Commons Sitting of 15 February 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  Sir John Barlow, Mr. Boland, Mr. Bowerman, Sir Daniel Goddard, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Holmes, Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Lonsdale, Sir William Priestley, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Samuel Roberts nominated Members of the Committee of Selection.— [Sir John Lonsdale.]
  NEW WRIT.
  For the County of Warwick (Northern or Tamworth Division), in the room of Francis Alexander Newdegate, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Colonel Craig.]

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1916–17).
  Estimate presented of the Further Sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ended 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 21.]
  Estimate presented of the Additional Numbers of Officers and Men required to be voted for the. Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 22.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
  Estimates presented for the year 1917–18 [by Commmand]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 23.]
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  Copies presented of Brewers' Sugar Order, 1917, Dealings in Sugar (Restriction) Order, 1917, and Brewers' (Malt Purchases) Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under Regulation 2 F of the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copies presented of Orders made by the Board under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts (1) dissolving the Mitchelstown Union and adding the several townlands thereof to the Fermoy Union; (2) revoking Article 37 of the General Regulations of 18th December, 1882, and substituting therefor a fresh Article to be read and construed in place of the Article revoked [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  1. Bank of England.—Copy of all Applications made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England for advances to Government authorised by Parliament, from 5th January, 1916, to 5th January, 1917 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 24.]

  2. Lunacy and Mental Deficiency.— Copy of Second Annual Report of the Board of Control on Lunacy and Mental Deficiency for the year 1915. Part I. [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 25.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    EXPORTS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much ore of different kinds the firm of Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, has been permited to export to Scandinavian countries and Holland since the I outbreak of war; who the official has been who passed all these consignments in the past; and who is the person now responsible?
    Captain Viscount WOLMER(on behalf of the War Trade Department): In the spring of 1915 this firm exported some consignments of ore from Sardinia. Any licence for the export of ore from this country to Scandinavia or Holland since the outbreak of the War would, in the ordinary course, have required the authorisation of the Committee on Trading

    769
    with the Enemy or since the formation of the War Trade Department in March, 1915, of that Department. I understand that a licence to this firm was authorised by the Committee on the 19th January, 1915, for the export of 400 tons of ore from Swansea to Holland, and a licence for the export of 45 tons of spelter to Norway was authorised by the Department in August, 1915, upon an arrangement by the Ministry of Munitions, for the return to this country of the refined spelter. Three other licences were authorised in 1916 for the transmission of three samples of 168 lbs. each of copper pyrites by parcel post to Norway. The issue of licences by the War Trade Department would only take place under the advice of the Departments mainly concerned, namely, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Munitions.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many tons of castor oil are allowed to be imported into Denmark; and for what purpose this quantity can be used other than medicine or as a lubricant for aircraft?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The quantity of castor oil which it was agreed should be imported into Denmark in 1916 was 110 tons, of which only 58 tons were imported during the year. Apart from its use as a lubricant for aircraft and as a medicine it is used as a lubricant for textile machinery and can be used for a variety of other industrial purposes.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is not that quantity very excessive to allow for medicinal purposes?
    Lord R CECIL: I do not think it is for all purposes. The quantity is based upon the previous imports into Denmark.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked what were the exports of soap from this country to Holland in 1916 and from Holland to our enemies for the same year, or for a corresponding period of that year; and whether there is reason to believe that a great deal of soap has been smuggled from Holland into Germany and Belgium?
    Lord R. CECIL: The exports of soap from this country to Holland amounted in 1916 to 2,808 tons. There are no statistics available to show the exact amount of exports of soap from Holland to the enemy. For the rest I would refer my hon. and
    770
    gallant Friend to the reply returned to him on the subject on 21st November last year.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ROSCOMMON).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of agricultural holdings in the county of Roscommon which do not exceed £10 valuation and the number of such holdings which have been enlarged as the result of the operations of the Congested Districts Board and Estates Commissioners?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The number of agricultural holdings in county Roscommon which do not exceed £10 valuation is 13,981. Holdings dealt with by the Estates Commissioners are not classified according to rateable valuation, but 13,129 acres of untenanted land have been distributed. The Congested Districts Board have enlarged 383 holdings in respect of which purchase agreements have been lodged, and many other holdings on the Board's estates have been or are being enlarged, but the number of such holdings cannot at present be given.

