. Friend has in view. When my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade made his notable speech on food supplies last autumn I felt constrained, logically and theoretically, to support my right hon. Friend in the Motion for the prohibition of manufacture, though not of sale, not because I thought it practicable, but because, having listened to my right hon. Friend's speech, I was bound logically to carry it to its consequences, as I thought, on the Order Paper.
  The only point with which I am concerned in the consideration of this question to-day is this: Is total and absolute prohibition of all forms of alcoholic liquor during the period of War and during the period of demobilisation practicable? It

  677
  is obviously an extremely drastic proposal. It covers not merely the period of the War, but the period of demobilisation.
  5.0 p.m.
  No one can say how long the War will continue, but greater than the importance of the period of the War is the period to be occupied by the process of demobilisation. That process of demobilisation, according to present lines and apparently according to physical necessities, must cover a period—a minimum period—of at least three years. The question I want to put to my right hon. Friend and to the House is this: Is the House satisfied, and is the Government satisfied, that general public opinion in this country—not the opinion of those who have signed prohibition memorials, not the opinion of members of so-called Black Squads, but the opinion of those great bodies of working men in the country who are carrying on its industries in the hour of greatest danger and need—are those great bodies of average working-class opinion, the millions of people who habitually, but moderately, consume alcoholic beverages, prepared to support the Government, and to accept, as a necessary war measure, total and absolute prohibition for a period of four, or it may be five years? I feel bound to say that the prohibition movement, and notably the movement for prohibition during the War, is predominately a middle-class movement. It is not the less patriotic on that ground, but it is undoubtedly less representative, and less authoritative. Take the argument for efficiency. We all of us recognise, as my right hon. Friend has indicated, the urgent need there is to develop the efficiency of the nation to its highest possible point at a critical time like this. It is possible to argue, taking the matter from the point of view of efficiency, that a habit which permits excess in some is illegitimate for all. But would that be a safe argument upon which to base executive or legislative action? Take the argument upon which my right hon. Friend laid the greatest stress—the danger arising from the shortage of the food supply. It is of course always possible to argue—and he has most admirably argued this afternoon—that the use of grain in the manufacture of beer is a waste of nutritive values.
  I would remind the House that the view of the Committee of the Royal Society, and the view which the average Member
  678
  of this House, including myself, is apt to take, overlooks one important, practical fact—that the millions of people who do habitually, but, as I maintain, moderately, consume alcohol take it under the firm conviction that it is a necessary and palatable food; and you will never induce the bulk of the nation, or the average working man, to assume that there is a radical distinction between beer as an article of food and the food supplies in the name of which prohibition is called for at the present time. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he really believes that it is possible to persuade the great bodies of industrial workers in this country that absolute prohibition is a necessary and essential war measure? I want to ask for what has so far been absent—a considered declaration of the advice and the view of the recognised and responsible leaders of organised working-class opinion in this country. My right hon. Friend seemed inclined to impute to the late and to the present Government some species of moral obliquity because they had been so slow in tackling this question. I have never had the least doubt, in my own mind, that both the late Government and the present Government have been careful to inform themselves of working-class opinion in regard to drastic restrictive measures. But I was struck by the fact that my right hon. Friend totally ignored the very real practical difficulties that stand in the way of his proposal. What about the case of the supplies to our Armies and to the Navy? Will the Government propose deliberately to cut off those supplies? Logically they must, if they endorse the plea of my right hon. Friend. The proposal of my right hon. Friend is a proposal for absolute prohibition, in which there is no room whatever for so large an amount of alcohol as that which is represented by the supplies taken by the Government for the Army and the Navy. I think my right hon. Friend and some of his followers are apt to overlook the quantities supplied to the Army and to the Navy, and the proportion which they bear to the total reduced consumption of alcohol during the last year or so.
  My right hon. Friend referred, and very properly, to the enormous monetary expenditure upon alcoholic drink during the last few years. I wish he had gone a little further. I wish, instead of merely stating the figures, he had really dealt with the root of the problem represented by those figures. What is the root difficulty which

  679
  lies at the bottom of this drink business? The root difficulty which has precipitated this problem in an urgent and imperative way upon the notice of this House is also the one which has lain at the bottom of our difficulties for very many years. I think it is extraordinarily important to emphasise this view on the occasion of a Debate like this. In my opinion the real difficulty which has confronted this Parliament, not merely to-day, but for four centuries, lies in the fact that we have never had licensing arrangements which were instantly and immediately responsive to growth in public opinion, or were adaptable to the changed circumstances of national emergency. We have for the last 400 years based our entire licensing system on what I venture to suggest is an utterly irrational and utterly illogical principle. The principle is this: That, desiring to control the consumption of alcohol, desiring to restrict the sale of alcohol, we have, nevertheless, by some hundreds of Statutes, placed the conduct and the control of that trade in the hands of men who are quite legitimately motived in its conduct by the ordinary commercial inducements of profit. We have had thus demonstrated and underlined the irrational principle which lies at the bottom of our licensing system—we have had it emphasised again and again in the struggle for licensing legislation, particularly during the last 100 years. It is a paradox, and it must be faced frankly by this House. Take the most recent experience of the Board of Control. In my view that Board, within the necessary limitation of its power, has done on the whole most admirable work. It has made some mistakes; it made one which I regard as an appalling mistake. I believe the Board of Control did infinite mischief when they issued a regulation prohibiting the off-sale of spirits below a minimum quantity of a reputed quart. The House knows well the motive that inspired that particular regulation. It was a desire to bring the economic check of price to play upon the purchase of liquor, but while that economic check might have operated powerfully under normal conditions, and in a normal time, its force was altogether lost under the abnormal conditions of the Unusually high wages which have prevailed ever since the War began.
  Why do we so constantly hear the charge and accusation brought against the Board of Control that, while we have tried
  680
  their regulations, they still leave us with the problem. Why is it said that in certain areas in Scotland, for example, as well as certain industrial areas in England, there have been evasions of the regulations? The explanation lies in the radical defect of the principle of our whole licensing system. So long as you have a man in control of the sale of liquor who stands to gain by every quart or bottle he sells, so long will the whole of these commercial inducements enter in legitimately and almost unconsciously, but nevertheless inevitably enter in, and operate against the intention of your restrictions and Regulations. If when the Board came into existence and began its work the sale had no longer been in the hands of sellers who had a pecuniary inducement in the amount of their sales, there would have been no à priori obstacle or objection to a loyal obedience to the regulations which the Board of Control enacted. There is a further difficulty, and one which this House will have to face in the consideration of this particular problem. It is this: that by the ambiguities and by the processes of our administration of the licensing law for a very long period, we have quite unintentionally allowed to come into existence, and to develop great strength, vested interests which have fettered and limited the freedom of action of Parliament and of the entire nation. As a matter of fact, to-day, as all through the last four centuries this country has been fettered so far as effective control of the liquor trade is concerned. You cannot enact in this House a single restriction or reform which is not handicapped from the moment of its birth by its conflict with the vested interests that have been allowed to grow up. I always have maintained in this House and out of it that the only fair and only successful way of dealing with these vested interests was to purchase them outright. That is not a new doctrine. I have maintained it on the floor of this House for the last eleven years and on platforms outside. Those vested interests were, in 1904, by the authority of this House, transformed into a virtual freehold.
  HON. MEMBERS: Not at all!
  Mr. SHERWELL: My right hon. and hon. Friends say not at all; but in practice that is the fact, and now the grounds upon which you may refuse a licence are strictly limited to misconduct. If you suppress a house because it is superfluous—and it was

  681
  only originally licensed because it was supposed to be needed—if you suppress it because it is no longer needed, and-is regarded as superfluous, you have to get rid of it by paying the market value of the licence. What is that but a virtual freehold? This House will have to deal with that question as best they can when it approaches the consideration of the main question. I noticed with some surprise that my right hon. Friend made no allusion whatsoever to the question of compensation.
  Mr. L. JONES: Why should I?
  Mr. SHERWELL: He asks me "Why should he?" I will tell him—because I regard him still as a practical politician. Does he and does this House imagine that you may by Executive action or, if you will, by legislation here, absolutely and totally prohibit the sale of intoxicating beverages for four or five years from now without the consideration of any claim for compensation on the part of the trade?
  Mr. JONES: Will my hon. Friend tell me how it is possible?
  Mr. SHERWELL: That is a matter on which my right hon. Friend should address a question to the Government.
  Mr. JONES: I have left it to the Government.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I have always assumed, and I am still of the opinion, that the interests of all concerned in regard to the whole of the trade will be equitably dealt with when a settlement takes place at the end of the War. It is quite inconceivable that the Government should suppress substantially a trade in the national interest without having regard to the claim of that trade for some form of compensation. The Government, I admit, have the right to call upon the nation for all kinds of sacrifices. But the Government have no right to saddle upon a particular class or upon individuals a disproportionate sacrifice.
  An HON. MEMBER: They are doing that now.
  Mr. SHERWELL: That is a question that those hon. Members should refer to the Government. I am only advancing my argument on this particular point. I believe the House and the Government would be deceiving themselves if they imagined they could entertain the proposal of my right
  682
  hon. Friend without at the same time considering the question of compensation. It is not justice to call upon a particular trade or class to bear a disproportionate amount of sacrifice. It is injustice, and certainly it is not public policy. However, I have been diverted somewhat by the interruption of my hon. Friend. I want to submit that before we can make any effectual headway against this particular evil this Parliament and this nation must recover entire freedom of action. I had hoped, and I still hope, that we might have arrived at a settlement of this interminable question during the currency of the War. National interests, and, above all political interests, require that this House should at the first opportunity settle once for all this licensing and liquor question. As everybody knows, this question more than any other political question has embarrassed successive Governments, whatever their complexion, for the last fifty years. It is sometimes said that the Unionist party derives some of its electoral strength from the support given to it by the liquor trade. Those who use that argument appear to forget that that is only a recent development, and that at no very distant date it was our own party, the Liberal party, that received the support of the organised liquor trade.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: When?
  Mr. SHERWELL: In the 'sixties, of course, and up to the eighties.
  HON. MEMBERS: That is not going far back!
  Mr. SHERWELL: I thought I had said that at no very distant date the Liberal party received consistently, year by year, the support of the brewing trade. The names of great breweries to-day are inseparably associated with the traditions and history of Liberalism in this House and outside. But it does not matter what party. I only want to suggest this: that it is not in the interests of public policy—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree with me here—or in the interests of any political party, that licensing legislation should be made a game of shuttlecock between contending political parties or sections of the House. My other comment in reference to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend is this: it does not give us a settlement of this eternal question. It is a temporary expedient. It postpones the settlement. What does that mean?

  683
  It means that after the War, and after the period of demobilisation, when the whole thought and energy of this Parliament and of the nation should be preoccupied with the burning and vital questions of national reconstruction, we shall be plunged back into the old controversies, the bitter partisanship and sectarianism, whenever any Government, be that Government what it may, attempts legislatively to deal with this complicated and difficult problem. The War and its lessons have brought to us undreamt-of possibilities in the way of reaching agreement upon many vexed controversial questions concerning which agreement seemed impossible but two and a half years ago. Why should not this House, in the interests of good government, in the interests of good citizenship, above all, in the interests of those far-reaching problems of national reconstruction which must be dealt with if the nation is to live, leave ourselves free for a whole-hearted and united discussion and consideration of these great problems by taking advantage of the feeling of unity kindled by this War, the feeling of agreement which now obtains, and use that feeling of unity, of fellowship, and of good spirit, to settle once for all this long, this difficult, this dangerous question?
  Sir G. CAVE: I want at the beginning to say a few words about the standpoint from which the Government approaches this question. That standpoint is not quite the same as that which has been taken in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division and I are old opponents on the question of drink. We have often broken a lance on the floor of the House on the questions which used to arise in this matter, and it is with some regret that I noticed the old tone of controversy at the beginning of his speech today. On the general question he appeared to think that it would have been better if, since the beginning of the War, all intoxicating liquor had been thrown into the sea. He may be right or he may be wrong in that view, but I venture to say that this is not the time to urge upon the House general considerations of that kind. You cannot at this moment, in the middle of a great war, even attempt to
  684
  settle these old temperance controversies. There are arguments to be advanced on both sides of the question. We should not have the right, even if we had the will, to attack this question as he suggests and engage the House in a long controversy upon it. The case presented in the way he has presented it not only does no good; it does great harm. The right hon. Gentleman thinks, and no doubt thinks sincerely, that what he suggests is necessary in order to carry on the War successfully. He would ask our soldiers at the front, our soldiers in training in home, our munition workers, our working men and others right throughout the country to do-without drink altogether. He may be right or he may be wrong, but if he wants to do that, he ought, I think, to put his case upon the ground of sacrifice.
  Sir S. COLLINS: The Prime Minister asked for "an altar of sacrifice."
  Sir G. CAVE: Tell the people the true aspect of the case—that they are asked to give up something which they think is good, for I believe the great bulk, the enormous mass of our people, are absolutely moderate in their demands. You ask the working people to give up what they, rightly or wrongly, think is a good and a desirable thing. It does no good for the right hon. Gentleman to come for ward and to say that those who use drink moderately are the worse for it; that the soldier who is shivering in the trenches had better have a glass of water——
  Sir S. COLLINS: He does not tell them that.
  Sir G. CAVE: That is the effect of his observations.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
  Mr. O'GRADY: They cannot get drink in the trenches.
  Sir G. CAVE: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was controversial. He suggested that the people would be-better without drink than at present.
  Mr. L. JONES: I really have not made an appeal to the workers of this country, or to the people of this country, because I recognise the force of what the Home Secretary says, that that appeal, coming from me, would be attributed solely to my temperance views. I make my appeal to-the Government in possession of the facts put before them by the Committee of the

  685
  Royal Society; in possession of the need for money which the Government knows to exist. It is to the Government that I appeal, to take the action which they think right.
  Sir G. CAVE: That is the point I am coining to. I am dealing now with the more contentious part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. If he wishes the people to sacrifice in this matter, let him say so quite plainly. But now let me say that if and so far as it is necessary to restrict the output of intoxicating liquor, in order to maintain the food supplies of the country, the Government are prepared to take every step necessary to be taken. There has never been the slightest doubt upon that point. We are calling upon our population for sacrifices in every direction. The Food Controller asks them, so far as necessary, to restrict the consumption of food. If we find it necessary or desirable, in order to promote the effective carrying on of the War, to ask the people to go to further lengths in the direction of sacrifice, I am quite sure we should not hesitate for a moment, and T am sure, also, there need be no doubt as to the response. The country has never failed to respond to any request made in the spirit which I have indicated. We must, however, deal with the facts of the case. We are not entitled to go beyond the needs of the country. We must rely upon our experts, and upon those who advise us, and the question has been, and is, how far is it necessary, for the purpose of conserving our food supplies, to restrict the output of in-toxicting liquor, and to call upon our people to support us in that action? In that connection we have not confined ourselves to obtaining advice, but we have taken a definite step. In answer to my hon. Friend I say distinctly that the announcement that was made, namely, that we proposed to reduce by legislation the output of beer by 40 per cent, on the 1915 figure or 30 per cent, on the output for this year, was made with the full approval of the Food Controller, and on a statement definitely made by him that he considered the reduction sufficient on the facts which he then had before him. At all events we are taking a definite and specific step which imposes considerable loss upon those engaged in the trade, and a certain amount of sacrifice upon the consumers of drink Let me answer another question which has been put to me. The
  686
  Food Controller added that as he was proposing to reduce the output of beer by that proportion, the release of spirits from bond should be restricted in a corresponding proportion. It would not be right for us, having restricted the output of beer, to leave the output of spirits entirely unfettered, because the only effect would be that a man compelled to forego one form of intoxicating liquor would very likely take the other form, and then we should only be reducing the consumption of beer in order to increase the sale of spirits. With regard to spirits, practically speaking, I do not say absolutely, the figures show that the manufacture of potable spirits has ceased in this country. I know there are some small exceptions, but not many, and they are not really of great importance.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is that true in regard to pot stills as well as patent stills?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, there are some pot stills. There are certain exceptions which may be applicable, but they are not very substantial, or really very important, and it is not too much to say that practically the manufacture of potable spirits has ceased. There is a large stock of spirits in this country, sufficient some people say to last for three years, and the hon. Member says sufficient to last for five years. And I am asked, Why cannot those spirits be used in the manufacture of munitions? The answer is quite simple. To-day it would not pay to use them for that purpose; it would not be an economic operation. The cost of the material itself and of the processes required would amount to more than the value of the product, and, that being so, while I have not the least doubt that if the time comes when that operation would be useful for fighting purposes, it would be resorted to; to-day it is not worth while to do it. One more word about the proposal outlined in the announcement made by the Food Controller the other day. My right hon. Friend made great play with the fact that according to the announcement the reduction of output to be proposed is only 40 per cent, on the 1915 figure, and said that the limitation to 40 per cent, had no justification at all and that the reduction ought to be 100 per cent. There were submarines a year ago, and surely a year ago the food question was a matter of great importance. But a year ago the late Government proposed a reduction of 15 per cent, only, and I would like to point out that at

  687
  that time my right hon. Friend opposite did not say a word upon the nature of the proposal which was made—in fact, as far as I can understand, he was entirely silent about it. Then he says, "If you are going to reduce, why not begin at once? Why wait until the 1st of April?" The answer is quite clear. If a Parliamentary bargain was made last year with the trade that the reduction should be 15 per cent. only for the year, we must observe that bargain.
  Mr. L. JONES: Even though the people starve?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, not if the people starve. Steps have been taken to protect the use of brewing materials, and, as was stated to-day in answer to a question, the malting process is finished and no more materials will be used before the 1st April.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Was there not a Parliamentary bargain about the widow's son?
  Sir G. CAVE: The observation which I make is a sufficient answer, namely, that the delay to the 1st of April does not affect food materials. But I want to say quite clearly that we do not bind ourselves to that reduction of 40 per cent, on the 1915 figures or 30 per cent, on this year. The House knows that since the announcement was made the attack by-submarines upon our vessels and upon the vessels of our Allies and neutrals has considerably developed. We know quite well that this attack, like the others, will be met and defeated, but at the same time it is absolutely essential that precautions should be taken in order that by no means shall the food supply of this country be diminished beyond a safe margin. Consequently, we propose to ask the House to give us power to increase the amount of that reduction from time to time and for such a period as may be necessary. If it appears necessary that a further reduction should be made, I have not the least doubt we shall have from the Food Controller a statement of the fact, and we shall not hesitate to take any steps necessary in that direction. For the moment we have adopted the figures given to us, and those are what we have put before the country; but the Bill, to give effect to the proposal, will contain power to vary the figures if the necessity arises. I do not think I need go into the questions of detail which have
  688
  been argued by my two hon. Friends opposite. I know that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has always held the view that the right way of putting an end to these long controversies is State purchase. I do not want to shut out anything. It may turn out, as time goes by, that the restriction of the output of intoxicating liquors is not an adequate remedy, but that in the interests of national safety something more is required; or it may turn out that the steps now to be taken impose such great losses on the trade that some other course must be found. Circumstances may change and events may occur which we cannot foresee to-day. If that happens I do not shut out any fair remedy which may be proposed. I do not shut out State control, nor even State purchase. The Government may have to consider these things even in the course of the present War; but, if so, before steps of that kind are taken, they will be fully considered and framed so as to do injustice to no one. But those are matters for the future. Our position to-day is that we shall ask the House to restrict the output of beer to the amount which has been defined, and to give us power, in the interests of the country, to impose any further restrictions which may be required for the conservation of our food supplies. And I can assure the House that, so far as our powers go, we shall omit no steps which we may consider necessary in order to ensure the safety of the country.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The House has heard with satisfaction the statement made by the Home Secretary that whatever steps the Food Controller thinks necessary for the conservation of our food supplies will be taken by the Government, and that we may anticipate that in any new proposals made in the future with regard to the use of materials for the manufacture of beer or spirits, the decision of the Food Controller will, in the estimation of the Government, be final. If that is the decision of the Government, I need hardly say that I hear it with profound satisfaction.
  Sir G. CAVE: I did not say that. I do not think any Government would say that the decision of one of its members would be final. What I said was, that the matters relating to food control would receive paramount consideration.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not water down the statement he has made this afternoon, because I am sure it must have given satisfaction to the House in viewing this problem from the point of view of our food supply, rather than from those moral considerations which have carried so much weight in our discussions on temperance reform, and the sale and consumption of liquor. The tone adopted by the Home Secretary is preferable to that which has been adopted by the President of the Board of Agriculture, because he has been justifying the continuance of the manufacture of beer on the ground that it enables us to keep up our supply of milk. I have reread the Report of the Royal Society on Milk Production, and I find there no justification for the statement made by the President of the Board of Agriculture, and therefore I hope that in these matters it will not be the right hon. Gentleman who will carry weight with the War Committee when it comes to a decision on this matter, but the Food Controller, whose problems give us and them the greatest anxiety. The Government will be guided, I presume, not only by the views of the Food Controller, but also by the distinguished advisers he has at hand.
  Amongst these, some of the most distinguished are members of the Royal Society who, on my invitation last year, devoted themselves to this and kindred subjects, purely from the point of view of the scientist. They were scientific physiologists, scientific statisticians, the whole composing a list of names which no one can call into question either in this House or outside it. Their views are unanimously stated in a Report which has recently been submitted to Parliament, and there can be no doubt about it that the hands of the Government are strengthened by the publication of that Report which has already had a profound effect on public opinion outside.
  The decision of the Government and the House in this matter will undoubtedly be affected by its bearing upon the production of food. I must confess that, for my part, I am glad to think that any discussion of this subject will now not be associated in this Assembly, or in any other responsible assemblies, on the ground of the increase of drunkenness amongst the working people. I took a good deal of trouble a year or a year and a half ago to ascertain how far there had been an increase of drunkenness, especially in
  690
  those trades which were most vital to our national existence. As I stated in public then, I repeat now, that I found there had not been an increase, but, on the contrary, there had been a decrease. It is important that these things should be stated publicly by those in responsible positions, for undoubtedly a great deel of prejudice was raised against any diminution in the manufacture and the distribution of liquor, by exaggerated statements about the increasing drunkenness of the working classes. There were great bodies of the working classes who know it was not true and who resented the statement. Those statements will not be made in this House, and I am perfectly certain they would never be made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) who made a speech which does him the greatest credit, not only because of the weight and the closeness of his argument, but because of the fact that he put on one side what everybody knows are his strong temperance feelings, and aruged his case purely on the ground of conserving our national food supply. If the incidental effect of any restrictions on the manufacture and output of beer and sprits is that there is less available for those who drink too much, we shall all be delighed that we can in that way add to he national efficiency. I have no doubt in my own mind—and I gather that in this view one has the support of the fellows of the Royal Society, who look at this question purely from the point of view of science—that the effect which the consumption of alcohol has on those who are engaged in industries is deleterious rather than beneficial. How far a man is entitled, for the sake of the joy he gets out of it, to take what is deleterious, is quite another matter. I do not think we need argue than this afternoon. The fact remains that, joy or misery, the total sum of national efficiency will be increased and no diminished if we cut down the output of beer and spirits.
  Those of us who were members of the late Government have some experience in dealing with this topic. Some good, undoubtedly, has been done by the Liquor Control Board. In some parts of the country it has been most beneficial. What is very remarkable is that in those district* where the Liquor Control Board has exercised the largest amount of control, there are great masses of the people most directly affected, the artisan class, who declare that they do not wish to go back

  691
  to the old state of things. Again and again that has come to our knowledge, and it has come from quarters which were entirely unexpected—from men who were not teetotallers, and who rather dislike the demeanour of teetotallers, but who do not wish to have in their own streets and in their own quarters the same sort of squalor which used to be found there three or four years ago, and who do not wish to have the hubbub and rows going on in their alleys and courts after midnight in London, or after eleven o'clock in the provinces, as went on before. Those people will not willingly go back to the old state of things. In considering our reconstruction problems we shall be well advised to get to know from those quarters what are the views of he people who live there, before we to dispense with some of the benefitsthat have accrued from the operations of the Liquor Control Board. The Prime Minister and I had some conferences abut the manufacture of beer and spirits, and meetings were held with the trade. I was present at a conference which took place between the Prime Minister and the distillers. The brewers we had dealt with at the Board of Trade. The Prime Minister found that it was possible to use the patent stills for the production of some of the essential elements of explosives. From our point of view at the bard of Trade I wanted to have as little c the imported maize and barley which came into this country and was used for rinking purposes, which did not appear to be primarily essential, used in that way. I knew that a considerable amount of these imported cereals, maize in particular, must be used for explosive purposes, and I thought that if we could transfer the work of these patent stills to the work of making essential elements of explosives, rather than allow them to be used for the making of liquor, of which we had a large stock in bond, it would be clearly a national gain from every point of view. As the result of those negotiations, practically the whole of the patent stills have been out of action in regard to the making of drinkable spirits. Pot stills are in a different position. I was pleased to hear from the Home Secretary that the amount of alcohol in the pot stills is very small at the present time. May I suggest that the Government should take their courage in both hands and go further than we did.
  692
  They want to improve on everything we did. Then let them improve in this direction and dispose of the rest of the pot stills.
  Then we came to deal with the restriction of the output of beer. Hon. Members who were present during the discussion will remember that my hon. Friend, who is now Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Pretyman), piloted a Bill through the House, and he had the most extraordinary difficulties to face. I am sure the House will forgive me if I say that in the matter, of alcoholic drinks we have not got a clean record here. The Leader of the House has told us that an early opportunity will be given for a discussion on the consumption of alcohol within our own premises, under rules which do not apply to any other part of London. The same difficulty which arose over the extension of the Liquor Control Boards rules to the House of Commons produced a feeling in the House over the restriction of the output of beer which the present Civil Lord of the Admiralty found almost insurmountable. He had to carry on negotiations for weeks with those interested in the trade. It was impossible to take up the time of the House of Commons with discussion, week after week, of the details of this measure. Time was required for other Parliamentary purposes, and my hon. Friend did his best outside. Greatly to his credit, he was able at the end to come to complete agreement with the trade and with the Army authorities, both at home and abroad, and to make a start, at all events, in the reduction of the output of beer. He secured a reduction which gave us, I think, a diminution of 33⅓ per cent. of the imports of brewing materials and of 15 per cent. of the output of beer. If, acting on the advice of the Food Controller, the Government is prepared to go-further, as they appear to be, I believe they will find an entirely different atmosphere in the House of Commons.
  The position of the food supply is not what it was last year. Last year we had larger margins to work upon. It was possible for us to get through our cereal year without cutting off rations. We were able to foresee our supplies of wheat, and, but for insufficient harvests, and but for the great diminution of the available amount of tonnage, both British and neutral, we can lay our hands upon for the carriage of cereals to this country, we should probably have been in the same position this year. But all the world knows

  693
  that there is not the same amount of tonnage available. The pressure is becoming greater. I do not think we can give the Germans all the credit for the whole of that. It certainly ought not all of it to be put down to the effect of the German submarine campaign. The submarine losses are great from week to week and from day to day, and the cumulative amount of destroyed tonnage is great But what has to be considered also are the necessities of the Allies in various parts or the world and the enormous amount of shipping that has had to be taken up for purely Government purposes, which is far greater than it ever was before, and which is leaving a comparatively small percentage of our total mercantile marine free for our civil needs. I believe Lord Curzon, in the House of Lords, said that only about 25 per cent. of our total mercantile marine was now free for civil needs. He did not define what was actually meant by civil needs, but if the figures included the carriage of foodstuffs it is a far lower figure than we had to deal with last year at this time. I am relating these facts in order that I might bring out this fact, that our needs now, owing to one cause or another, are far greater than they were then; that our available supplies of food in this country, owing to other causes, are less than they were then; that the amount which we are likely to be able to bring into this country is much less than it was then, and, above all, the failure of the harvest in the United States of America and the diminution of the harvest in Canada has had a great deal to do with driving us into the more distant routes, thereby reducing the efficiency of our tonnage.
  6.0 P.M.
  All the circumstances accumulated together make this question of food supply much more urgent and imminent than it was before. If, then, there is justification for the Food Controller saying that he must have set free for the primary foods of this country the large amount of tonnage which has been absorbed in the carriage of materials for the production of drink, the Government may have to face a process of rationing—something much more severe than the voluntary rationing which has been the subject of an appeal from the Food Controller and which is interpreted by various people in their own way and by some people totally ignored. If it has to come to that I would suggest to the Government that in the industrial districts, where the first duty of the people is to
  694
  provide for their own families, and especially for the young of their own families, they will find that the feeling of those people will be strained to the uttermost, and they will be unable to justify any form of rationing, particularly of cereals or flour, unless they have done their utmost in the rationing of cereals for the production of drink. Whatever may be our opinions as to liking or disliking alcoholic liquors, I am sure that the people of this country are far more sensitive on the subject of food than they are on the subject of drink. Those who like drink best can get on perfectly well without alcohol. Body and soul can be kept together without it, but I am afraid we cannot apply that statement to flour and wheat. Unless you have flour and wheat, or an efficient substitute—and the only substitutes are potatoes or cereals—it is impossible for the efficiency of our people to be maintained. On every ground— on the ground of public opinion not standing any rationing of food, so long as our manufacture of drink is maintained at anything like its present level; on the ground of the necessity for maintaining at the fullest our food supplies, not only for our security but in order that our working classes may be maintained in their maximum of efficiency; on every ground economy points in one direction, and that is in the direction of a reduction in the amount of cereals used in the manufacture of drink. As the need becomes greater, necessity will point in the direction of the total suspension of the manufacture of drink during the present War. I forgot whether my right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) urged the total prohibition of the sale of drink. Personally I do not believe-that any particular harm would be done if the sale of drink were totally prohibited; on the contrary, much good would be done. But whether public opinion would stand that or not I am quite unable to say. What I do say is that the total prohibition of the manufacture of drink is a different matter. It is the easiest way to approach this question and it provides the most direct remedy for the very evils we are trying to avoid. How long is this total prohibition of the manufacture of drink to proceed. Everybody knows that the greatest strain, military, food and mercantile marine, is going to fall on the people of this country throughout the present year up to the conclusion of the War, whenever that may come-

  695
  The end of the War cannot be indefinitely deferred, but the period during which the total prohibition of the manufacture of alcoholic liquors nave to be imposed would not be an indefinite period. It would be, comparatively, in the history of industries, a short period, and during that time everybody knows that our stocks are quite ample for the moderate consuming needs of the population. It would mean an enormous reduction in the consumption of beer, and that would mean a considerable revolution in the habits of immense bodies of our population. If the sacrifice is put to them on the grounds stated by the Home Secretary that they must have less drink in order that they and their families must have more food, I have no doubt as to what the answer will be. I had no intention of intervening in this Debate, and would not have done so had it not been for the absence of the late Prime Minister, who, I regret to say, has been detained in his house owing to a chill. He would have taken part in this Debate had he been present. I am sure I am voicing not only his view and those of my colleagues, but of the great body of opinion outside, when I support most cordially the steps taken by the Home Secretary, and urge on him and his colleagues not to be lacking in carrying out the recommendations of the Food Controller to the utmost.
  Sir JOHN M'CALLUM: Our discussion this afternoon has been most satisfactory from the Government point of view, as well as from that of those who introduced the subject. I congratulate my right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones), who opened the Debate in a speech which was not only informative, but whose arguments prove the case in such a way that we all feel proud to be associated with him in raising this subject. I would like simply to refer to the position of Scotland in regard to this question. We know full well, according to experience, that the real remedy for drunkenness, and likewise for the many points that have been submitted this afternoon is in going the whole length in the form of prohibition. It would tend, I think, to a certain extent, to improve the health of the people. It would certainly reduce our death-rate, and we may say it would shorten the War. Restriction so far has been beneficial in Scotland, and where the restricted areas have adopted prohibition the result has been that drunkenness
  696
  has been reduced through the influence of the Central Control Board by seven-eighths, against the other improvements that have been made to the extent of from 25 to 35 per cent. On this subject we are in this position in Scotland, that we are seething with discontent in connection with the question. I have not the slightest doubt in saying that a large proportion, a very large majority in Scotland, are in favour of total prohibition. I have never seen the country so earnest and so sincere and so determined as they are in connection with this question. All ranks and classes have taken part in demanding drastic remedies in the way of prohibition. Our leading men connected with the universities and with the churches, employers of labour, and moderate drinkers who were formerly not in favour of prohibition, are now coming forward demanding it in public meetings, and the populations of every city in Scotland have demanded that we should have prohibition. I think it right therefore that in discussing this question we should understand that whether England is ripe for this or not, we in Scotland are quite ripe for the most advanced view, believing that by going in that direction certain things will be accomplished. We insist upon it because no Government has a right to subordinate the interest of the State to the selfish interests of a class or trade. It is as much the duty of the Government to safeguard the interests of those at home as well as of those on the field of battle. If the War conditions are putting up the price of food and stopping food supplies, and if the cost of living has advanced by 65 per cent, and in some instances 85 per cent., and if the value of the pound has been reduced in its purchasing power to only 12s. 6d., and if the Government and the Central Control Board do not see in the face of those conditions the need for prohibition, how can we expect them to see the need for considering our food supplies and food prices? The Government and the Central Control Board could solve the problem if they cared in Scotland by a stroke of the pen.
  Let me give the House one or two figures with reference to Edinburgh. In Edinburgh the other night they had an address on the prospect of being able to maintain matters so that they would be able to save money. There seems to be quite as much overcrowding of public-houses in our industrial centres there, even in the West End, as there is in the homes of the people. A census taker stood at the door

  697
  of two large public-houses on two evenings with the following statistical results: On Monday evening, between the hours of six and seven, two public-houses had 575 customers, including 527 men (nine soldiers and one sailor) and forty-eight women. On the same evening, mark you, just next door to the public-house, was a thrift shop at 92 Dairy Road, and there were ten depositors from six to nine o'clock, and the amount deposited, apart from buying certificates outright, amounted only to £1 11s. 4d. What is the use of talking about thrift in any shape or form when those influences are at work? In one direction you have opportunities for full wastefulness, and, while you are insisting on people cultivating habits of thrift, the temptations are so enormous that it is impossible for the people to overcome them. I hope the result of this evening's discussion will be that we will rise to the high ideals of Russia. For twenty years Russia tried simply to control the trade. She has abandoned that attitude and taken up strong and determined opposition to Vodka. The result has been that her most sanguine anticipations have been realised, and she has even surpassed her visions. Ninety-eight per cent, of the peasantry there now are totally avoiding drink in any shape or form, and their former savings of from five to seven millions in the banks have now risen to one hundred and sixty-five millions during the War. The habits and the customs of the people now are of such a nature that their homes have been brightened and cheered. Russia has not only seen a vision and felt influences at work which will aid us in the future of this War, but it has progressed in character and dignity far beyond the position in which we formerly looked upon it as being years behind us in civilisation. As an Ally we welcome her, and trust that the example she has set will inspire others to follow it, and in that way to help the great cause for which we are fighting.