  MRS. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
  Mr. KINGasked whether Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington was refused permission to leave this country for America; whether she has eluded the authorities and reached America; whether any charge has been made or will be made against her; and whether it is intended to apply to the American Government for her extradition?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that no application was made for a passport for Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, but she has no doubt arrived in America. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND).
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware whether it is intended by the Local Government Board of Ireland to issue an order to the rural district councils similar to the one issued to the urban councils, empowering them to provide and allot plots of land to town dwellers for the purpose of raising

  771
  additional food; and whether the Treasury Department intends to remove the restriction upon the operation of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in so far as it concerns Section 16 of the Labourers (Ireland) Amendment Act of 1885?
  Mr. DUKE: The Local Government Board have issued a circular to rural district councils pointing out the powers they possess under the Labourers Act of 1885 to purchase, or take on lease, by agreement, plots to be let in allotments to agricultural labourers in towns. I am not aware of the restriction referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Treasury has forbidden all building, and therefore has restricted the Labourers Acts to that extent, and in fact, has restricted the operations which could be applied to land without buildings at all?
  Mr. DUKE: I think the statement which my hon. and learned Friend has made is too general to be accepted. There are practical difficulties in the way. If the local authorities see their way to overcome the practical part of them I do not think the technical difficulties will be found to stand in the way.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Why, therefore, is not a circular similar to the one issued to the urban councils also sent to the rural district councils, if there are no technical difficulties in the way?
  Mr. DUKE: I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to give me notice of that.

  AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the delay in the delivery of agricultural tractors in Ireland, and that manufacturers say they are held up in their deliveries from want of transport facilities; and if he can state whether the Director of Transports has taken any action to ensure immediate delivery of these essential machines in Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: Arrangements have been made to provide shipping accommodation for a considerable number of motor tractors, which are expected in the near future The Department of Agriculture
  772
  points out, however, that the available tractors and ploughs are and will be comparatively few in relation to the tillage required, and that the farmers of Ireland should, therefore, concentrate more upon the acquisition and use of ordinary horse ploughs, and, where possible, of double-furrow ploughs drawn by three horses. In most parts of Ireland, and especially for any but the larger farmers, these implements will be found more suitable for ploughing purposes than motor tractors. Both the Minister of Munitions and the Director of Transports have taken action at the request of the Irish Office to facilitate the delivery of motor tractors in Ireland to the utmost possible extent.