  WAR POLICY (POSITION OF LABOUR PARTY).
  Mr. WARDLE: I do not desire to follow the course of the Debate which has already taken place. I should like to say I have listened to it with the closest attention, and that I take the stand in regard to this matter that the greatest question of importance to the working classes of this country at the present time is the question of food and the question of food prices, and that I hope that in dealing
  698
  with this question the Government will not deal with it on the abstract lines such as we have been used to in Debates in this House before, but will deal with it on the severely practical line of its application to-the food situation in regard to this War. I quite share the views of many of my hon. Friends opposite that a diminution in the drinking in the country would be for the good of all, but I feel quite sure that any attempt to impose forcibly prohibition at this stage would lead to determined opposition in certain quarters. I venture to think that the suggestion which was thrown out, that the method adopted should be rather to deal with the question of manufacture than sale, is the right way to approach this question. I think none of us can deny that the question of the food supplies of the country is of immense-importance, and particularly at the present stage, and I trust that both in regard to quantity and in regard to price, which is exceedingly important, the Government will take every step which the circumstances demand to see that there is a sufficiency so far as our Allies are concerned.
  I rise to-day to deal with the question of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) on Monday last, and in doing so I am sorry the hon. Member is not at the present moment in his place. That speech was to me an amazing speech. During the course of that speech he used time and again the word "we." I should like to know who he meant when he used that word "we," and for whom was he speaking, and for whom does he speak in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "No one!"] Certainly he does not speak for the Labour party. At a conference which was held recently in Manchester the policy which he advocated the other day—and I must do him the justice of saying ably advocated—was argued out on a definite, distinct resolution, which was defeated by a large majority, and a Motion which was moved by my hon. Friend the-Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) declared that the conference was inflexibly resolved to fight until victory is achieved. The two positions were clearly put before the Conference. The position of the Labour party is distinct and emphatic. When the hon. Member for Leicester uses the word "we," he certainly is not speaking for the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nor for his Constituents!"] That is a matter he must settle with them himself. I ask, also, was he speaking for

  699
  the Independent Labour party, of which he is a member? I venture to say "no." He certainly was not if we are to take notice of the decision taken at conferences of the Independent Labour party. What has happened? At the annual conference of the Independent Labour party, of which the hon. Member is a member, which was held at Norwich last Easter, what did the Independent Labour party do? They passed a resolution against war of all kinds, whether for national defence or not. Not only was that their policy then, but recently, both at Newcastle and at Govan, at two conferences held within the last two or three weeks, that policy was again adopted unanimously. For whom does the hon. Member speak? I doubt whether he speaks for any members of the Labour party who sit opposite. I should doubt whether he speaks for the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), at any rate. I do not wish to raise old controversies at the present time, but it would not be difficult to show that the hon. Member for Leicester has not always spoken during this War in the sense in which he addressed the House on Monday. In speaking of the policy of the War, he used the words:
  "What is the best way to procure the real victory which we all desire?"
  If accepted standards are anything to go by, we must judge of this-desire by the efforts made to secure its realisation. Those who will the end ought to be prepared also to will the means. I am prepared to grant that, although the hon. Member and his friends have never resisted any Vote of Credit, they have often, in this House and outside, professed their admiration for Dr. Liebknecht because he took his stand in the German Reichstag and voted with one or two others against Votes of Credit. The hon. Member and his friends have never done that, but, on the other hand, they have never said that they approved of those Votes of Credit, which is quite another matter. They would take no part in recruiting, and they have never by word or deed shown their desire for a real victory in a very enthusiastic way. The hon. Member for Leicester wants definitions; he wants to know what is meant by "fighting to a finish" and by "victory."
  Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask the hon. Member if he gave the hon. Member for Leicester notice of the attack he was going to make upon him?
  Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Member never gave me notice the other day that he intended to make the speech he did, and I do not see that I am called upon to give him notice. He was in the House a few minutes ago, and he has hon. Friends here who can communicate with him, I do not see that I am called upon to give him the notice suggested by the hon. Member. I would have done so on my own account if I had seen him. I saw him in the House, but I was not able to speak to him.
  Mr. BOOTH: It is quite Parliamentary.
  Mr. WARDLE: I am quite within my right, as a Member of this House, in replying to an hon. Member who makes a speech in this House. If he desires to hear my speech, he should be here.
  Mr. BOOTH: He never gave the Prime Minister notice when he made a personal attack himself.
  Mr. WARDLE: I should prescribe for the hon. Member for Leicester his own medicine. I have gone through his speech very carefully and have tried to find out what he means by the words—
  "the real victory which we all desire,"
  but I have looked in vain. He is a master of phrases. He can coin phrases which are as absolutely meaningless as the best. I have done my best to understand what he meant by the speech he delivered, and I confess it is very difficult. If I understand its meaning, it is this: that in spite of the submarine campaign, which he rightly condemns as a relapse into barbarism, he still says that the War should be ended in such a way that the two peoples will accept what has happened, and begin, for the first time in the history of Europe, a peace by consent of the two peoples who have hitherto been at war. Is that the real victory which we all desire, and who is "we" there?
  Mr. W. THORNE: The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) is one.
  Mr. WARDLE: Certainly, it is not the victory which the people desire or which the Labour party desires. Therefore, I venture to say that in using the words
  "which we all desire"
  the hon. Member was guilty of a misleading phrase. How are we to get at the end of this War a peace by the consent of the peoples who have hitherto been at war? We hear a great deal about wide

  701
  and considered views, co-related views, moderate and calm views. We are told that that is all for which the hon. Gentleman and his friends ever asked. They have shown a curious way of asking for it. Putting all that on one side, what is the one proposal which the hon. Gentleman put forward in the phrase he used? If I have read his speech rightly, it comes to this: the hon. Gentleman does not see how the enemy is going to be dislodged, certainly in the East, except by negotiation. He does not believe that a military victory is possible. He does not believe that the military victory, even if possible, can produce anything but a patched-up peace, and his "real victory," which we are supposed to desire, is to be obtained by some undefined action of the Foreign Office which, according to his statement, is to keep defining its position, expounding its position and removing misunderstandings. Negotiations, definitions, expounding positions, will not remove the misunderstandings which have arisen in this War. A nation guilty, as Germany was in this War, of an unprovoked attack upon Belgium, a nation guilty of Zeppelin outrages and of murder on the high seas, is not going to be deflected from its purpose by explanations and by expounding positions. Was such a futile policy as that ever proposed in this House? Peace by negotiations! How is it to be obtained? Example after example was given to us to show that military victories are useless. Nearly every one of those examples is a clumsy inversion of facts. It was not the military victory of Germany over France which sowed the seed of future trouble; it was the terms Germany imposed after that military victory. Contrast that, with the results of the South African War, when military victory was followed by political sagacity and foresight, and where we have, as a consequence, Boer and British now fighting side by side in a greater fight for liberty. Surely the real test was the Napoleonic War. There military victory did result in peace for a long number of years. There the military victory over Napoleon, because it was followed by giving France the old borders she had before the Revolution, resulted in France harbouring no revenge. France did not again seek to enter into war with her neighbours. If military victory achieved that result in the Napoleonic War, why should it not be the same now? [Interrup-
  702
  tion.] Will the hon. Member allow me to make my speech. I have as much right to speak in this House as the hon. Member for Leicester, and I did not interrupt him.
  Mr. O'GRADY: They do not believe in civil liberties!
  Mr. WARDLE: I so totally differ from the views held by the hon. Member for Leicester that I take this opportunity, which I think I have a right to take, as the Chairman of the Labour Party, being elected by members of that party, to state their views. If I cannot speak so cleverly or so ably as the hon. Member for Leicester I hope the House will make allowance for that. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are doing it very well!"] The hon. Member said he wanted to see Belgium restored and reparation made, and France restored and, I suppose, reparation made. With whom are we going to negotiate to get Belgium and France restored? How can we get at the people of Germany? It is impossible. The people of all Germany are fighting with their Government against this country and the Allies. Therefore to speak of peace by negotiation is to suggest the most futile policy which we could adopt at the present time.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: No!
  Mr. WARDLE: Well, that is my opinion. In the speech referred to we had an excursion into the Balkans, where my hon. Friend desired to set up an International Commission. I have no objection myself to a proposal for an International Commission to consider the question of the Balkans after the War. But surely no International Commission is sitting, and no International Commission could deal with this problem as the matter stands at present! He also had something to say about the danger in the East to the future peace of the Continent of Europe if Constantinople goes to Russia. But what about the danger if Constantinople is allowed to remain in the hands of Germany, for it is practically in the hands of Germany now? What, if we leave this War unfinished, without a military victory, and we leave Germany in possession of Middle Europe, with a straight run from Berlin to Bagdad, and with the East in her possession? I think we shall have sown the seeds of future wars there with a vengeance, indeed—a vengeance which not only our children but our children's children will have to pay for. What is the position at present? The real danger

  703
  is not of Constantinople getting into the hands of Russia. The position at present, according to a writer in the "Deutsche Politik"—and I believe there is a good deal of truth in these words—is that the war was kindled in the East, and it seems now as if the first flicker of peace were also to come from the East. But his view was quite different from that. The War comes from the East, the War is waged for the East, and he says the War will be decided in the East. The whole tenor of this article is this: Germany is now in possession of Serbia and Roumania, and in consequence has a straight run through to Constantinople, and being Allies with Turkey and Bulgaria, she will soon, if she does not now, dominate Egypt and the route to India. To talk of peace by negotiation under these circumstances seems to me to be folly, and I think, too, an impossibility.
  The hon. Member spoke of a policy which is yet to happen. We have to win before Constantinople goes to Russia, and I would much prefer to see it Russian than to see it in German hands. I am not myself very keen about the policy of Constantinople being given to Russia, but surely it is possible, if it be in the hands of Russia, and Russia au Ally, that we can make arrangements for the internationahsation of the Dardanelles, and can make such arrangements with regard to the East as will preserve not only the British Empire, but the peace of the East for some time to come. Therefore, I am not very much disturbed at the idea of Constantinople going to Russia, but I am disturbed at the prospect of seeing the German Empire and its Allies, who are merely potential parts, dominated by the German Empire, reaching from Berlin to Bagdad. I admit that we have a long way to go, but the Labour party says that it is with the Government and with the country for a fight until victory is achieved. We want something to say about the peace terms when they come. We want, if possible, that when this War is over there shall be a chance of peace for many, many years. To me the attitude of the hon. Member is amazing. He does not vet seem to realise what Germany is, what she is doing, and what she is prepared to do. How can it be that we should look on Germany for some time to come in the same light as we regarded her before this War? So unprovoked, so savage, so barbarous has been her conduct that it
  704
  seems to me an impossibility that anyone, looking at the facts of the War as it has been actually waged by Germany, apart altogether from the way she started it, that it ought to make our blood boil, and instead of being willing to talk about the peoples coming together now we should certainly demand some chastisement and some reparation for the injury she has inflicted upon the world.
  It is for that reason largely that my Friends and myself have supported each. Government as it has come along. We did not go into this War willingly. We did not seek it. It was forced upon us, and to talk about making peace until Germany has given up the war aims with which she set out seems to me an impossible position for anyone who loves his country to take up. To me fighting to a finish and victory do not mean the same thing as they seem to mean to the hon. Member. They mean to me much more. They mean the defeat of the war aims of Germany. They mean the destruction of the vilest plot that ever disgraced humanity. They mean chastisement for crimes which will remain for ever an indelible stain on the page of history. They mean, first, a military victory, and then a reasonable and a settled peace. The hon. Member says this War will, indeed, be fought in vain unless it is the last of all wars. That is an impossible position for any man to take up. We cannot rule the future. We can fight as far as we can to make this the last war, but it does not rest with us to say that it shall be the last war. We can only take care that in the settlement, as far as possible, we shall do our part to remove the causes of future war; but if it is necessary in order to do this to talk Germany into peace, I for one refuse to accept such a statement. Germany cannot be talked into peace. The Americans have tried it long enough, and the very fact that peace-loving America, her patience strained to the uttermost, has had to come to breaking off diplomatic relations, simply proves that the hon. Member's speech had no relation at all to the facts as they now stand.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I associate myself with the speech we have just heard. Such a speech shows how entirely all sections in the country are behind the Government in their determination to carry this War to the only issue which the people of Great Britain will ever have, and that is a victorious issue. But while

  705
  we are absolutely satisfied with the way in which the War is being carried on both by land and by sea, there is an idea in many of our minds that, in regard to Germans in our midst, a little more severity might possibly be used. I wish to ask the new Home Secretary if he can give us a statement as to the policy of the new Government in regard to this question. We have had during the War three Home Secretaries who began with 70,000 aliens uninterned, and I think there are now about 35,000. Some have been sent home. But the last figures we were able to get from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) was that there were still some 22,000 uninterned, of whom, I think, 14,000 or 15,000 are in London and the immediate neighbourhood. I quite agree that a large number of these are Czechs, Poles, Armenians, and so forth, who are entirely friendly disposed to the country; but there is still a very considerable number of Germans, and I want the Home Secretary to give us a definite statement as to the probability of more determined measures by the new Government in regard to the internment of these remaining Germans. In June last it was clearly laid down by quotations from speeches of the then Prime Minister, and I think the then Home Secretary agreed, that the idea at the commencement of the War was that all enemy aliens should be interned unless there were definite reasons in individual cases to the I contrary. Then an Advisory Committee was set up to which 14,000 cases were sent and 6,092 exemptions were granted. I cannot help feeling that those exemptions were not granted in the interests of the country, and I have never had any satisfactory answer from the late Home Secretary as to whether all those exemptions were granted in the interests of individual Germans or in the interests of the country.
  After the speech we have heard, I stand here to say that the interests of the individual German, after two and a half years of war such as has been waged by his fellow-countrymen in Belgium, Serbia and France, is no longer to be considered. What they have to consider is that no German should be allowed to be uninterned or unrepatriated. I do not mind which. I would far sooner that they were sent back to their country than interned here, even though they were of military age, but no one should be allowed to re-
  706
  main uninterned unless there is a most specific and definite individual reason in the interests of the country why he should be uninterned. You can still find German life going on in London almost the same as it was two years ago. There are German restaurants with German menus and German notices on the walls still existing in the heart of London, which furnish meeting-places for Germans. I have taken the trouble to send in names to the Home Office, and one or two have been interned, but there is still a considerable number kept open. There was also a German dentist trading under an English name. I am not sure whether he has yet been interned. There can be no possible need for a German dentist to be allowed to carry on business in competition with English dentists any longer. I do not think there is the slightest shortage of dentists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there is!"] A shortage of dentists? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes."] Do hon. Gentlemen really say it is desirable to have a German uninterned in our midst carrying on a dentist's business because there is some shortage of dentists? Personally, I would sooner have the toothache for a week than go to a German dentist. I think it would be more patriotic. At all events, hon. Members will agree that there is no need for a German dressmaker. There is a German dressmaker who has been carrying on business for some time. I reported the case to the late Home Secretary. The man openly boasts that he has not been interned because he has "high customers." He is a very swell man in Bond Street, and he boasts that he has well-known customers and that nobody would think of interning him.
  Mr. W. ROCH: What is his name?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: His name is Kraft. He is quite a well-known dressmaker. He has a very high-class clientele, and there is no reason why he should not have from his own point of view; but I do blame a man who openly boasts that is the reason he is not interned. There is no reason why that man should not go. There are large numbers of them. Every Member of Parliament has had cases sent to him. Only the other day I gave notice to the Home Secretary of a case in the City of London where a furrier's business is carried on to-day with nine Germans out of thirty-two employés. Two of them who were interned have been got out again, and they have been re-employed by this,

  707
  shall I say, Anglo-German firm which poses as an English firm. They have been trying recently and persistently to get out of internment another German who has been in the German army. I am pleased to say that they have not got him out yet, but, if they succeed in doing so, you will see him employed there again. I sent my own secretary down to this place of business, and one of the partners told him, quite frankly, that they did employ Germans, and the reason he gave was that if you went to his competitors, Messrs. "So-and-so," you would find that they were employing more Germans than he was. This is after two and a half years of war! This worthy gentleman poses as an Englishman, but he speaks with such very German accent that my secretary said, "Surely, you are a German?" He replied, "Oh, no, I am not a German, though I was educated for five years in Germany." That, I think, shows that at heart the man is a German. To-day you have a man who has been educated in Germany, and who is of German extraction——
  Mr. SNOWDEN: What about Lord Milner, who was born there?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not defending Lord Milner, but Lord Milner has undoubtedly done very great services to the State and he is doing very great services to the State now. This particular person has certainly done no service to the State comparable with that of Lord Milner. These German businesses are being conducted to-day just the same as prior to the War. After two and a half years of war this firm has a form of agreement for all its people to sign, printed both in English and in German. Here it is, and anybody can see it if he wants to do so. The reason they still print it in German, they told my private secretary, was that they have so many German workpeople who do not understand English, and they sign the German part. That is not the desire of the people of Great Britain. We want this War carried on at home with the same determination as it is being carried on abroad.
  I wish to call attention to the position in the prohibited areas. Around the coast, where there are dangerous centres. The late Home Secretary appointed a Commission some few months ago, and it has now reported. They found, after two years of war, that there were 4,294 enemy
  708
  aliens living in prohibited areas. What is the good of having a prohibited area if you allow 4,200 enemy aliens to reside in it? I agree, of course, that all these men are permitted to reside there by the chief constable of the particular district, but I venture to say that the view of this House is of more importance than that of a chief constable, and if the House says, as it has said, that prohibited areas should not be utilised as living places for Germans, no police constable should allow Germans to reside in those areas, unless, as in some cases, they are in asylums, and so forth. The Commissioners found, after two years of war, there were 120 males and 333 females whose licences they induced the different chief constables to withdraw. In consequence of my right hon. Friend's Commission those 400 aliens were got rid of from the prohibited areas, and they reported sixty-six more cases for the opinion of the Secretary of State. They thought that these sixty-six cases should be considered by the Secretary of State, with a view to turning them out of the prohibited areas. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would tell us whether lie has yet had time to consider those cases and whether he has sent them out of the prohibited areas.
  I find that there are actually 287 men of military age still residing uninterned in prohibited areas. It is only fair to say that of these some sixty-four are members of religious communities. They are members of the Roman Church. I make no attack upon any particular religion, whether Lutherans or Quakers, but I say, quite frankly, that to-day we do not want—and after the War we do not want—religious communities of Germans living together in our midst. There is no particular advantage to this country in having in our midst a monastery such as that in Dorsetshire, with forty inmates, either from a trade point of view or from any other point of view. I cannot conceive any reason why they should be there, and I venture to suggest that my right hon. Friend should make arrangements to remove these communities, either now or certainly after the War, to their own country, where no doubt they will have a warm welcome. I do not think it right—and I am quite sure the hon. Member who preceded me would agree—that it is not light, that Germans should any longer have the sanctuary in our midst that they have at this particular

  709
  time. I want further to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the question of deporting this large number of alien enemies either now or at the conclusion of the War? The previous Home Secretary told us on the 7th August, and also on 22nd November, that this question was being considered.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Will my hon. Friend answer this question? What has become of the two Germans that he himself got naturalized?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend is very kind. In the early part of the War, for business purposes, I forwarded to the Home Secretary of the day a petition from my own Constituency. It was my duty to forward it, and, if it had been the hon. Member's Division, and his constituents had sent him a petition, it would have been his duty to forward it. I had nothing to do with their naturalisation; the decision was that of the first Home Secretary. He in his wisdom naturalised them, and I have not the least idea where they are to-day. In the Debate on 29th June the Home Secretary said I had complained that when all these 30,000 aliens came out of internment they would resume their businesses, which had been kept alive, and continue them in competition with English traders:
  "I do not know why he should assume that should be so. It would be rather premature now to say what course will be adopted with the interned Germans, but I can tell him, so far as I am concerned, that is not at all the consummation present to my mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1916, Vol. LXXXIII.]
  I rose at once and pointed out the importance of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and asked him if he could tell us what was the policy of the Government, and he said he could not at that time. Later he informed myself and other Members that the question was being considered by His Majesty's Government, and on 17th October my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Melton Division (Colonel Yate) asked the Prime Minister whether those Germans would be repatriated and allowed to go back after the War. The Prime Minister replied that the matter was being seriously considered. These are very important questions. Many of us hope that the War will be drawing to a close by a big victory in the course of this year, and, though I do not want to press my right hon. Friend too strongly if he says that he has not been in office long enough, I think it is time the matter was considered. These are matters which re-
  710
  quire very careful consideration. There is only one other point that I would ask him to consider, and it is whether he should not ask this House for powers to review the naturalisation certificates issued within a few years of the War and during the War. I have seen in the Press that my right hon. Friend has been considering that point. I do not know whether that was merely intelligent anticipation on the part of the Press, but I would ask him whether he has considered it, and whether he can give us a statement which will relieve public anxiety on these questions. While our sons and our brothers are fighting, I am perfectly certain it is the desire of the country that the German trading element in our midst should not continue business here and take the business of English people who have been compelled by the decision of this House to go and fight. I will ask my right hon. Friend to deal with these five points that I have raised. First, the internment of those who remain uninterned; secondly, the clearing entirely of the prohibited areas; thirdly, the deportation of the existing interned Germans after the War; fourthly, the prohibition of their re-immigration into this country; and, fifthly, the possibility of asking this House for some means to deal with the naturalisation certificates. If he could give us his views on these points, I am quite sure that the House and the country would be very grateful.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member has put his points so clearly that we can all understand them. His first question was as to the interned aliens. The number of interned aliens to-day, as he probably knows, is something over 30,000, men only. The number of uninterned aliens is something over 20,000, and of those very nearly half are women, the remainder being men. The number of men of military age in the foreign sense is in all 7,500 in the whole country. Of these, over 500 are Ottoman subjects, who were not interned in those early days unless they were destitute. Of the remainder the majority are Austrian or Hungarian subjects, and of these over 3,000 are what we call friendly aliens, persons such as Czechs and Poles. Of the whole number fewer than 2,000 are Germans. That is a considerable number, but the rule was laid down by the late Government that no enemy alien should be exempt from internment unless he had

  711
  been before a Committee of which two judges and several Members of this House are members, and they had advised his exemption. That rule has been strictly followed. The Committee had these cases before them, and only when they were satisfied that there was strong reason for making an exemption have they advised that exemption. Therefore, prima facie, I take it that persons exempted by the Advisory Committee are so exempted for a good reason; but, nevertheless, I have thought it my duty, as my predecessor did from time to time, to reconsider these cases, and I find on the whole, as I expected, that the reasons for exemption are very strong. In some cases I find men who are enemy aliens, but who have been forty or fifty years in this country, have married a British woman, have a number of children born in this country, some of them fighting for this country, and whose every interest naturally would be in this country. Where you find a case of this kind it would be folly to intern, because you are injuring somebody who is your friend. At the same time, there are cases where a decision has been come to which on further consideration, and generally on further information, requires to be revised, and I thought it my duty to reconsider the decisions of the Committee and in several cases on new facts I felt bound to reverse the decision and intern the alien.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In about how many?
  Sir G. CAVE: It is difficult to say offhand. In nearly every case, possibly in every case, I have done that on new facts and not entirely on the old facts. Like my predecessor, I take the rule to be internment, and exemption to be an exception from the rule. With regard to the cases to which my hon. Friend referred, I cannot give him particulars of all. I think the dentist has been interned. As regards the dressmaker, I am informed that he is not a German but a Hungarian, who was exempted on the advice of the Advisory Committee some time ago.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are not the Hungarians worse than the Austrians?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am not going to lay down general rules. The exemption has been made not on general grounds, but on some grounds special to this case. With regard to the firm which he mentioned, I have not yet been able to ascer-
  712
  tain all the facts, but I know that one of the persons he mentions as having been released from an internment camp and now serving the firm, was exempted from internment in 1915, on the advice of the Advisory Committee. I think it necessary, at the present moment, to take-these cases into consideration, and I am asking that the whole of these cases of exemption should be reconsidered at the present time, not because I doubt the decisions which were previously given, but because I think that the time has come when it is right to have further consideration of the facts of each case. At the same time I propose to take the opportunity of finding out how the interned persons are employed. Some of them, I do not doubt, are employed upon useful work, but others may not be so employed, and it seems to me right that when the Director of National Service is calling on every one to do useful work, these aliens, especially those who are exempted from internment, ought also to give an account of the work which they do, and I feel it my duty to consider whether the work which they are doing is such as to entitle them to continue exempted.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: By whom will the cases be reviewed?
  Sir G. CAVE: By the Home Office on information which I shall obtain.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the employment of those who are in-interned also be reviewed?
  Sir G. CAVE: There is a Committee specially dealing with that who are taking steps to see as far as possible that interned aliens shall do useful work, in most cases in camp; in some cases, where the aliens are friendly, not in camp. The whole matter is being carefully gone into. In reference to the next point mentioned my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Knutsford Division and Sir Louis Dane made extremely careful inquiries into all these cases, for which I am very much indebted to them, and presented an extremely useful Report. The total number of aliens found in prohibited areas was 4,294 men, women and children.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: How many are children?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say. The Report does not state that. In all, 2,942 were females, and a small proportion only were men of military age. There is no abso-

  713
  lute prohibition against aliens residing in prohibited areas, and they can only reside there if the Chief Constable gives leave. Something was said about members of religious orders still living in a prohibited area. It is true that there is an order of monks, German by origin at all events, living in Devonshire. Some of them could be interned, and some of them could not be interned, but if disturbed would have to be repatriated. As to these men careful inquiry has been made from time to time, and provision has been made that they shall remain interned at the place where they are. They cannot leave the place except that I think four of them are allowed to go daily to a farm under proper charge. With regard to the sixty-six cases reserved by the Committee, I have not yet dealt with them. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the deportation after the War of those who are now interned.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Or during the War?
  Sir G. CAVE: During the War alien enemies of military age have not been deported. In nearly every case, where men are over military age, we deport. As to what will happen after the War, that is a matter which will have to be decided. There is a Committee sitting at the Home Office of which I am for the moment Chairman, to consider the question. The point is, I agree, one of great importance as to whether, after the War, we can allow persons who are now interned to remain in this country or whether we ought to make provision for their deportation. There is also the question of the exclusion of aliens deported now or alter the War. We cannot decide that question by itself. It involves a great many other questions which are also under consideration by this Committee. I cannot give an answer to-day about that because the Committee fire considering the matter and their decision has not yet been confirmed. As to the question of denaturalisation, the point is being considered by the same Committee, and the Committee have arrived at certain conclusions, but have not yet reported. It is one in which not only this country, but our Dominions also are concerned. Naturalisation is now an Imperial matter and not a matter for this country alone. It is a subject, therefore, which requires careful consideration. I need hardly say that under no circumstances would we propose to denaturalise
  714
  a British subject except for good reason and after proper inquiry, but subject to these conditions, we shall propose that further provisions be made for denaturalisation. I think I have now answered all my hon. Friend's questions.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the subject of naturalisation be brought before the Imperial Conference?
  Sir G. CAVE: I hope so.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House has listened with the very greatest interest to the full explanation which my right hon. Friend has given of these important matters, which, as I know from experience, occupy very closely the mind of whoever fills the office of Home Secretary. It is particularly interesting for me to observe that the right hon. Gentleman, bringing to this problem a fresh mind, under the auspices of a new Government, has found that the policy adopted by the Home Office before his advent is one which he thinks proper to still continue. He has, in effect, in no particular of importance, found it necessary to depart from the course taken by his predecessor. It is to me a matter of great gratification to find that the course which I pursued is one which he is also disposed to favour. As to the aliens who are not interned, but whose cases frequently come up for review, it was my duty from time to time to issue orders for internment; but, as a rule, my experience, as the right hon. Gentleman's experience, was that where exemptions have been made, although it was very easy to raise prejudice outside—that is to say, by pointing to a considerable number of enemy aliens not interned—there were reasons, and good reasons in each case—that the person's antecedents were unobjectionable, that his sympathies were with us and our Allies, or that he was aged or infirm. They were cases in which it would have been cruelty to intern them, or else they were cases that have been closely reviewed by an impartial Committee and in which it had been found that the persons were fully identified with this country in spirit and that their internment was in no degree necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing specifically about alien restaurants which still remain open in London. I had contemplated taking some further action in that respect, and giving instructions for fresh regulations to be prepared to deal a

  715
  little bit more drastically with this question of restaurants. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether anything is being done in that direction.
  Sir G. CAVE: I have taken some steps, I have actually closed some restaurants, and interned the persons concerned. That has also taken place with regard to one or two clubs which were really the resort of enemy aliens, and I had to make Orders interning a number of persons who were members of one club. We are also proposing to ask for an Order which will give the police further powers for dealing with restaurants kept by aliens.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am glad to know that steps have been taken. With respect to prohibited areas, the average person is under the impression that a prohibted area is some small section of the country, surrounding, for instance, a place like Harwich. As a matter of fact, the prohibited areas include nearly one-third of the whole of Great Britain, and therefore, if in out of the way districts, here and there, persons regarded as harmless, although enemy aliens by birth or origin, are still allowed to live there, do not let the House go away under the impression that they are living near some military centre or naval base; they are scattered throughout inland towns and villages which are included in this very large portion of our island, and are designated by the term "prohibited areas." I am very glad to see that the Commissioners revise the permits given by the chief constables in prohibited areas to reside there, and they reported that the work had been well done. They brought fresh mind to bear upon the subject, and that was the conclusion which they reported in the White Paper laid on the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was not asked the question, but he has not said anything to-day with respect to the very difficult question of the friendly aliens of military age who are living in this country, and who are not rendering any military service in this War, nor are they rendering any other national service designated by the Government. That is a question which raises very delicate and difficult points. Not long ago it was stated in this House that it was a matter of correspondence and negotiation between this Government and the Government of Russia, the country to which belong some 20,000 men of this class. Some time ago steps were initiated in regard to this subject, and I
  716
  am sure we shall be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman, on a convenient opportunity, whether it is found practicable to take any steps in respect to this large body of adults who are friendly to this and to our Allied countries, and what steps are to be taken. I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman now, because I know it is a delicate and difficult subject. In the East-end of London, and some of our larger towns, there are masses of able-bodied men of military age belonging to nationalities allied to us in the War, and there is a very great deal of feeling in those localities that these men ought not to be wholly exempted from bearing their fair share of the burdens and sacrifices which the War entails.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us something about the question of deportation of enemy aliens, now interned, after the War. The Committee which I established, and of which my right hon. Friend is Chairman, will, no doubt, propose a policy that has been carefully considered. Of course, it would be useless to deport aliens unless you have good reasons for doing so, because to deport an alien one day only to return the next would obviously be an absurdity, and, therefore, the question of deportation is closely associated with the whole matter of the regulation of alien immigration after the War. It is a question which is obviously surrounded by many difficulties, and by a number of varied considerations which will have to be taken into account. It cannot, therefore, be settled in any slapdash fashion, and any proposal will have to be most carefully thought out in every detail previous to its being laid before Parliament. In regard to the question of denaturalisation, my own view is that our law applying to it certainly needs modification. The powers possessed by the Secretary of State are not really adequate to remove from British citizenship individuals who are clearly showing that they are holding allegiance as a mere formality, and that their heart is not with the country whose citizenship they have, for financial reason, assumed. At the same time, I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that you have to safeguard the rights of citizenship of persons who have been naturalised, and with regard to whose loyalty there is no reason to entertain doubt. I am not sure that the best course will not be that denaturalisation should be effected by some judicial process designed for that particular purpose. After the right hon.

  717
  Gentleman's explanation to-day I hope we shall hear nothing further of the foolish myth of the hidden hand and that hon. Members of this House will not lend the weight of their authority to the dissemination of a folly of that character. Many sections of the population are very ready to believe that some sinister and secret influence is at work because everything they desire to see done is not forthwith covered. There never has been any hidden hand, and the sooner those who propagate that idea which, strangely enough, is believed in by a large number of other individuals, limit their activities in that direction the better it will be for the population at large.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to direct the attention of the House for a very short time to what I consider to be a far more important subject than the one we have just been discussing, a subject which indeed is of vital importance and which lies at the root of the questions which occupy so large a space in our Debates in these days—I refer to the position of the mercantile marine. Questions have been addressed to the Government during the Debates which have taken place this Session, but up to the present only very inadequate answers have been given. In the House of Lords last night, however, we had a statement of considerable, importance on this subject, and I think it is only right that we here in the House of Commons should have an account of the situation and a statement of Government policy from one of the Ministers responsible.
  I do not intend to ask my hon. Friend who represents the Shipping Controller any questions regarding the measures which are being adopted to deal with the submarine menace. Nobody would expect the Government to disclose the methods which they intend to apply. But we are satisfied to observe that those in the best position to speak are confident that the new methods of dealing with the submarines are likely to be attended with a considerable measure of success. There is one observation only I will make regarding this menace. It is that there has been too great a tendency on the part of the Government spokesmen to give figures tending to allay anxiety rather than to bring home to the public mind an accurate account of the facts as they are. I refer to one statement made by Lord Curzon in
  718
  another place last night, in which he gave figures relating to the losses, not only by submarine but by other marine casualties since the beginning of the War, and he calculated that in respect of our ships whose tonnage exceeded 1,600 tons our losses amounted to only 6 per cent. I hold that, taking that basis of calculation, these figures tend to give a totally misleading account of the situation.
  After all, there are many important ships under 1,600 tons which have a great value for the purpose of carrying cargo, and it is precisely those ships that have been most liable to submarine attacks. If you take exclusively ships exceeding 1,600 tons and calculate the loss percentage on the basis of those ships alone, the figure you arrive at is not one which gives a correct idea of our actual losses. The percentage should be taken in relation to all shipping actually available for civilian needs. In the same speech Lord Curzon indicated that at the present time only 25 per cent, of our shipping is available for that. Obviously 6 per cent, of the whole would represent 24 per cent. of the shipping actually available for the ordinary day-to-day needs of the nation, and I think that figure should have been the figure stated, because it brings home more truly the actual position.
  The reference to the amount of shipping taken up exclusively for War Office and Admiralty purposes and for the purposes of our Allies leads me to put another question, and it is whether the new Government and the Shipping Controller have found it possible to obtain the release of any shipping which has hitherto been requisitioned for naval and military purposes. During the tenure of office of the late Government an announcement was made in this House that the former War Council had actually taken a decision to release, I think it was 200 ships from the service of the Army and Navy, so that they might be employed for commercial purposes. But it was indicated that that decision had never been carried out. I hope my hon. Friend will now be able to say that this is also the policy of the new Government. Further, I should like to know that it has not merely been adopted as a pious opinion, but that already some effect has been given to the resolution.
  I am not going to ask any questions regarding the Salonika campaign. I believe our difficulties mainly arise at the present time from that campaign. If that