  UNTENANTED GRAZING LANDS (IRELAND).
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked whether, in connection with the food production scheme in Ireland, it has been decided to give powers and facilities to the Estates Commissioners to acquire at once for division suitable untenanted grazing lands which had been practically acquired by agreement in semi-congested districts, where there are plenty of applicants able and willing to till the holdings allotted to them, the acquisition of which has been postponed by slight financial difficulties and small technicalities?
  Mr. DUKE: Where agreements have been made for the acquisition of lands by the Estates Commissioners they are, I believe, being carried into effect. Compulsory purchase can legally be made for the relief of congestion, but not for the increase of tillage, and it involves payments in cash which would not be practicable during the War.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if public and representative bodies all over Ireland have passed resolutions calling on the Government to grant compulsory powers for the acquirement of land for tillage purposes, to fix a minimum price for grain for at least three years, and to reduce the standard bushel weight of Irish oats to 36 lbs. per bushel; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have received a number of resolutions of the nature mentioned, and large compulsory powers are contained in the Order relating to compulsory tillage. No larger measures of compulsion have been decided on. As to prices, I must refer my hon. Friend to the Food Controller, and to an answer I gave on the 12th instant to the hon. Member for East Limerick.
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a, memorial from the occupiers of small holdings adjoining the untenanted lands, now in possession of the Congested Districts Board, on the Caulfield - French estate, situate in the parish of Ballinaheg-lish, county Roscommon, asking that these lands should be made available for grazing and meadow for their use pending its distribution amongst them, so that they could increase the tillage on their own small holdings; and, if so, whether the Congested Districts Board will favourably consider this proposal?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board have received a memorial such as is mentioned in the question. The untenanted lands referred to have been temporarily let for grazing and meadow to the small landholders in the neighbourhood. In view of the present need of increased tillage, a portion has now been set apart to meet applications which may be made from the neighbourhood. The Board cannot permanently dispose of the lands on the Caulfield-French estate as enlargements of holdings of neighbouring tenants unless and until they acquire the holdings of these tenants, which they are not at present able to do.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the untenanted lands on the Westropp estate at Mellon, Ballydoole, Kildino, county Limerick, are in the Court of Chancery, and that there are hundreds of smallholders and labourers in the locality seeking to get allotments, of these lands for cultivation under the food scheme of the Government, he will take steps to provide for an allotment scheme being formulated in accordance with the Government regulation?
    Mr. DUKE: The Receiver in the case of the Chancery action "Moreland v. Westropp" was discharged years ago, and the lands will be liable to the provisions of the Order as to extra tillage.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what facilities have been offered to the numerous small holders and labourers in Ballylin and Glenville, Ardagh, county Limerick, for part of the untenanted lands on the Massey estate there for tillage under the food scheme of the Government; and whether, as the landlord of these lands has been in Australia for years and knows nothing about the working of the estate, he will take steps to see that a scheme is formulated under which the small-holders and labourers in the locality get allotments of this land?
    Mr. DUKE: Under the tillage regulations, cultivation of the prescribed proportion of the arable land is a matter for the occupiers of the property.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1), whether Arthur White, land agent, Limerick, has applied for exemption from the tillage scheme on behalf of the owners of the Smith grazing ranch at Ballynanty, Bruff, county Limerick; if so, will care be taken that such a claim is not acceded to, as all the lands are admirably suited to tillage purposes and will be so used if the owner is willing to let the land by conacre; (2) whether application for exemption from the tillage Order has been received from those who lease the lands of Mr. Courtney Croker, at Ballinagarde, Ballynecky, Limerick, on the grounds that it is something in the nature of a stud farm; what number of acres is in the Courtney Croker ranch; whether it is suitable in every respect for tillage purposes; will he see that by no side issues can these lands be exempt from the Government scheme; (3) how many hundred acres of land is in the possession of Colonel O'Grady, at Kilballyowen, Bruff, county Limerick; is all the lands in his possession adapted in every way for tillage purposes; has he applied for exemption in any shape; if so, will care be taken that it is not granted to him, as the labourers and landless people in the town of Bruff have offered to take portions of the lands by conacre, but, so far, have been refused; (4) whether Abel Buckley, of Gallie Castle, Mitchelstown, county Cork, has refused to let any of his land by conacre to the landless people in and around Kilbeheny; will steps to taken to compel this gentleman to till the full percentage imposed by the Government or otherwise let the lands to those who are

    775
    willing to till it; has he applied for exemption; if so, upon what grounds; (5) whether Nigel Baring, of, Rockbarton, Bruff, county Limerick, who is now in occupation of some hundreds of acres of grazing lands, formerly the property of Lord Fermoy, has stated in a letter that his lands are only fit for fattening purposes, and that he will till but one field; is he aware that this gentleman would not let a single perch of his estate by conacre; and, in view of the fact that he holds, without any doubt, some of the best tillage land in Ireland, will ample steps be taken to compel him to till the full percentage of his ranch or otherwise have it let by conacre to the landless people in his locality; and (6) whether the representatives of the late Miss Weldon, rear Kilmallock, have applied for exemption from the tillage scheme; if so, on what grounds; if these lands are let by conacre to the landless people in and around Kilmallock town the necessary 10 per cent, can be easily dealt with; will the Department ask the owners of such large estates to let their lands by conacre to poor people; and, in case they refuse, will adequate steps be taken to enforce the full maximum fixed by the Government?
    Mr. DUKE: I think it is not in the public interest that I should discuss, in answer to questions, the attitude of individuals towards the tillage Order while such persons are not in default. I am told that none of the occupiers named have applied for exemption. I am bound to assume at present that they will not be in default.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Gentleman referred to in Question No. 19, Arthur White, read his application for exemption to a deputation which waited upon the Limerick County Council and boasted that he would get exemption.
    Mr. DUKE: He expressed an undue confidence if he did so.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will, if supplied with a list of those holding grazing tracts in county Limerick, and many of whom have openly boasted that they will pay the fine rather than comply with the Government Order as to tillage, cause an inspector to visit these lands at once, so that by 21st February it will be possible for those in authority to enter into these lands and cultivate them, or otherwise let
    776
    them by conacre to the small farmers, labourers, and landless people in the localities where the lands are situated?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture are not empowered to enter upon the lands of persons who fail to comply with the provisions as to compulsory tillage until after the 28th instant. Visits by inspectors will be arranged in all cases in which it appears to the Department to be necessary.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many inspectors have recently been appointed in connection with the food production scheme; will their names, addresses, and qualifications be published; for what term have they been appointed; and the amount of their salaries and emoluments?
    Mr. DUKE: Twenty-two temporary inspectors have been appointed in connection with the food production scheme. It is not proposed to publish their names, etc. The appointments are purely temporary and will terminate as soon as the special duties for which these officers are required are completed. The rate of remuneration is two guineas for each day actually spent upon inspection work.
    Mr. LUNDON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what objection there is to the publication of these names?
    Mr. DUKE: I am advised by the Department of Agriculture that in their judgment it is not a judicious thing to do. If the hon. Member presses me about it, I will find out what the reason is.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Have these men a practical knowledge of farming?
    Mr. DUKE: I am satisfied that they have. I inquired about them many weeks ago. Many of them are inspectors very well known in connection with other Departments, the Estates Commissioners, the Department of Agriculture, and so on, and I have every reason to believe that every care has been taken in their selection.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Are some of them Scotsmen?
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether small holders whose holdings are over £10 valuation will get any assistance from the Department of Agriculture to obtain