  719
  campaign were not now going on there would not be any difficulty whatever in relation to the food supply of this country. But I think it is fair to ask whether the Government have found it possible to adopt any means for economising the use of tonnage in respect of that campaign. Also I think it is fair to ask whether it has been possible to effect any economy in the use of shipping for other naval and military purposes. There is no doubt that up till last month our shipping was being used uneconomically. I was told the other day of one ship which had been laid up in a French port for thirty days. I was told, too, of another vessel sent across the Atlantic to load steel at Philadelphia and then sent from there to Galveston to load hay. Surely, that was an uneconomical way of using the vessel. I was interested to read the statement made the other day by the hon. Member to the effect that a complete change of policy had been adopted by the Government, and that now the Shipping Controller was to have complete control of all ships which are requisitioned for naval and military purposes. I hope that this statement is accurate. I for one would certainly welcome such an announcement, because I believe that if all the shipping in the hands of the Army and Navy is put under the control of Sir Joseph Maclay we should have the best ground for believing there will be the greatest economy in the employment of it.
  Yesterday in the House of Lords an announcement was made as to the measures which have been adopted, or are in contemplation, for an increase of cargo space by effecting changes in the vessels and making them available for more cargo. I wish to ask in regard to that whether the change in regard to cargo space is compulsory on all shipowners, whether it has already been applied, and if so, to how many vessels and in respect of how much tonnage is it in operation?
  Then there is another question in which we are possibly still more interested, and that is the rate at which it will be possible to replace our losses. That involves an increase of shipbuilding. My hon. Friend made a general statement on this subject the other day, in which he told us that orders had been placed for standardised ships. But the most important thing in relation to this is not the placing of orders. We want to have some assurance that these orders can be expediti-
  720
  ously carried out. They can only be expeditiously carried out if there is an increase in the number of men skilled in shipbuilding and in marine engineering, as well as an increase in material necessary for the construction of the vessels. I put a question whether men skilled in these trades have been released from the Army or whether efforts have been made to secure such skilled men in other ways? So far I have been unable to get any reply. But I have received letters which indicate that difficulties have been placed in the way of men skilled in these trades securing employment. I had a letter from a man in Kent, a skilled engineer with experience in the North, who had obtained exemption from military service at the instance of his present employers, ice manufacturers. He tells me he had appealed to them to release him because he had seen the appeals in the Press for men skilled in ship construction. He went to the local Labour Exchange, but was informed by the superintendent that skilled men were not now wanted as they were training men sufficiently fast, and those already skilled in marine engineering are not required at all. This man subsequently made an application to the Ministry of Munitions, and received a reply that there was at present no vacancy. When we hear despairing demands made for men skilled in engineering, is it not scandalous that such a thing as this should happen in connection with two public Departments?
  I also had a letter with reference to a man taken into the Army. He was a skilled boiler-maker. He was placed in the Army Service Corps, and since being taken into the Army has only done one day's work at his trade. The worst feature of the case is that he has now received orders to be transferred to an Infantry battalion. Surely, when you have skilled men of that kind, and when at the same time you have appeals for such men, the obvious policy should be to release them at once from the Army. I am willing to place both these cases in the hands of my hon. Friend. They are indications that, however great may be the anxiety of the Department of the Shipping Controller and of the War Council in this matter, there are subordinate Departments of the Government which do not share that anxiety and which are, in fact, placing every obstacle they can in the way of carrying out measures so indispensable for our national security at the present time.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: With the closing remarks of my hon. Friend who has just spoken I quite agree. It is most essential, if we are going to accelerate shipbuilding, that we should endeavour, as far as possible, to transfer a very large number of men to our shipbuilding yards. I was very much surprised to read the statement made by my hon. Friend who represents the Shipping Controller, that so many thousand tons had been added to our tonnage by our shipbuilding yards within recent times. I would like to point out it takes four or five months to build a ship and to bring it into use. I represent a shipbuilding town, and I know from conversations with our shipbuilders, that there is a great scarcity of labour. They are working as hard as they can upon merchant ships now, and it is most essential, in my opinion, if you are going to increase the production of tonnage, that you must try to find every available man, not only for shipbuilding but for your steel works that manufacture plates and angles and also for the engineering works which manufacture the marine engines. I do not altogether agree with the kind of speeches which are delivered here from time to time. I have never said so, but I have always thought that the speeches delivered here from time to time do create a certain alarm in the country and also encourage the Germans, to do what they are doing. I should like to state two very prominent facts to the House. It is a very remarkable thing that last year, with all our discouragements in regard to shipping, there were 65,000,000 tons of shipping came into and went out of this country. There was a reduction certainly of the tonnage in comparison with the pre-war year, but it is a very remarkable thing, and one that this nation ought to be proud of, that such an enormous amount of shipping came into and went out of the country last year. The other point I should like to mention is this, that last year we imported within 5,000,000 cwts. as much wheat as we did in 1913. We imported in 1913, 105,000,000 cwts., and last year we imported 100,000,000 cwts. of wheat. This gives an indication that there is not this great strain or the need for this great alarm which is now creating such a sensation in the country. If Germany is under the impression that we are starving, she is going to torpedo all the ships she can.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot she do that in any case?
  Mr. SAMUEL: If we shout in this country more than is necessary, I am certain that Germany will continue to increase her activity in that direction, Another fact is this, that last year, although the price of goods certainly was very much higher on percentage, we imported and exported the largest quantity of goods in value. We imported and exported not less than £1,550,000,000 last year, the largest in value upon record in this country. I am sorry I am taking the positon of the hon. Member who is now in charge of the shipping control (Sir Leo Chiozza Money) because if he were a free Member he would most certainly cite these figures to the House—that is to say, that although there is need for activity on he part of this country in every department, on the other hand, I think we ought to inform the world at large and this counry that while this great activity is taking place in destroying our merchant ships we did carry last year an enormous amount of goods, and that in itself ought to give us some encouragement.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETAFY, MINISTRY Of SHIPPING CONTROL (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The task of eplying to my hon. Friends has been lightened for me in advance by the exceedingly important and interesting speeches that were delivered by Lord Curzon ad Lord Lytton in another place yesterday. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is inclined to be optimistic.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: No; I am not optimistic.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Well, rather thought you put it that if I were still a free Member of this House I should not hesitate to put before it figures showing that we had last year, and indeed he might have said last month, imported into this country an enormous weight of commodities. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Pringle), on the other hand, thinks that the country should be put in full possession of what he feels to be the seriousness of the situation.
  Mr. PRINGLE: This year, not last year.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am speaking both of last year and the present year. It seems to me that this is a matter in which it is exceedingly difficult so to maintain the balance as at one and the same time to counsel our people that they must be careful, that they must economise, that

  723
  they must have regard to every article that they use that is imported, while, on the other hand, saying in the clearest possible terms that there is no cause for despair, no cause for alarm, or no cause for panic. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Controller of Shipping deems it to be his duty to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That is what we are endeavouring to do at the Ministry of Shipping day by day, and I can truly say hour by hour, from early morning till late at light. My hon. Friend behind me made some references to the speech of my Noble Friend Lord Curzon in another place yesterday, and I rather think his criticism of that speech was that my Noble Friend, in giing figures with regard to those ships of 1,600 tons and over only, was giving rather an optimistic view of the situation. On that point I am compelled to join issue with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately I have not with me here—I wish I had—the figures for the whole of our losses, or of the shipping of the British Empire, but I an assure him in general terms that if I had he would find that the proportion of losses was no greater, when one took account of all the ships, than when one tok account only of those ships to which lord Curzon specially referred. The citicism might, indeed, have been rather te other way, namely, that Lord Curzon, i giving these larger ships only, did other an injustice than a justice to the optimistic side of the case.
  My hon. Friend also referred to a statement which was made by Lord Curzon, and I am glad he did so, to the effect that some 25 per cent, of our shipping, and hat alone, was engaged in the direct service of the people of this country. That statement has been rather misunderstood. The 75 per cent., I can assure my hon. Friend, includes very large portions indeed of service to this country, apart from naval and military service. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but if I name only one or two things which are included in the 75 per cent., the House will see that it is not true that three-fourths of our shipping are mortgaged to military and naval purposes only. For example, take such things as ore, wheat, and sugar, which are essential supplies for our population. These three things alone account for nearly 12 per cent, out of the 75 per cent, to which Lord Curzon referred. I do not want now to weary the House by giving every detail,
  724
  but I will give them the general assurance that the 25 per cent, of shipping in the service of this country referred to what I call miscellaneous services, and in addition to this some of the other services of the ordinary population are included in the 75 per cent. If I have made that clear, I will pass on to some of the particular questions asked by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle). He asked specifically if the Minister of Shipping had found it possible to release any vessels taken for naval or military purposes. If I were merely to say here that the number of vessels directly used for naval and military purposes had not decreased, that would not give a proper view of the economy that has been effected. I may assure my hon. Friend that economy has been effected, yet I cannot couple that statement with the further statement that a smaller number of vessels is now in the service of the Army and Navy, because, as the House well knows, this year of special effort must necessarily mortgage a very considerable portion of our shipping in connection with these special efforts which are being made, as everybody in this House is well aware. But while that is true, it is also true that economy has been effected; and economy will proceed. I will, if I may, pass at once to the central question that was asked by my hon. Friend, as to whether the Controller of Shipping has any real, effective, and complete control over the mercantile marine tonnage, and the answer to that is almost without qualification in the affirmative. I say almost without qualification, because necessarily for military purposes ships must be handed to the military or naval authorities.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Dual control?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes; but we are in actual control of those ships. That is to say, they are used with our knowledge, and, as it were, if I may call it, with our consent. Of course, it is a matter of good will between the different Departments, and that good will. I am happy to say, exists, and will continue to exist, and as long as it does exist there cannot be any real difficulty with regard to what I may call the connecting link between the Ministry of Shipping on the one hand and the Admiralty on the other. The Minister of Shipping knows that certain ships are being used, for example, as colliers, and he has power, and indeed authority, to satisfy himself that those

  725
  colliers are being properly used, but there, of course, his authority ends. The Admiralty alone can in actual employment use these colliers. I hope I have made that point clear. My hon. Friend referred to the Salonika Expedition. I am sure he will not expect me on this occasion to debate the pros and cons of that Expedition, but, as has been stated, I think in both Houses, arrangements have been made to utilise more land transport in connection with the Salonika Expedition. From that factor we expect some results, but it is quite impossible for me now to state in more precise terms what those results will be.
  Of course, as the House is aware, when the Ministry of Shipping was formed, my right hon. Friend the Controller found existing a considerable number of bodies, committees, and so on, which had been framed, and very properly framed, by the late Government in order to deal with different phases of this great problem. All these threads are being drawn together under the Ministry of Shipping, and I hope it will be true to say that in a very short space of time we shall have drawn them together, and that we shall then be able to grapple with the whole problem with a proper organisation. We have been handicapped in this matter, because we have been worse housed, if that is possible, than any other Ministry of the Government. We are not so fortunate as to possess a gilded hotel. Nevertheless, we do hope now that within a few days we shall take up our residence in a modest and unassuming building which is not inappropriately situated, where water used to run, in St. James' Park.
  Mr. ROCH: Can the hon. Gentleman say if Mr. Macassey will be under the Shipping Controller?
  8.0 p.m.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As I explained in the House, the other day, Mr. Lynden Macassey, of whose services I cannot speak too highly, is primarily under the Admiralty, but there is a connecting link between his organisation and the Ministry of Shipping, and that connecting link, I hope, will be completely forged within the next few days. I pass from that to a matter of smaller detail. My hon. Friend referred to the question of shelter-decks. Of course nothing has been done in this connection, which is new. That is to say, before the existence of a Shipping Controller any shipowner could
  726
  utilise the space afforded by a sheltered deck for cargo purposes, and if he did so he could claim an alteration of his load line, but, after consultation with the various experts—and they were freely and properly consulted in this matter— it was decided to make compulsory the use of these spaces, not in all cases, but in every appropriate case. It is compulsory, but if any shipowner thinks it inadvisable, for technical reasons, his case will be considered on its merits. I hope this will satisfy my hon Friends on this occasion.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Gentleman make this a little more clear?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I will endeavour to repeat it is general terms. The matter is compulsory, but in regard to any particular vessel a shipowner thinks it inadvisable for technical reasons, then that case will receive consideration on its merits. That is what I am authorised to say. I have dealt with the general control of shipping. I will pass to the question of shipping construction. I have already made one or two brief statements in the House on this subject. I can do very little more than repeat what I have already said, but I should like to point this out, that while our programme of new construction is, it is true to say, a large one, if it is not larger than it is that is a matter of congratulation to the House for this reason. A very large amount of tonnage is already under construction, and I should like in this connection, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the ex-President of the Board of Trade—and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Shipping Controller would like me to do so—to pay a tribute to the work he did in that connection before he left office. That is to say, we found a considerable amount of new construction proceeding. The larger that amount, the smaller of course our immediate new programme. We are accelerating every suitable vessel by every means in our power, and we are retarding the construction of any vessel which does not, in our opinion, well serve the national interests at this time. For example, your passenger liner is put back, while your tramp is put forward. If we have been able to accelerate the acceleration which was already in progress when we came into office, it is because my right hon Friend the Shipping Controller has nothing else to think of, whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman)

  727
  had many other things to think of as well. Surely, therefore, there is something to be said for the formation of a Ministry of Shipping, if it has to be said. Now, with regard to new construction, it is true to say that a considerable programme is now actually in progress. A very large amount of tonnage has actually been ordered.
  With regard to labour, I will clear, if I may, one misapprehension. I have noticed that many things have been said of late. There appears to be a conception abroad that there is less labour now in shipyards than there was at the end of 1914. That is completely illusory. The loss of labour in shipyards, as in engine works and steel works, occurred in the early months of the War, because we asked for volunteers, and what naturally took place was that the best men first came forward, so that we lost in those early months of the War in shipyards and other essential industries men who can never be wholly replaced. But there have been released from the Colours a number of them—not all of them; I wish that were possible—and we have added others, so that at the moment, the House will be interested to know, the official estimate is that there are 14,000 more men now working in our shipyards than when war broke out. So it is quite an illusion to say, as I have seen it said so often in some organs of the Press, that so many men have been withdrawn from shipyards when they ought to have been employed on essential work. As my hon. Friend pointed out, not only labour, but material was concerned in this all-important matter. Of course there are limitations, but everything is being done that can possibly be done to make good.
  I hope in these brief remarks I have said enough to satisfy my hon. Friends that the work is going on, but, as I said at the beginning, while we hope for the best, we are prepared for the worst. I do not think I ought to sit down without in this connection paying a tremendous tribute to the men of the mercantile marine. Day by day, as the anecdotes reach one from the High Seas, where the enemy advertise premeditated crimes, one is filled with increasing admiration for the men who are now suffering so many tribulations on our ships. May I just relate to the House the latest story that has reached me? It was told me only this afternoon. It is the case
  728
  of the "Vedamore." She was sunk a few days ago by the enemy. Only twenty-four of the crew were saved out of forty. The saved members of the crew, as is so often the case in these stories, had to take to open boats in bitter weather. Many of them had hardly a rag upon their backs, and they were exposed in these open boats for ten hours. On landing they came to London. What did they do? The first thing they did was to go to the offices of the owners and engage to go to sea again —to go back to the dangers. What they felt was that they must get back to sea at once. That is a story which rejoices one's heart to tell, and it is a fair sample of what is now happening from month to month, week to week, and day to day in connection with the mercantile marine. So far as the men are concerned the policy of terrorism has entirely failed. As for the problem in general, I will not at this moment be tempted to try a prophecy. It may be we shall have to face—we probably shall have to face—new dangers. All we can do is to exert the maximum effort. If we do that we shall feel that whatever happens we shall have nothing with which to reproach ourselves.
  Mr. KING: I am sure the whole House must have listened with satisfaction to the statement of the hon. Member, and everybody must feel touched profoundly and moved to admiration by the story he told us of the bravery of our mercantile seamen. As the Debate seems likely to come to an end earlier than was expected, I venture to add a few words on the subject of the alien which was under discussion about an hour ago, when I had not the opportunity of adding a few remarks to the discussion. I want to put in a plea here to-night on behalf of the alien enemies in our great City of London, especially who are alien enemies only in name. A large number of young English women who had married German men, at the outbreak of war suddenly found themselves become enemies to their own country, out of which they have never been. They found themselves associated with an enemy land which they had never entered, and not one word of its language were they able to speak; but yet bearing alien names and branded as alien enemies, they have been suffering, though English women, for two and a half years the restrictions and the hardships of the alien enemies within our gates. Tender children, unable to understand the conditions

  729
  of life under which they live, are branded as alien enemies and help to swell the numbers of 20,000 or more in this city who are represented by the hon. Member for Brentford as being a danger to this country.
  I wish to bring to the notice of the House the very hard conditions under which these women are placed, who are English by birth, in language, in sympathy and in everything except technical nationality in name. They have exhausted in most cases all their property, and they are living on a feeble and insufficient pittance, which comes to them through the Poor Law officers. They are not only branded as aliens, but they are branded as paupers. One or two of my lady friends are at the present time visiting these women and children in London. I hear most pitiable and harassing stories of their lot. There was a case recited to me of a young and attractive but uncultured woman who was in dire poverty. She has two young children. The guardians allow her 12s. 6d. a week. If she goes out to any employment and earns 5s., 10s., or 15s. per week, a corresponding amount is deducted by the guardians, the object, of course, being to keep this young woman in a condition, and on a level, of life which I think cruel and heartless in the extreme. I am glad to say that the President of the Local Government Board is considering these cases. I believe that the sense of chivalry which still exists in this country for our own women and children—for they are that—will prevail. Nothing in technical law or legal status can deprive them of being British in the whole of their nature, sympathy, and sentiment. I feel sure that that sense of chivalry to which I have just referred will support the Local Government Board if in its wisdom, and after taking counsel with the Treasury, it is enabled to increase the allowance of these suffering people.
  I am pleased to see the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General in their places. Their presence leads me to add a few words on friendly aliens. We have a very large number of friendly aliens, Russian Jews especially, in the East End of London. They number between 20,000 and 30,000. Legislation, it is stated, is contemplated, and certainly applications to the Law Courts are being made with the view to the deportation of these people to their own country. The law, as it is laid down at present, is that an order for deportation may be made under the
  730
  Defence of the Realm Act and the Aliens-Restriction Order, but in that Order it cannot be specified that the deportee must go to any particular country. Assume that I am a Russian Jew, and that the Government, for some reason or another, wants me to depart from this country. Alien Russian Jew though I may be, I have a perfect right to choose to go to the United States or to France, and the Government has absolutely no right against my will to send me back to Russia. There are a great number of Russian subjects at the present time in our midst. Most of them are engaged in trades of national importance. Many thousands are making uniforms and clothing for our troops. The great wood-working industry of the East End of London, which makes the most of the packing cases for the ammunition and stores which go to the front, is almost entirely in the hands of Jews, mostly Russian Jews. To interfere with this would be a very unfortunate thing. Yet the "hue-and-cry" has gone out against aliens of all kinds, and I am afraid the popular clamour is endangering their position and is endangering really the very excellent service which they are rendering to the State.
  I want very earnestly to plead with the Government for an agreement on this subject with the Russian Government. I ask the Government very earnestly not to deport these Russian Jews back to Russia. Certainly let them be asked to undertake national service here. Let any powers that the Russian Government can depute to the British Government for their subjects here be taken so that the services of these men may be utilised to the full. I would, however, warn the Government, I would implore the Government, not to proceed with the policy of endeavouring to deport these Russian Jews back to Russia. There are shipping difficulties in the way. It is not a practical policy. I am told that there are several thousand prisoners in Germany who might be brought home if shipping were available. If there is a difficulty then in bringing 4,000 men across the North Sea, how are you going to take 20,000 or 30,000 men from London not only across the North Sea, but across the White Sea to Archangel—a very much more serious matter so far as shipping is concerned? The real fact of the matter is this, that the majority of Russian subjects in the East End of London and in Leeds, Salford, and Manchester are mostly employed in useful occupations of national