    777
    seeds and fertilisers for the purpose of increasing the area of their land under tillage?
    Mr. DUKE: The occupiers referred to axe not entitled under the food production scheme to loans for the purchase of seeds and manure. Such occupiers, however, are being assisted in procuring seed potatoes and oats by their respective county organisations, and the staffs of the county committees of agriculture have been strengthened in order to ensure that the requirements of all such applicants may be satisfactorily dealt with.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these small holdings under £10 valuation will get seeds from the county committee of agriculture?
    Mr. DUKE: I understand that the county committee of agriculture has taken up the question of facilitating the getting of the seeds by that class of occupier?
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, under the food scheme of the Government, district councils when they acquire land for allotments can give portion of it to small holders and labourers who do not hold cottages and plots from them as tenants; or whether they are confined to giving the land in allotments to the labourers who are their tenants of union cottages and plots?
    Mr. DUKE: It is not necessary that the labourers should be tenants of labourers' cottages in order that they may be given allotments by the rural district councils.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Do small holders come under the regulation?
    Mr. DUKE: I think so. I think there is no exclusion of small holders. If I find any reason to doubt it, I will let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why the Estates Commissioners have not yet finally completed the purchase of William D. Curtain's farm at Caherlevoy, Mountcollins, county Limerick, for the purpose of enlarging the uneconomic holdings on the Mahoney congested estate which adjoins it at Mountcollins, although they promised the tenants to put them in possession of it in time for the spring work;
    778
    whether proceedings for the sale of this small estate and farm have been going on since the year 1908; and, having regard to this fact and to the necessity that exists for increasing the amount of land under tillage, will he take steps to see that the sale of this grass farm is completed without further delay, so that the tenants may be able to till it this year?
    Mr. DUKE: The rearrangement and allotment of these lands could not be completed in time for tillage this year, but will be put into operation as soon as possible without interfering with the tillage operations of tenants for the present season. The Commissioners will raise no objection to an arrangement being made by the tenants with Mr. Curtain to cultivate in conacre during the coming season the lands or part of the lands to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Having regard to the fact that the negotiations with the owners for the sale of this farm of 50 acres has been going on for the last eight years, how it is that it cannot be taken over this year and the uneconomic holders given their proportionate quantity in order that they may cultivate it?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot speak as to the last seven years and nine months, but as to the last three months I can say that it has not been practicable to complete the operation with which the hon. Member is familiar in time for tillage this year.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget his promise to me last October that this land would be divided this spring in time for tillage work?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no recollection of any promise of the kind.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: It was on 26th October that you promised me.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number of acres of land in West Clare hitherto unfilled, which, under the scheme for encouraging the production of food, have been definitely made over to tenants, and on which work has begun?
    Mr. DUKE: There is no information as to the amount of land on which tillage has begun, but I am told that the recent severe weather has postponed tillage operations in many districts.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the gravity of the food problem in Ireland, he can state that all the available grass lands in West Clare will be striped out to tenants according to the provisions of the Land Act of 1909, and that these tenants will have complete guarantees as to the permanency of their occupation of these lands?
    Mr. DUKE: Nearly all the untenanted land which the Congested Districts Board agreed to purchase in West Clare has been disposed of to tenants either under purchase agreements or by permanent let-tings prior to the execution of purchase agreements. 'The untenanted lands remaining in the Board's hands will be disposed of as rapidly as their available resources permit, and so much of it as is arable land suitable for tillage has been made available for conacre lettings. Estates in county Clare pending for sale to the Estates Commissioners are being dealt with as rapidly as possible.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask, as this is a very important question, the right hon. Gentleman to take into account that if local opinions were consulted in matters of practical detail a much greater area of land would be under cultivation?
    Mr. DUKE: I have seen the great care which the representatives of the Congested Districts Board take in dealing with the administration of these matters, and I am quite sure if there is any practical step which the hon. Member can point out, they are quite willing to deal with his recommendation.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the opinion of the farmers in West Clare, that "Up-to-Date" potatoes are not suitable for laud in West Clare, been considered, and on small points of that kind will concessions be made to the opinion of practical farmers?
    Mr. DUKE: The supply of public funds for "Up-to-Date" potatoes is in addition to the available local supply, and there is no reason why persons who desire to purchase "Champion" and other potatoes should not do so.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether any applications for exemption from 10 per cent. tillage have been received from county Meath; if so, how many; and whether, in
    780
    selecting land for oats this season, care will be taken to select a soil suitable for the growing of winter wheat next autumn?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have received applications for exemptions from extra tillage in respect of land in county Meath, as from other counties. The selection of the particular portion of a holding to be cultivated, and of the crops to be sown is, under the regulations, left to the discretion of the occupier, unless he is in default. In that event the Department will have the same discretion, and will endeavour to exercise it for the public advantage. I cannot forecast the decision of the Department on a technical question.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR(by Private notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the Order in Council, dated 5th December, 1916, and the Regulation there under made in regard to Ireland in respect of the tillage of land by the occupiers thereof, he can state what steps the Irish Government propose to take in order to enter upon the lands of such occupiers as have not by 28th February, 1917, complied with the Regulation imposing 10 per cent, of tillage of all arable land and pasture?
    Mr. DUKE: By a Defence of the Realm Regulation, made on the 6th instant, the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) are empowered, on any case where, after 28th instant they are satisfied the occupier of a holding does not intend to fulfil the requirements of the Tillage Regulation, to enter on the holding and cultivate it, or to arrange for its cultivation by any person in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the Department may direct. In cases where occupiers, through obstinacy or selfishness, make default in compliance with the Regulation, it will be the duty of the Department to exercise this power in such a way as will in their judgment best serve to increase the food supply in the coming season.