  731
  value. Most of them are Russian Jews, to a large extent from Poland. They have fled here from Belgium, France, and Holland, because their homes were in danger of desolation by the enemy. They have since been desolated or occupied by the enemy. Therefore it does seem wrong to send back to their own country men who have been forced here by the hardest circumstances of the War and to whom, when they came, we opened our arms to welcome.
  Moreover, it must not be denied that at the present time the position of any Jewish person in Russia is one of serious menace and difficulty. I have not a word to say against the high-minded and leading men in the Russian Government or the enlightened, liberal and just-minded men who are so numerous in the upper and ruling classes of that country. Neither have I a word to say against the mass or I the working people who are generous and I tolerant, like all the poor, and ready to put up with one another. There are certain sections of Russian society, and especially the lower officials of the governmental police, who have for more than a generation made it an habitual practice to persecute, plunder, rob, and actually threaten the Jews with death and suffering. This is a very serious matter which has been constantly referred to in this House. I will go back to 1905, when the Aliens Act was before the House, when Amendments wore actually introduced into the Aliens Bill to meet the case of the persecuted Russian Jew. One Member who was prominent on that occasion pressing for an Amendment which was introduced was the late Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). Another Member who spoke with great eloquence and feeling upon this subject was the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), and they both pressed for the extension of the Aliens Bill in the direction that the particular case of the persecuted Russian Jew should be so included that they might come to those shores and not be in danger of being deported again either to their own country or elsewhere.
  It is significant that the Government, in response to this appeal, inserted an Amendment in the Bill which made a special exemption from the Aliens Act of any immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on reli-
  732
  gious or political ground or offences of a political character involving imprisonment or danger to life or limb on account of religious belief. Those words were actually inserted in the Aliens Act, and they entirely and exactly cover the case of the great majority of the Russian Jews now in the East End. More than 90 per cent, of those Jews have come here as the victims of persecution, and because they have been in danger of actual injury to life or limb. But the matter did not rest there. Following on that there was an outbreak of what was known as pogroms. If any hon. Member will look at "The Times" of 9th November, 1905. he will find a very spirited and noble protest there against the outrages on Jews in Russia, not only by Lord Rothschild, but by Sir Samuel Montagu, the father of the late Minister of Munitions. In the course of that protest these Gentlemen wrote:
  "The Jews have Again become the victims of outrages to which there is probably no parallel. Savagery has characterised the attitude of the ferocious mobs who have been excited by official protectors of life and property to perpetrate their work of murder and mutilation."
  A few days afterwards expressions of sympathy were sent by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was then the Member for WestBirmingham, and from the Prime Minister, who is now the Foreign Secretary of this country, in which the right hon. Gentle man said:
  "Speaking for the Government—"
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): How docs the hon. Member connect all this with the Vote of Credit. It seems to me that it is purely historical in the first place, and, secondly, it is not connected with any action taken on the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. KING: I have endeavoured to show that an announcement was made yesterday that an agreement is in course of consideration at the present moment by the Government with the Russian Government upon action that is to be taken with regard to these Russian Jews now in our midst, and in connection with this it is the development of the policy which was repeatedly announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Herbert Samuel) that he proposed to deport those Russian Jews of military age who were unwilling to enlist in our Army back to Russia. I am trying to show that it is not only impracticable to do so because of the lack of ships, but it

  733
  would be unjust because it would be against the express policy of Ministers who are now in power.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: But did the hon. Member not himself say that it would require an alteration of the law?
  Mr. KING: On the contrary, I said it would only require the agreement of the Government which they are now considering, and which it is proposed to enter into with the Russian Government.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): Surely the hon. Member said in terms, and quite rightly, that under the decisions of the Courts, as the law stands, these persons cannot be deported to Russia. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and a change of the law is quite necessary.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Is the Government going to sit down under that declaration of the law?
  Sir F. SMITH: That is quite another matter.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not the point. The hon. Member said that what he desired was an alteration of the law to make it possible to carry out the policy which he proposes. The time to discuss that matter is when legislation is proposed, and not upon a Vote of Credit which is concerned with the administration of the present law.
  Mr. KING: This matter is really very complicated by the fact that the Government have actually deported a considerable number to Russia, in spite of their protest, but it is only one or two men in a dozen who can appeal to the Courts. As a matter of fact a number of men have actually been deported, whereas only in the case of one Gentleman, who was not a Russian but a French Jew, has an action been taken, and that is the case which is now under decision. It does not, however, really affect the question what the law is now, but what the Government is actually doing, and repeatedly doing, under their Orders in Council. They have in scores of cases sent these men back to Russia. It is not a question of what might happen in the case of a man who has £30 or £40 with which to appeal, but what is actually happening in the case of scores of men who have not the power of appeal. I think I have shown how the
  734
  case stands, and I hope you will allow me to bring my remarks to a close as quickly as I can.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The subject is out of order and cannot be pursued.
  Mr. KING: I will not say anything more on this subject, except that the Government is now considering an agreement with the Russian Government on the subject of the treatment of aliens in this country. I want to call the attention of the House to a fact which is perhaps not very well known. It is that our gallant French Allies have just considered this matter in the Chamber of Deputies. Only this month the whole question of what action should be taken in connection with the alien friends in France who had not joined the French Army was debated at considerable length, and by a majority of 325 against 124, the proposal to compel friendly aliens of military age into service, either in France or in any other country, was defeated. That has been done in the French Parliament by a majority of nearly three to one. The subject is of longer standing in France than here, and the question is more acute there, because the French people have given of their young men something like, I think, one in five of the male population, while we have only given one in every six or seven. Therefore, the claim of the French to enlist every possible man within their gates is far more pressing than in our case. I hope, in view of the decision of the French Chamber, that before the British Government makes any agreement with Russia it will find out the attitude and the reason for the attitude of the French Government. The British people and the French people are the two great democratic peoples and Governments of Europe, and in a matter like this, and in all matters of great national policy, our object ought to be to stand side by side and march step by step with the great French people. This Parliament would do well, in a matter like this, and our Government would do well to follow the lead of the French Government and the French Parliament. I hope I have put ray points so clearly as to justify the attitude I have taken up. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General, whom I thank very much for the attention which he has given to my few remarks, will have very considerable influence in the drawing up of any agreement that is made

  735
  with the Russian Government, and I venture to hope, in view of his kind attention, that my observations will have, at any rate, some slight consideration when the matter is dealt with.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  VOTE OF CREDIT, 1917–18.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £350,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1918, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made there for by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and re-sale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [I3th February.]
  Resolutions reported, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £200,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, the sum of £350,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL,
  "to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March,
  736
  one thousand nine hundred and seventeen and one thousand nine hundred and eighteen," presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. Bill No. 5.]

GRAND JURIES (SUSPENSION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir FREDERICK SMITH: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill, which I shall very shortly recommend to the House, is one for suspending during the period of the War, and until the 28th December next after the conclusion of the War, the service of grand juries. The House will notice that this Bill is brought forward merely as a war measure. It has been induced by the remonstrances—and the reasonable remonstrances, in the opinion of the Government—which have been addressed to the authorities by gentlemen who have been summoned from services which at the present time are national service in order that they might discharge their duties upon grand juries. I do not enter upon the large question at this moment as to whether or not grand juries ought to be abolished altogether. It may be within the knowledge of the House that a very powerful committee which was appointed two years ago to inquire into and report upon the whole matter reported by a majority in favour of the complete abolition of grand juries. That is not proposed in this Bill, nor is the Bill before the House anything but a war measure. I may point out that the experience which we gain of the working of our judicial institutions during the period of the War without the intervention of the grand jury may afford valuable lessons when it becomes necessary to decide whether or not it is desirable to restore the institution, but at the same time this Bill automatically comes to an end, or, in other words, the onus at the conclusion of the War is upon those who wish to press upon the House the complete abolition of grand juries. I want to say a word as to the case made out by those upon whom there is at the present time the duty of serving. I have had letters from sheriffs and those concerned with the assemblage of grand juries during the War to show that there has been a waste

737
of time, involving important persons, which, under present conditions, is appalling. The House is well aware that the country is singularly crimeless, for reasons which I need not got through. The gentlemen composing the grand jury when a majority of them have been rendering useful service are taken away from that service in order to attend for trials, and they frequently find when they appear that there is not a single person to be tried. We are concerned, and rightly concerned, to see that our railway system is not congested, and yet persons are perpetually travelling, who are seriously wanted elsewhere, in order to discharge functions which, when they arrive, are found not to exist. That state of things in time of war is extremely serious, and ought, if possible, to be relieved. It may be said that grand juries in the past have rendered very valuable service. Let it not be supposed that I am so ignorant of or blind to our constitutional and communal history as to be unaware of the lessons that may be learned by those who study in detail the great convulsions of feeling in this country, in which a great and distinguished part has been played by grand juries. But we are dealing with modern conditions, and under those conditions what is the function that is discharged by the grand jury? You have, in the first place, an examination before a magistrate, or before a body of magistrates. It is their duty after hearing all the evidence relied upon by the prosecutor, and after considering it, in the case of a stipendiary magistrate in the light of his own knowledge and experience, and in the case of unpaid magistrates in the light of their experience and training, to decide whether a proper or sufficient case exists to put the person on trial. It would be, I think, attributing too little knowledge to the House if I were not to assume agreement with the view that an examination of the evidence by such a tribunal is an infinitely more powerful guarantee that no man shall without adequate cause be put on trial than an examination by a larger number of persons very often with less training and under no obligation to examine the whole of the evidence.
I have very little doubt that with the security which is afforded by the examination which takes place before the magistrate and with the additional security which is supplied in a Clause of the Bill that the most complete security will be
738
maintained that no person shall be exposed to the pain and unhappiness of standing his trial without justification. I will give illustrations of the opinions of some persons who have had great experience in these matters. Mr. Frame, in a letter which he wrote to the Press, stated that after an experience of at least 200 grand juries at the Old Bailey in the course of his official duties in the Treasury Solicitors' Office, that in the whole period of that history ho hardly remembers one single case in which the intervention of the grand jury produced any useful result. That may be putting the matter rather high, but experience of people like him is, I think the House will agree, valuable. The Incorporated Justices Clerks' Society, a powerful and experienced body, have passed a resolution unanimously approving of the Bill suspending grand juries during the period of the War. I have received a very large number of letters from Recorders and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and other persons of similar experience, and resolutions from town councils and city councils innumerable.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received or read Sir Harry Poland's letter which appeared in the "Times" of 25th January?
Sir F. SMITH: I have read it very carefully, and Sir Harry Poland has undoubted experience, but in all those matters, having taken the experience of persons who are to-day and since the War have been engaged in calling together grand juries, I have no doubt——
Sir C. HENRY: There is the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
Sir F. SMITH: Certainly. I mentioned that I know there is a very strong body of opinion in favour of the view of the Royal Commission that they should be altogether abolished, and I pointed out that it is open to those who hold that view to press it after the War is over. I said that there was security afforded in this Bill. I have a proposed security to be substituted. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 the proviso states:
"Provided that in any case where the judge whose duty it would have been but for this Act to charge a grand jury would have advised such grand jury not to find a bill of indictment a true bill, either as to the whole thereof or as to any count therein, the judge shall make an endorsement upon such bill of

739
indictment to the same effect, and thereupon such bill of indictment or count therein shall be dealt with in all respects as if a grand jury had found no bill in respect thereof."
The House will see the effect of that. Under existing circumstances the grand jury is charged by the judge, and advised by him as to whether or not they should on the depositions find a true bill, and in the main they accept the advice of the judge. If under this provision the judicial person, who under existing conditions gives advice which is ordinarily followed, comes to the conclusion that the evidence does not justify putting the prisoner on trial, he gives a certificate to that effect, which has the effect of a "no bill" by a grand jury. I am very hopeful that the House will regard this Bill as a reasonable and necessary war measure, giving very desirable relief to many persons upon whose time there is great public demand—persons engaged in agriculture, persons engaged in shipping, and persons out of military years whose services are yet retained in our great commercial enterprises. These form the class of persons from whom grand juries are drawn. I would venture very respectfully, but very earnestly, to ask the House, if they are disposed to accept the views put before them by the Government, to show me a singular indulgence for reasons which I hope the House will consider sufficient. If the course of the Debate indicates that that is the attitude of the House, I would ask them to give the Government the further stages of the Bill to-night. At this very moment grand juries are being summoned all over the country, and if this Bill becomes law within the next two or three days summonses to thousands of citizens can be avoided.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: If we agree to that, would you extend the Bill to Ireland?
Sir F. SMITH: My hon. and learned Friend invites me to enter into a matter of some controversy.
Mr. HEALY: Not a bit of it!
Sir F. SMITH: He is far more familiar with the circumstances in Ireland than I am. Apart from the other distinctions which may be drawn between the existing circumstances in Ireland and this country, it is the case that I have not received a single requisition or representation from
740
Ireland that the system there is at this time causing any inconvenience or showing any desire to modify the law there. I am not disputing the fact, if he says there is any such desire there. If there is, it is strange that the Attorney-General for Ireland has not communicated with me. I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him, but I have not in fact received one representation from Ireland in the hundreds that have been forwarded to me.
Mr. ARCHDALE: I can back up the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. M. Healy). This would be most welcome in Ireland.
Sir F. SMITH: I should be very glad if that matter could be compromised. I will at once communicate with the Attorney-General for Ireland, if the hon. and learned Member will agree to that. It is in my right hon. Friend's sphere, not in mine. I will at once communicate with him, and, if he agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will undertake either myself to introduce or ask him to introduce a similar measure for Ireland.
Mr. HEALY: An Irish Bill would never pass.
Sir F. SMITH: That is a very good reason for pressing this one. I have made my points to the House, and I hope they will not think it necessary to press me for any further particulars. I would ask them to grant me the indulgence for which I have asked.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. S. MacNEILL: I know that I am addressing a House the sense of which is against me. At the same time I am more or less a supporter of the ancient ways, and though I will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, nor shall I offer in the slightest degree opposition to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in wishing that it should go through all its stages in the circumstances to-night, perhaps the House will allow me to offer some reasons why a very ancient system should not be abolished, as it were, by a stroke of the pen and on the ground of its being war-time. War-time is the last time, in my judgment, in which anything approaching a safeguard of public liberty should be dissolved. We ought to be more careful in war-time of the liberty of the subject, especially when we know that enormous powers have been acquired by the Administration under the Defence of

741
the Realm Acts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his accustomed great intellectual skill and Ability, has made a very great case for the temporary abolition of grand juries. One remembers the old proverb as to the thin edge of the wedge. One cannot but believe, if this Bill be carried, that there is an end to the old grand jury system in England. We all agree in that. I cannot say that I agree with the hon, and learned Gentleman who sits below me (Mr. T. M. Healy), because I have not sufficient knowledge of the professional opinion in Ireland as to the abolition of the system there. I am here merely as a student of constitutional history to protest against what I think is an undesirable innovation. I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that in October, 1911—this is with reference to the Irish system—a discussion took place at one of the Law Students' Debating Societies in reference to the propriety of abolishing grand juries in Ireland, and I can very well recollect that one of the best Irish judges, Lord Justice Moriarty, made a magnificent defence of the grand jury system as he understood it. I am not quite sure, but I believe that the late Lord Chief Justice, who was there, took a similar view. It is a queer thing to see the Attorney-General of all persons in the world trying to abolish this system, because this really means the abolition of the grand jury system. One Attorney-General, who was one of the greatest exponents and defenders of the grand jury system, was John Somers, afterwards Lord Somers, who drafted the Act of Settlement. He wrote a book on grand juries in which he described them as the security for the lives of the English people and in which he also dealt with the power, trust and duties of grand juries.
As we are now going into the details of the Bill, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the machinery. His idea that the judge should have the power to ignore or find a true Bill—that is what it comes to—is not a very deft proposal. The judge, in charging a grand jury to see whether a primâ facie case has been made out and directing it to find a true bill or ignore it, is acting in a strictly judicial capacity. But when a judge takes it upon himself to declare whether or not a true bill should be presented, he becomes not a judge but a jury, and beyond all question his mind is affected in trying the case afterwards. If there is to be any substitute for the grand jury or pre-
742
liminary investigation before a common jury, the judge who tries the case ought not to be that substitute. It gives the judge an unconscious bias in trying the case. The grand jury system has been threatened for certainly seventy years. A very great agitation in favour of the abolition of grand juries began in the 'fifties of last century, having been threatened for twenty years before, and there was a Mr. Forsyth who used to be mentioned for every judgeship for many years. He was a great constitutional lawyer and was member for the Borough of Cambridge. He wrote a delightful book on the history of Trial by Jury. He wished to abolish the grand jury. He cited an opinion of Lord Justice Bousfield pronounced from the bench as Chief Justice. My legal friends will find it in Fifth Thompson's Reports. What occurred was this. An action for malicious prosecution was brought and there were heavy damages. The Court was moved on excessive damages, and Chief Justice Bousfield said, "as far as I am concerned, I will never in a case of malicious prosecution and in a case where a man has stood in the dock, be a party to reducing the damages, having regard to all the moral terror he has undergone." That shows the power of the grand jury in protecting a man from that terror, if the case be not one in which almost one must say the chances are and ought to be for a conviction on the first showing.
I would say another thing in reference to the case the right hon. Gentleman has presented in this Bill, that I rather think he confounds the whole system and the whole principle under which the grand jury is instituted and founded. As far as I can see the grand jury was a buttress between the Executive on the one hand, and the subject on the other, and above all, it was a buttress, when judges were supposed to be very much under the influence of the Crown, between the subject and the judge. Nearly all the great cases in which we hear of grand juries intervening, and some of them are almost in our own time, at least in the time that I am old enough to remember, in my boyhood, were cases in which there was a conflict between the people and the judge. Let us consider some of the most notable cases. There is one case I recollect very well, which would appeal to the Attorney-General. The gentleman who was interested in the case, the defendant, was a very picturesque and able young man,