    MILK (IRELAND).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is a considerable scarcity of milk in many districts in Ireland, and that the children of the poorer classes and workers are practically deprived of their essential food; and whether he will take any steps to have carried out the recommendation of

    781
    the Committee of the Irish party on Food Production that public bodies in Ireland should be empowered to purchase milch cows, acquire or rent sufficient land for the pasturage of the same, and open milk depots to ensure a proper distribution of milk at a reasonable price?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture inform me they have no knowledge that the supply of milk in Ireland at present is less than is usual at this period of the year.

    GRAIN AND POTATOES (EXPORTS FROM IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will consider the advisability of having a list published, weekly, by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, giving the names of those applying for export licences for grain and potatoes, the amount applied to be exported, the amount allowed to be exported, and the destination thereof?
    Mr. DUKE: In respect of oats the Department of Agriculture are at present issuing no licences for export. I expect to be in a position to deal with the question of lists of exporters of potatoes by Monday next.

    TEA AND SUGAR PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for Wilton whether he is aware that the selling price of tea has been advanced 1d. per lb., and in consequence of all grocers refusing to sell sugar without tea it is equivalent to evading the selling price of sugar fixed by the Sugar Commissioners; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The Food Controller is aware that the selling price of tea has in a number of cases been advanced 1d. per 1b. This increase is, no doubt, connected with the increase of wholesale prices, which, as I recently informed the House, is now the subject of investigation. The Food Controller does not consider that the sale of sugar should be made conditional on the purchase of any particular article, and if the hon. Member will give me details of any case in which such a condition is being imposed, it will at once be inquired into.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it is quite im-
    782
    possible at any grocers in this country to get sugar without tea? It is a common practice all over the country.
    Captain BATHURST: I am certainly not aware that this practice is as extensive as the hon. Member suggests. If he will bring actual, verifiable instances to my notice they shall be inquired into.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will try to buy a pound of sugar himself he will find that he has to buy something else.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are many shops in London where it has not been possible to obtain sugar at all during the last fortnight, and that in consequence people have been driven to buying unnecessary provisions in other establishments, thus causing waste?
    Captain BATHURST: I am fully aware that such a condition of purchase unfortunately exists in the case of many establishments. It is very regrettable, but it is very difficult to see how it is going to be remedied in every case without a system of compulsory rationing.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any reasons for the jump in the price of tea, when there has been no taxation put on?
    Mr. ANDERSON: Seeing that the Food Controller has stated that round about ¾ lb. of sugar is what people are entitled to, why does he not take steps to see that everyone gets his fair share, and no more?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller is taking such steps as are at present in his power to take.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in order to get sugar some people are buying large quantities of tinned fruits and tinned meats, and, having got the sugar, are selling the fruits and meat by auction?
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the practice generally prevails that a certain amount of sugar is sold with goods other than tea, which makes sugar scarce in the market, and therefore people who have to get sugar with tea cannot get it?

    BREAD PRICES (LONDON).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, if he is aware that the London master bakers have decided to increase the selling price of bread by another halfpenny per loaf which will then make it 11d. per 4 lbs. in many parts of London; if he is aware that at a conference held on Thursday, 7th December, at the Wesleyan Hall, Westminster, a unanimous resolution was passed asking the Government to supply flour to the various municipalities with a view to supplying the bakers with flour at a cost which would enable them to sell bread at not more than 6d. per loaf; if he can state how much per week it would cost the country if such a proposition is carried out in accordance with the amount of bread and flour per head per week suggested by the Food Controller; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The resolution referred to in the second part has not been brought specifically to the attention of the Food Controller. The estimated cost of the proposal in the first instance would be about £800,000 or £900,000 a week, but in any case the Food Controller cannot regard it as practicable.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that shipowners have been subsidised in days gone by? If it was necessary to subsidise shipowners in days gone by, why, in the name of common sense, cannot we do something in the way suggested in the question?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many members of the Government thought these steps were practicable while the last Government was in power, and can he say why these steps have become impracticable because they have become members of the Government?
    Mr. CLYNES: Are the investigations to which the hon. Gentleman refers being made with a view to fixing maximum prices in respect of commodities named in this question?
    Captain BATHURST: I must have notice of that question.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for Wilton if he is aware that the
    784
    Stratford (East) Co-operative Society has had their sugar supply cut down to 16 tons per week; if he is aware that they have 41,000 members, and that amount of sugar will only allow them to sell 14 ozs. of sugar per member per week, which is much less than the minimum amount suggested by the Food Controller; if he is aware that there are many complaints from the various co-operative societies in the different parts of the country on account of them not getting their proper share of sugar; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller has inquired into this case, and is informed that the society in question has received since 1st January within a very small amount of the supplies of sugar to which they are entitled under the present scheme of sugar distribution. He is not aware of any general failure on the part of co-operative societies to obtain their due proportion of the supplies which they received in 1915. As explained already, he has taken steps to provide additional supplies of sugar for districts in which the population has been materially increased since 1915.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the hon. Member for Wilton whether he has received representations and complaints as to the hardships and inequalities involved in the present method of sugar distribution; whether he is aware that towns whose population has recently been increased by an influx of war workers are not receiving their due proportion of supplies; whether such representations have come from Sheffield; and what action he proposes to take?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller has received numerous communications on this subject, and he is aware, as I have stated in answer to previous questions, that districts whose population has increased during the War are in some cases experiencing a shortage of sugar supplies. He has received representations from Sheffield on this point, and, as the result of a recent visit of an inspector to the town, has arranged with the Sugar Commission for an addition to the Sheffield sugar supply proportionate to the estimated increase in the population of the town.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they are not receiving this proportionate increase?
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the hon. Member for Wilton what action he proposes to take to obtain fair distribution of the available supplies of sugar; whether he is aware that the monetary test operates inequitably between rich and poor and even between one class of shopkeeper and another; and whether he proposes to set up such a system of sugar rationing as will ensure to every family their share of the available supplies?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller realises that the conditions imposed by retailers as to the purchase of other articles when selling sugar may cause hardship in particular cases. He is advised, however, that the mere prohibition of this practice, which has been adopted by retailers with a view to checking the purchase of supplies by individuals from a number of shops, would probably aggravate the present inequalities of distribution. The Food Controller is not proposing immediately to set up a system of compulsory rationing of sugar in view of the obvious administrative difficulties involved, but he is taking steps which it is hoped will remedy the inequalities referred to by the hon. Member.

    RATIONS
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the hon. Member for Wilton if he is aware that since the Food Controller suggested the maximum amount of bread, sugar, and meat that should be allowed for each person to consume in their households there has been a bigger demand made by the moneyed classes in the West End shops; and if he intends taking any action in the matter with a view to: preventing the rich people obtaining more than the amount recommended by the Food Controller?
    Captain BATHURST: Unpatriotic action such as that described in the question may have been taken by certain individuals, but I have no evidence to show that it has been at all common, and I should be sorry to believe that it is. The suggestion made in the last part of the question involves the introduction of a compulsory rationing scheme, which it is hoped that it may prove possible to avoid by reliance upon the honour of people of all classes in the country.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman appeal to some of these very large societies, such as the Civil Service Stores
    786
    and the Army and Navy Stores, not to supply these particular persons with more than they have been in the habit of purchasing?
    Captain BATHURST: The hon. Member's suggestions will certainly be borne in mind. I may say that appeals of that character have already been made in certain cases.
    Mr. LOUGH: Is there any evidence that one class of society can get sugar and not the members of another class of society?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already stated that I have no evidence that the practice has been at all common.