743
indicted for a thumping libel on the Government. His name was F. Smith. He was had up before Jeffreys, in 1680. The grand jury liked the style of F. Smith, and liked his ability and his talents, and they would not convict him. In they came., ignoring the bill, and he sent them back three times, and F. Smith was preserved to us. There is another case, almost a year after that, almost as interesting. I do not know that the F. Smith of 1680 became Attorney-General or Prime Minister, but if he was as good a man as his modern representative, we shall be well content for his being preserved from the stocks or gaol by the grand jury. A year after that a potential Prime Minister escaped by the interposition of a grand jury. Lord Shaftesbury was brought up. He was to be impeached for a libel on the Government, or rather for treason, and an indictment had to be found. The House of Lords was adjourned, and the arrangement was that not the House of Lords but a packed jury of the House of Lords should try him, and Lord Shaftesbury had not a chance for his life. The two judges, when the jury ignored the bill, insisted on the grand jury going out, and having witnesses examined before them. The foreman of the grand jury said, "We are bound to keep secret." "That is quite true," said Justice North, who was seconded by Justice Pemberton, "but the King, in his prerogative, can allow the publicity." Lord Shaftesbury got off by the perverse finding of the grand jury. So there is something to be said for grand juries.
Let me turn for a moment to Ireland. Grand juries have played a most conspicuous part there. If it had not been for the intervention of the grand jury, the whole agitation in reference to the Drapier letters by Swift would have been suppressed. There the Chief Justice brought out the grand jury thirteen times, and they ignored the bill, and the Chief Justice abused them to the uttermost. The printer of the Drapier letters was never prosecuted. In a time far more recent, coming to our own time, an Attorney-General abused his position in Ireland in this way. They have sometimes done it. When they became converted I do not know, but I have always found in my thirty years here that the Attorney-General was always everything that was right and everything that his predecessor ought not to be. This occurred in Lord
744
Plunkett's time. Lord Plunkett wished to prosecute some people for what was called the bottle riot. He preferred an ordinary bill against them. The grand jury ignored the bill. He then proceeded ex officio in spite of the grand jury, this conduct was discussed in this House in the fiercest terms. Anyone who refers to the Debates for 15th April, 1823, will see a strong upholding from a high Tory of the principles of the grand jury.
In my boyhood grand juries played a conspicuous part I was very young at the time, but I recollect the Jamaican insurrection. I recollect Governor Eyre's action. I recollect a prosecution endeavoured to be instituted against two of Governor Eyre's assistants for holding a court-martial in Jamaica on a man named Gordon for murder. Then a bill was preferred against two gentlemen, and the Chief Justice of England, Lord Chief Justice Oockburn, endeavoured to get the grand jury to find a trite bill against these gentlemen, and made what was called at the time a Balaclava Charge against them, a charge which contains a wonderful exposition of what martial law is or is not; but the grand jury, in spite of the charge of the judge, ignored the bill, and then, in spite of the charge of Lord Blackburn, they ignored another bill against Governor Eyre himself. All these things show that grand juries are really a very great protection for the public against the influence of the Crown on the one hand and the influence of the judges on the other. Of course, if the sense of the House is in favour of passing this Bill, I cannot in any way resist it. I have simply wished to raise a protest against what I consider a very ancient, a very interesting, and a very venerable institution. If I had no feeling in reference to it, I could not resist the exposition of the benefits of the grand jury as described by Sir Harry Poland, who was an Old Bailey prosecutor for fifty or sixty years, and whose knowledge of all things, especially of criminal matters, is encyclopædic. Sir Harry Poland himself said that he was counsel first of all for Governor Eyre, and then for Colonel Neilson and Mr. Grant, and that he blessed the interposition of the grand jury on that occasion. I think the House for the kindness with which they have listened whilst I have addressed them.
Mr. TURTON: As I was the Member who first brought this question before the learned Attorney-General, I beg to thank

745
him for at last, and somewhat tardily, having brought in this measure. I confess that I have done my best in the interval to be a nuisance to him, and I have continually pressed upon him the importance of this measure. We have had from my learned Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill) a very interesting discussion from the Constitutional point of view, and, if we were now dealing with a measure for the total abolition of the grand jury, unquestionably there would be a great deal in the speech which it would be necessary to answer, but we are now dealing with what is essentially a war measure. I can say, having been Chairman of Quarter Sessions for my county for a considerable number of years that it would be perfectly impossible for any injustice to be done under the Bill. I am confident that all the magistrates assembled at Petty Sessions, when they have an indictment case before them, will be, if possible, far more cautious and careful in the future than they have been in the past. They will not only discuss whether there is sufficient legal evidence upon which they ought to send the prisoner for trial, but they will also carefully consider whether it is a case in which a jury are likely to convict. I am perfectly confident that there can be no injustice done to any prisoner under this proposed new system. It has, indeed, been a very grievous thing to me time after time to have to admit to a grand jury how ashamed I am that they have been called from their important duties to do practically what is nothing at all. At the Quarter Sessions before the last there was a man who had been apprehended for some small larceny. He was obliged to be sent for trial, owing to the number of previous convictions against him. When charged by the policeman he admitted his guilt, and when asked before the magistrates whether he had anything to say he said, "I am guilty." Yet we had no less than twenty-four farmers called away from their farms at the busiest time of the year, namely, July, for the purpose of having a true bill found.
I am glad this measure has been brought in at the present time, and I hope the House will give it a prompt reading at its different stages, in order that men who are now called up to do these duties may be absolved from them in future. I have a little doubt about the Clause which allows a judge to take upon himself the
746
functions of a grand jury. I should have been glad if the Attorney-General had omitted that Clause altogether and had allowed a case, when it had been committed for trial, to go at once before the common jury. Having regard to the fact that a large number of Quarter Sessions, like those of my own county, are drawn from country gentlemen at the present time, I think it would have been more satisfactory, when a case has been committed for trial, if it went at once before the common jury, and if the chairman of Quarter Sessions were not called upon to exercise in his own person the functions of a grand jury. I can only say that the representations which have been received by the Attorney-General are well worthy of the attention of this House. I believe on a previous occasion he did go elsewhere for inspiration. I understand that in the other quarter where he took advice there was an opinion not wholly in favour of this Bill, and I believe one or two of those who were most against it were those who are generally the despair of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and whose sentences and directions are most frequently called into question. I can only say that I am sorry my learned Friend listened to those who, even in war time, cannot forego their idle vapourings before a grand jury.
Mr. HEMMERDE: I am one of those of the legal profession—I believe we are in a majority, although we certainly are not unanimous—who would like to see grand juries abolished altogether. I also agree with the hon. Member who spoke last in not very much liking that proviso which puts upon the judge the conscience of a grand jury. I would like, as one who is not a Recorder for an agricultural district, but who has been for eight years Recorder of Liverpool, where we have probably as large a calendar as any of our great towns, although we are not conspicuously large, to say that I have never known a case brought before the grand jury at Liverpool which could possibly for one moment have given them the idea that it was their duty to throw it out, or which as a fact they have thrown out. During the time I have been Recorder no Bill has been thrown out at all, and I believe that was so for many years previously. Grand juries, certainly in our big towns, are absolutely a thing of the past. They are completely unnecessary. One can make beautiful cases about the history of grand

747
juries. One can trace them back to Ethelred II. or even earlier, when they had totally different functions, and one can talk, particularly to a lay assembly, as though there was something in it, of historical questions about grand juries and there being some reason for preserving them. There is no reason for preserving them, although I quite agree that the Attorney-General has taken a wise course in putting off that thorny matter upon which people hold different views until the War ends.
The other day, when I found myself once more face to face with a grand jury—all of them practically ought to have been busily engaged in doing work for the Government—who were brought down to Liverpool, as grand juries mostly are, five times a year, to do work which is really no work at all, and which never takes more than a few minutes, though it wastes a day and brings them on railways already crowded and takes them away from valuable work, I felt it my duty to protest against what I ventured to call the melancholy farce of grand jury procedure. The Government are doing a very wise and necessary thing, and I thought that I would give the House the benefit of what I have seen in a large town of the lack of the necessity of any such body as a grand jury. As a matter of fact, the cases are always well looked into by the magistrates before they ever come before the grand jury at all, and the grand jury certainly in war-time is unnecessary. I hope when the War is over we shall sweep it away as only cumbering our legal procedure, and as a relic of a past which was very different from our own time. At one time grand juries did stand for the liberties of the people, but one or two of the cases which I have heard to-day do not convince me that they were always right. Grand juries in the old days had functions which they will never have to perform again, and I for one welcome this Bill most heartily.
Mr. HEALY: I agree entirely with what has fallen from the two hon. Gentlemen who preceded me, perhaps with the exception of this small criticism. The Attorney-General, I must say, by the introduction of this Bill, shows, I think, at once the glory and the shame of this House, the glory as regards England and the shame as regards Ireland. The glory in this respect, that the moment an English Member states his opinion his view
748
is listened to instantly by the Executive Government, and this question, which has not been agitated practically for more than a couple of months, finds a response on the part of the Executive authority, and this Bill is brought in in response to public opinion. Considering the ancient character of the institution, the wonder is that the Bill is introduced at all. Take the case with regard to Ireland. He says that no single representation has reached him from Ireland on this subject. Why? Because there is not a single Irishman living who thinks that it would be any good to make any representation to any English Department. That is the fact, and I think that an Irish Attorney-General would no mote venture to address the English Law Officer on a question of procedure than I would think of offering my opinion to the Pope on a question of theology.
Last year the Indictments Bill was brought forward, and I asked why it was not applied to Ireland. But the Government would not touch this remnant of old Irish archaeology, and we are to-day as we were 300 years ago with regard to indictments in Ireland. Whereas you have absolutely swept away the old procedure in England, you have the law left in Ireland as it was. Both as regards indictments and grand juries, when a legal reform is brought forward nobody ever thinks of Ireland. The old Law Revision Acts for years were left without any Irish Act-being revised. I myself, with great difficulty, thirty years ago got a small Committee appointed, and some little good was done. But the Irish Law Officers in this House never think of reform. They think they are on the way to pensions; they never think they are on the way to reform. They want to get into their jobs the same as a rabbit wants to got into its hole. The thought of doing anything for legal efficacy never strikes anybody. I desire to make a protest on this question of grand jury. Let us begin with Quarter Sessions. Why should twenty-three poor men, on some question of stealing a pocket-handkerchief, be brought in seven or eight miles to Quarter Sessions to pass a bill before the County Court judge can determine the guilt of a prisoner? During war-time crime is exceedingly light. There are practically no calendars of any importance, and the result is that these twenty-three gentlemen have to come in with nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman is most anxious with

749
regard to the March Assizes. I quite appreciate that. But why should twenty-three times thirty-three men in the Irish counties and twenty-three times seven or eight men in the Irish boroughs continue to be brought in? Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to have included Ireland.
I tell him frankly that I will not oppose his Bill. I will not oppose a reform which I believe to be absolutely essential, but I entreat of him to extend this measure of relief to Ireland. I quite agree that in these ancient times grand juries had functions. There was good and bad to be said of them. There is a good deal in what the hon. Member behind me has stated. Then there were cases in the old times where Lord Faulkland and Deputy St. John put twenty-three soldiers into the box who had no more to do with the county than I have to do with the Isle of Wight. So we can quote cases on both sides. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us for Ireland the same reform which he and all the Law Officers whom I have watched on both sides both for England and Scotland have always been anxious to do for their countries. They have always been most anxious for reform, whatever party they belonged to, but we have nothing of that sort in Ireland. The country is without a shepherd, and it is only right in a matter of this kind which is now a public convenience some attention should be paid to our needs.
In reference to the power to be left to the judge I would say that it is throwing an unjust burden upon him to put upon him the arduous duty of ignoring or of approving of these bills. Take a case that interests everybody in which there is great public interest—I am sorry to have to mention it, but say a sexual case. The magistrate as a rule will send that case forward for trial because he says, "Let the petty jury decide upon it." The man may be absolutely innocent, a false charge may be brought against him. If the judge ventures to ignore the bill, and that man is of high standing, if it is a blackmailing case, there may be an outcry that the judge has acted partially and in favour of that man. It is an injustice to impose such a duty, and it ought not to be done. I respectfully think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised, unless he has opinion behind him with which I cannot venture to quarrel, not to put an arduous obligation of this kind upon the learned judge, who has
750
quite enough to do to try the prisoner, and I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman not to make this change unless the view to the contrary is held strongly by some great authority.
Sir C. HENRY: I was a member of the-Royal Commission which dealt with the judiciary of the King's Bench, and there was no point on which it was stronger than that the grand jury system should be discontinued, and I believe that if it had not been for the War the recommendation of that Royal Commission would have been considered, and this system of grand juries would have been done away with before this. One reason why the Royal Commission came to that conclusion was that for more than half a century it had been debated whether the inconvenience and cost of summoning the grand jury did not far outweigh any advantage that was afforded. Another reason why it was maintained that the grand jury system should be abolished was that it had outlived the circumstances in which it had its origin and was not an essential safeguard of innocence, and that it usually put the country to considerable expense and numerous persons to great inconvenience. My hon, and learned Friend will see that this decision was arrived at on the evidence of judges and others who were well able to define and testify to the position. In the first Clause of the Bill it is proposed that it shall operate until the 28th day of December next after the termination of the War. If the War ends on the 1st January this Bill would be in operation for about twelve months following. If the War ends on the 1st December the Bill would only be in operation for about three weeks. I make the suggestion whether the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way, instead of continuing the Bill until the 28th December next after the War, to-substitute the words, "until Parliament otherwise determines." By so doing, the position would not be in any way one in which Parliament would lose control, and if the measure continued to work satisfactorily, as I believe it would, on the evidence I heard before the Royal Commission, I think that would be a desirable course to pursue, because the matter would still come under the notice of Parliament. In any case, I cannot see why it should be continued perhaps for three weeks after the termination of the War, or, it might be, for twelve months. I would urge the House to let the Bill pass its stages for the reasons alleged by the

751
Attorney-General. The matter has been thoroughly investigated by the Royal Commission, and the general feeling, not only of the legal profession but of those who sat on the Commission, is that the grand jury should be done away with.
Mr. RAWLINSON: As far as I am concerned, I feel that there is some inconvenience in passing the Bill into law in the form in which it is at the present time. Of course, it is a war measure but not a popular war measure, and although it is perfectly right to bring people to perform very desirable duties during peace time, in war-time difficulties present themselves and on the whole the balance is in favour of the Bill. In Clause 1 powers are given to the judge in regard to which I have an Amendment to propose to omit certain words, and unless I receive some explanation I shall be inclined to press that Amendment; and I have another small drafting Amendment to insert at the end of the first Clause, but I will not trouble the House with it at the present moment. I think, however, that it is a dangerous matter that the House of Commons should allow a Bill of this kind, of which everybody is not unitedly in favour, to pass its three stages in one night. We have the duty in the House of Commons, quite apart from anything else, to go through the different points which are raised. The Bill came on at half-past eight this evening, and nobody expected it to-night at all. One hon. Member said he was strongly opposed to the measure, and that it ought not to go through, but he went away, quite expecting that the Bill would not come on. I do think it is a bad precedent to take all the stages tonight, unless there is great urgency. I do not believe the Government need act hastily in this matter; the Bill could perfectly well be taken to-morrow night, and if you are to make an alteration in a matter of this kind, the House should have an opportunity to express its opinion. There is no particular urgency in this matter. The Sessions do not come on until the 28th March, and the Assizes are very nearly at an end at the present time. As a matter of fact, two or three days could not make very much difference.
Mr. SALTER: The sense of the House is clearly in favour of the Bill and in regard to what several speakers have stated as to the powers given to the judge
752
to act in place of the grand jury; but I do not think that the powers conferred on the judge would render his duties unduly onerous. He has power now to make up his mind whether he will proceed, or whether he will not ignore a bill, and this is solely and entirely in the interests of the accused. I agree strongly with the reasons of many people as to the value of the grand jury as defenders of liberty, but I would point out that we are dealing with a temporary and urgent matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend will proceed with the measure.
Sir F. SMITH: Of course we can discusion any point on which it is obvious that the opinion of the House may be required, and I shall be very glad to consider any point which is raised. At the same time I would point out that the Debate on the Second Reading is overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill, and I hope that the House will be good enough to go on with it to-night.
Mr. KING: Two legal gentlemen have written to me regarding this Bill, and one is sending me an Amendment to put down. I think it is rather rapid procedure which is being suggested in this case, to try and get a Bill through all its stages in one day, and I cannot believe that the Attorney-General will press that.
Mr. T. WILSON: As a layman, I would like to support the Bill. I would not care to pit my opinions against those of legal gentlemen, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has had a long experience in Court work, and who tells us he is satisfied that the abolition of grand juries permanently would be a good thing. I have been a magistrate for some years now, and it has always appeared to me quite farcical that cases should go before grand juries at Sessions and Assizes. As a layman, I welcome the introduction of this measure. I hope it will be put into operation for the duration of the War, and that, after that, it will become a permanent legal enactment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on this Bill."
Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, when the Clause excluding Ireland is reached, to move to report Progress?
Sir F. SMITH: Yes, if it is so desired.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE. 1.—(Suspension of Grand Juries.)
(1) During the continuance of the present War and until the twenty-eighth day of December next after the determination thereof, no precept for the summoning of a grand jury or grand jurors shall be issued nor shall any grand jury be summoned, and any such precept or summons in existence at the date of the passing of this Act shall be void and of no effect.
(2) Any bill of indictment which but for this Act would have been preferred before a grand jury shall be preferred before the Court before which the indictment if to be prosecuted, and the judge of that Court, or an officer of that Court duly authorised in writing by the Court for the purpose, shall append his signature to the bill, and thereupon the bill shall be proceeded with in like manner in all respects as if it had been found a true bill and so presented to the Court by a grand jury, and the Statute and common law relating to such proceedings shall apply accordingly:
Provided that in any case where the judge whose duty it would have been but for this Act to charge a grand jury would have advised such grand jury not to find a bill of indictment a true bill, either as to the whole thereof or as to any count therein, the judge shall make an endorsement upon such bill of indictment to the same effect, and thereupon such bill of indictment or count therein shall be dealt with in all respects as if a grand jury had found no bill in respect thereof.
(3) The First Schedule to the Indictments Act, 1915, shall apply to all bills of indictment preferred before a Court in pursuance of this Act, except that the words "presentment of the grand jury" required by Rule 2 in the said Schedule shall be omitted.
(4) Where the form of any recognizance or other instrument (statutory or other wise) relating to procedure as to indictable offences contains a reference to a grand jury, such reference shall be omitted, and the rule committee established by the Indictments Act, 1915, shall make rules for making such variations in such forms and instruments, and for making such adaptations in the procedure for the trial of indictable offences as may be necessary to give effect to this Section.
(5) No bill of indictment for any offence, whether or not an offence to which the Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859, applies, shall be preferred before a Court under this Act, except in the circumstances in which a bill for an indictment for an offence to which that Act applies may under that Act be presented to a grand jury.
(6) For the purposes of this Section, judge of a Court shall, in the case of a court of Quarter Sessions, mean the chairman.
Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "until the 28th day of December next," and to insert instead thereof the words "for the period of six months." The object of this Amendment is to meet the objection raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Henry). I do not think it right to accept the exact words suggested by the hon. Member, and I hope he will agree to those I am now proposing.
Mr. KING: I would like to ask the Attorney-General how he defines "the end of the War." When will the end of the War be? Will it be the first day of any armistice, or when will it be? Already once or twice the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated that the expression "termination of the War" will need legal definition, and I venture to ask him now whether he will consider the desirability of defining it in some way at an early date.
Sir F. SMITH: I will consider that point.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. S. MacNEILL: Before we take the next Amendment, should there not be some reference to indictments coming before a grand jury which will not be tried at the particular Sessions or Assize, say, an indictment against a Peer of the Realm, who is entitled to claim to be tried by the House of Lords? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to consider that point before the Report stage?
Sir F. SMITH: Yes.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "or an officer of that Court duly authorised in writing by the Court for the purpose."
Mr. HEMMERDE: The Clause now provides that any bill of indictment which

755
but for this Act would have been preferred before a grand jury, shall be preferred before the Court before which the indictment is to be prosecuted, and the judge, or some officer of the Court duly authorised in writing shall append his signature to the bill. The question raised by the Amendment is whether in a case where the grand jury would return a true bill, the judge shall sign the indictment himself—and there may be hundreds of indictments to be dealt with—^or whether the clerk of the peace shall sign it. One naturally wants to get to work straight off at the beginning, instead of wasting time on pure formalities. In this case the Recorder would simply authorise the clerk of the peace to sign the indictment which he thinks should come forward. It is simply a matter of machinery, but the result of accepting this Amendment would be that very likely half an hour of time would be wasted while the recorder or chairman of the Court of Sessions was appending his signature to possibly a hundred documents. I can see no point whatever in the Amendment. There is no need to leave out these words. One would naturally authorise the proper person to exercise this ministerial function, and the judge of the Court would authorise the clerk of the peace to append his signature.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The only question is who is the proper person to sign the indictment, and I think that might be made clear in the Bill. There is one other point which I wish to submit to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is this. We all know that grand juries have witnesses before them. It seems to me it would be intolerable to put upon a judge or recorder the duty of hearing evidence before deciding whether a true bill ought to be returned, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make it perfectly clear in the Bill that there is no such duty cast upon them, so that, in the future, there may be no misunderstanding on the point. The intention is that the judge reading the depositions in the future shall upon the depositions make up his mind as to whether there should be a true bill or not. Although there has been in the past no cross-examination of witnesses before a grand jury, still they have seen the witnesses, and I submit that cither now or at a later stage it should be made perfectly clear, in order that there may be no controversy about it afterwards, that the learned judge of the Court or the Recorder
756
or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions shall, after reading the depositions, undertake these functions without going through the very laborious process of hearing the witnesses in order to find a true bill or not.
Sir F. SMITH: That point should arise on the Clause in the Bill before reaching which I shall move to report Progress, having regard to the undertaking I gave, and that will be dealt with to-morrow. As far as the Amendment which is now before the Committee is concerned, it is because I attach very little importance indeed to the discharge of this ministerial function that I agree to the omission of the words. The difference between the hon. and learned Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) and me is that he is a judge who has to decide these things and I am not. It may be, however, that after what my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Itawlin-son) has heard of the experience of the hon. Gentleman beside him he may not attach such importance as lie does to the Amendment being made. I attach no importance to it.
Mr. HEMMERDE: I have had as many as sixty or seventy cases with indictments in each case to sign.
Mr. HEALY: The position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that when the judge rejects the Bill he can only reject it after hearing the witnesses who would otherwise have gone before the grand jury. If he is bound to do that in the case of a rejection of the bill, he is surely bound to do the same thing when the bill is found. He cannot either reject or find a true bill without a primâ facie case being made, and therefore, I think, the point taken by the right hon. Gentleman is sound.
Mr. POLLOCK: Before the Attorney-General reconsiders this Clause I should like to reinforce the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). I hope the Attorney-General will delete these words. I think the hon. Member who sits below me, who is the Recorder for a very large borough (Mr. Hemmerde), takes a somewhat gloomy view. His experience is that he would have to sign a great number of documents, but we have to consider the matter as a whole, and a great number of Assize Courts, at which a great number of judges sit, do not involve any such great number as he has to deal with, and I submit that the words which are the subject of the present Amendment give me some difficulty. Take an ordinary Assize

757
Court where there is not a very large number of indictments; who is the officer intended by these words? When the judge arrives, is the officer to be then appointed on that day for the purpose of carrying out this ministerial duty? If so, it really matters very little whether the judge himself does it, or the clerk, authorised in writing, does it; and if there are not very many indictments I should have thought it would be safer and better that the judge himself should do it, rather than that he should authorise in writing the officer underneath him to do it. Upon consideration of all the circumstances, I trust the Attorney-General will leave out these words as being, on the whole, unnecessary and taking from the judge a duty which ought to fall upon him.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. SALTER: I think it is hardly worth while discussing this particular Amendment, because it would be quite plain that the signing of a bill where it is found is purely ministerial. That has to be done in every case, except in those exceptional cases where the judge thinks there should be no bill, and that is a thing which must be done by the judge himself. Whether the mere ministerial signing of bills to go through should be done by the judge or by his deputy is unimportant. The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether witnesses are to be heard by the judge is a very important question. I confess that it never crossed my mind that anything of the kind was intended or could take place. I think the Bill makes it perfectly plain that there is to be no examination of witnesses of any sort or kind, but if that is in any conceivable doubt it should be made quite plain.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I read this Clause through and came to the same conclusion as the last speaker, that there would be no hearing of witnesses by the judge at all, but that the duty of the judge was to read through the depositions, and if he thought a true bill could Be brought he would say so, and if not he would say no. Then these words were pointed out to me by a very overworked Recorder, who shall be nameless, but who is not a Member of this House. He said it would be a serious thing to add these words, the omission of which I have moved. He said the mean-of the words is that a judge of a Court or an officer duly authorised in writing would be authorised to read the deposi-
758
tions and then to append his signature, because if that is not the meaning of the words they are absolutely unnecessary. They are either useless or distinctly harmful, and therefore I move that they should be left out. If my hon. and learned Friend's signature has to be appended to a large number of indictments and he chooses to authorise someone to do it for him owing to press of business, it is his signature, though the hand which writes it may be somebody else's: therefore these words are unnecessary.
Sir F. SMITH: I think the matter is a very unimportant one, and I am willing to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words,
"provided that in any case where the judge whose duty it would have been but for this Act to charge a grand jury would have advised such grand jury not to find a bill of indictment a true bill, either as to the whole thereof or as to any count therein, the judge shall make an endorsement upon such bill of indictment to the same effect, and thereupon such bill of indictment or count therein shall be dealt with in all respects as if a grand jury had found no bill in respect thereof."
This is an Amendment which was anticipated before I spoke by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. S. MacNeill). A legal gentleman of very considerable experience in criminal law wrote to call my attention to this, and asked me to move to omit these words. He said a grand jury might have found a true bill in spite of the judge's advice in such a case, and if the grand jury is abolised the real course would be to make the committal for trial conclusive. It seems to me that this Clause is quite unnecessary. I hope these words may be omitted. They only make the framework of the Bill more obscure and the whole procedure more complicated.
Sir F. SMITH: The hon. Member, I think, is in error when he says that the subject-matter of the Amendment makes the fabric of the Bill in any way obscure. The proposal to omit the words ma5' be good or bad, but I think the meaning of the words cannot be in doubt. A point which is well worth the consideration of the Committeee is, assuming under

759
modern conditions the grand jury maintains any vestige of important functions, is it or is it not desirable that some attempt should be made to provide a substitute, while attaining the object which is the generally agreed object of this Bill? The more I have examined this question, the more I lean to the view that under modern conditions no real function of importance is discharged by the grand jury, and I would almost challenge anyone who has made an attentive study of the statistics all over the country of the proportion of cases in which the grand jury has thrown out bills to come to a contrary conclusion. Therefore, I myself care very little whether this provisio comes out or not. It has been my experience, and I believe that of those who have considerable knowledge of the working of our criminal law, that it is the common practice of judges at Assizes and of chairmen of Quarter Sessions in all important cases to give advice in charges to grand jury, and I say that, while you may have exceptional cases in which grand juries have not accepted that advice, in the majority of cases it is accepted. Therefore, if no security is necessary in the opinion of the whole Committee, by all means let it go out; but if any additional security is considered in any quarter to be necessary, do not let us say it is not provided. It' anyone values the function of the grand jury at least I offer them something to take its place. If the Committee as a whole is convinced that we might without any risk at all do away even with this, I am content, if that is the view of the Committee, but I advise them, if I may respectfully offer advice, having regard to the fact that there are some persons of experience who think otherwise, it might perhaps be prudent on our part to retain this provision, in the hope that, if there are apprehensions, they may to some extent be assuaged by retaining these words. I do not hold strong views on the point.
Mr. HEALY: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has only done himself justice in saying that it was through regard for the interests, I may say, of innocence that he introduced those words. On the question of procedure, he has used the word "bill" throughout this measure. How can any judge order a prisoner to be discharged and find no bill against him on the depositions alone? It would be said at once that if the judge had seen the cogent witnesses
760
he would never have taken that course at all, whereas if this provision be omitted the moment the petty jury was empanelled the judge could say, "There is no evidence in my opinion before the judge, and your duty is to find prisoner 'not guilty,'" or he might say to the prosecuting counsel, "Do you think this case need proceed?" Therefore, as a provision in favour of innocence, it is wholly needless, and the prisoner would just as well obtain his ends by different methods. Whereas by leaving them in the Act you suggest that it is necessary in all cases to deal with the witnesses who would otherwise be examined before the grand jury. The old practice was to write the names of witnesses on the back of bills, and then the prisoner had the right to call upon the Crown to produce every person whose name was on the back of the bill. Here, by using the words of the Bill you will still suggest to the judges and to the advocates the idea that there should be some kind of primâ facie hearing by the judge in some informal way. The safer course would be to omit the words altogether. At the same time I fully recognise that the right hon. Gentleman in introducing them was only anxious for the liberty of the subject, and that it is to his credit that he should have taken this extra safeguard.
Mr. HEMMERDE: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has spoken last. He pointed out that a judge forms a view; but certainly he does not according to the wording of this Statute have to examine witnesses. If the judge forms the view under this proviso, he can prevent a prisoner being tried, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out. The judge has only to say to the petty jury— and if they are of opinion that view is really worth anything—and speaking generally the petty jury will hold that view—he has only to give the petty jury his opinion of the case and the prisoner is discharged. On the other hand, there are cases where the grand jury system has been used, not to protect prisoners rightly, but to protect them wrongly. There has been one or two cases where grand juries have thrown out bills which ought to have been presented. I do not want to go into those cases. But there are cases within certainly the last ten years which hon. Members will probably remember that occur in connection with this point. It puts upon the judge a very unpleasant duty in that particular sort of case. I

761
think it is not a good thing for the administration of justice that in certain cases I have in my mind—particularly one— where there has been political feeling and a prosecution has taken place, and the question comes before a judge who, after all, is but one man, and he decides that that prosecution is not to take place, such a decision is very much less satisfactory than when it comes before a grand jury, who, perhaps, decide wrongly that that prosecution is not to take place. Supposing these words go out and a case like that goes up from the magistrates where there is strong political feeling. The judge may endeavour to enforce his view upon the petty jury, but the ultimate decision is not with him, but with the jury. I think, generally speaking, where there are cases like this that the jury is at least as good a judge of the facts as is the judge. I think it is far better that in cases like that, where people may be wrongly shielded, that they should be taken out of the decision of one man and put into the decision of twelve.
Sir G. TOULMIN: It appears to me that this provision is in the direction of a protection for prisoners only in those cases in which the judge believes them to be innocent. I think we may trust the judges only to use such an exceptional provision as this in very exceptional circumstances. I cannot imagine any judge in such a case as has been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend making use of this provision. If he thought the case was such a one he would allow the Bill to go forward. It would only be in a case where he thought there was no true bill that he would take the decision upon himself, being, as it were, the grand jury.
Mr. SALTER: I trust the Committee will consider carefully before they strike out these words. I am in favour of the abolition of grand juries, but we are not debating the necessity of them. We are debating an emergency Bill. Certainly if these words are struck out a valuable safeguard, which prisoners accused, and in all human probability unjustly accused, at present enjoy, would be taken away from them so long as this Bill operates. These words operate only in exceedingly rare cases where a man has been committed for trial, and where the judge thinks not merely that he is innocent or will not be convicted, but where he never
762
ought to have been sent for trial. There are such cases, and in those cases the judge suggests to the grand jury to ignore the bill, and they accept his advice in a great majority of cases, and then the man does not undergo the ignominy of being put into the dock. That will remain the position during the time that this bill will operate, and such a man will go away without trial. If these words are struck out then that man must go and stand in the box, the jury must be sworn, counsel will open the case against him, and witnesses will give evidence against him. It may be that the judge will break the case down, but that man for an hour or two has to undergo ignominy, in a, position he ought never to have been put into. I hope the Committee will not take away from men unjustly accused the right they enjoy under the present law.
Mr. MacNEILL: I differ in toto from my hon. and learned Friend opposite on this point, and rather than take the course suggested I would much prefer that this proviso should be swept away altogether. He said that as the Bill stood it simply transferred to the judge all the functions of the grand jury; but it does nothing of the kind. It simply places before the judge what the hon. Gentleman near me has already pointed out, and it does not give the power of the grand jury. It is more by inference than by actual statement in the Bill that the functions of a judge in such a case as this would be to read over the depositions, and if on those depositions he has come not to a doubt but to an absolute conclusion that a prima facie case has not been made out, he then does what is tantamount to ignoring the bill. The depositions are in writing, and the magistrates who took them have had an opportunity of seeing the prisoner, of watching the demeanour of the witnesses, and the judge will say, "Well, So-and-So has seen the whole thing and thinks it a fit case to go to trial, and I shall not order otherwise." I do not know anything that judges are so jealous about as interfering with the decision of juries in criminal affairs. I remember that one judge retired from the Bench which he adorned when a Coercion Act was passed making the judges try certain cases. If he had to read the depositions more carefully, and if he concludes that there should be an indictment, the impression on his

763
mind will be certainly not a negative but an absolutely positive impression. I think on the whole that these provisos are not good. They are not good for the prisoner, they are undoubtedly lowering to the legal profession, and they give an enormous amount of trouble to the judge without any result. It may be said, "The grand jury has been suspended for the present, the judge does the work." He does nothing of the kind. He does not see the witnesses, and he ought not to see them. He does not hear the witnesses, and ho ought not to hear them. The thing is completely wrong that any man, merely by reading the depositions, can reverse the opinions of another man competent to judge, who has seen the witnesses, and who is familiar with the whole surrounding circumstances, which are so different when subjected to our gaze. T would urge that these provisos be withdrawn from the Bill.
Mr. POLLOCK: I think it would be btter to maintain the proviso for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Aldershot (Mr. Salter), and also on the ground of the illustration given so forcibly by the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), who suggested that, as a matter of fact, and I think we all agree with him, there are cases in which when an indictment has been preferred and the jury has been sworn, the judge is within his right to say to the prosecuting counsel, "Do you intend to proceed with this case? Do you think you will succeed?" and to ask the prosecuting counsel whether, upon a review of the case, he will not agree to drop the prosecution and allow a verdict of not guilty to be pronounced.
The hon. and learned Member for Cork is perfectly right in saying that takes place, and rightly takes place. The judge and prosecuting counsel, after a short conversation, often arrive at a decision that the case is one which ought never to be opened, and that the prisoner ought to be at once released. Further argument proceeded on those lines. If this proviso is not in the Bill it is necessary for the judge to hear all the witnesses, and he cannot interpose until he has heard them all tell their story, whereas in actual practice it is far different. If the hon. Member for Cork is right why should not we give to the same judge a
764
slightly earlier power, so that if the same judge after reading the deposition is able to say to himself, "Suppose a witness said all this there would really be no case on which the prisoner should be convicted: the case ought not to be opened"; if that is his view, it is far more satisfactory that the judge should act at an earlier stage, and that, as the hon. Member for Alder-shot has said, the prisoner should be spared the ignominy of waiting, in suspense, the result of a trial which ought never to have been commenced, and which ought to be dropped at the earliest possible moment.
Sir F. SMITH: Very different views have been held by different speakers. Under the circumstances, I would submit that, however seldom these cases may be, supposing there is only one case in 500 or one ease in a thousand in which a trained lawyer reading the depositions would say; "I am not satisfied that the man ought to be put upon his trial," this provision is justified. On the whole, I think that my hon. Friend (Mr. King) will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. KING: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word Act ["Vexatious Indictments Act]," to insert the words "as subsequently amended." I believe that the Act of 1859 was amended and, if so, the words would, I submit, be required.
Sir F. SMITH: If it has been—
Mr. KING: As the matter is to be looked into before Report, I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. RAWLINSON: In Sub-section (6) I think that after the word "Chairman" it may be necessary to insert the words "or Recorder as the case may be."
Sir F. SMITH: I will look into it.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Likewise it must apply to the judges of the House of Lords.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SELECT COMMITTEES APPOINTED.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee on Public Accounts do consist of Fifteen Members:
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Arnold, Mr. Baldwin, Sir Robert Balfour, Mr. Reginald Blair, Mr. Brady, Sir Hildred Carlile, Sir Henry Craik, Sir Edward Goulding, Mr. Hazleton, Sir Charles Henry, Mr. Higham, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Jowett, Mr. McKinnon Wood, and Sir Robert Williams.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Colonel Craig.]

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates, and to inquire into the expenditure on Stationery and Printing for this House and the public service generally.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Sir James Agg-Gardner, Mr. Bower-man, Mr. Godfrey Collins, Mr. Doris, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Grant, Mr. Butler Lloyd, Mr. Francis M'Laren, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Partington, and Sir George Toulmin.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— [Colonel Craig.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify
  766
  and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  Committee accordingly nominated of Sir William Bull, Mr. Burt, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Hackett, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Maskinder, Colonel Pryce-Jones, Mr. Reddy, and Mr. Turton.
  Ordered, that three be the quorum.— [Colonel Craig.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes before Eleven o'clock.