    DESTRUCTION OF PHEASANTS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the hon. Member for Wilton whether his attention has been called to the announcement of the Duke of Richmond giving permission to farmers to kill pheasants found in their hedges; whether he is aware that this concession is rendered nugatory by the law of close time; and whether he will take steps to impress upon the Government the necessity in the public interest for the dilution of the Game Laws during the period of the War, and for the suspension or abolition of all customs and practices that tend to restrict the fullest output in the supplies of food?
    Captain BATHURST: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 13th February to the right hon. Member for the South Molton Division.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it or is it not proposed to extend the date of the game-shooting licences?
    Captain BATHURST: Certainly. It is intended to permit that those who have licences expiring at the end of the shooting season shall continue to derive the benefit of such licences.
    Mr. FABER: Has the Food Controller made such an Order?
    Captain BATHURST: No. The Order has not yet been made, owing to the fact that, unfortunately, the Food Controller is ill and unable to attend to business.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken any legal advice as to the validity of the Order which the Food Controller proposes to issue, because I understand that in as

    787
    similar case which the Attorney-General took to the House of Lords he was overruled?
    Captain BATHURST: In consequence of the representations made by the right hon. Baronet the other day, legal advice is being sought in the matter.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will this Order apply to owners of land as well as occupiers?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes. As I pointed out, and for some reason or other it was not reported, it is a concurrent right enjoyed both by the owner, the occupier, or the lessee.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the advice of the legal adviser has been obtained yet, or is he merely seeking it as to the validity of the Order?
    Captain BATHURST: As I explained the other day, the advice of the legal adviser of the Department was obtained, and it is sought to strengthen that advice by appeal to further legal authority.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he expects the Order to be issued?
    Captain BATHURST: It will be issued at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the police at once be instructed?
    Mr. PRINGLE: If the legal advice should be that the Order is ultra vires, will the Government take steps by legislation to deal with the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not in a position to answer for the War Cabinet, but I have no doubt that the proper steps will be taken. In the case of all these Orders, of course the police take the necessary action.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if John Walsh, of Stradally, Queen's County, No. 1,570 in pension officer's register, district Kildare, Maryborough station, was deprived of his old age pension, although over seventy years old and having no visible means, because he continued to work for 6s. per week wages and his board and lodging; whether labourers in Ireland who attain
  788
  the age of seventy years will in future be deprived of their old age pensions or part of same unless they cease to work; whether it is intended that such persons should be penalised because they continue to work in this crisis when every man's labour is necessary for the production of food; and whether old age pensioners in Ireland who patriotically resume work to help in the production of food will have their pensions reduced or withdrawn on account of the wages earned by their resumed labour?
  Mr. DUKE: John Walsh was not in receipt of an old age pension. A claim for a pension was refused on the ground that his means exceeded the statutory limits. The recent administrative concessions do not apply to claimants. Old age pensioners are not deprived of their pension if they resume work, provided their wages do not exceed 20s. a week in rural districts or 30s. a week in urban districts, and they have no appreciable means in addition to their earnings.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the increase of old age pension has been refused in a number of cases in Ireland; and whether, having regard to the strict investigation made in all such cases before payment of the original pension was sanctioned and to the universal rise in food prices, now 84 per cent, above those obtaining before the War, the Government is prepared to recommend a grant of the 2s. 6d. increase in all cases in which the right to old age pension has already been established, or may be established in the future, during the continuance of hostilities?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I fear that I cannot add anything to my previous replies on this subject.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (IRELAND).
  Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor is still pursuing his practice of recent years and is about, with the approval of the Government, to nominate a further large batch of justices of the peace; and whether, in view of the uncertain political outlook in the country, the Government will express their wish that such further nominations be held over for the present?
  Mr. DUKE: I am not aware of any intention to make exceptional additions to the magistracy in Ireland. The Lord Chancellor informs me that the appointments in the past two years are less than the vacancies caused by death and less than the numbers in most previous years.

  IRISH-CANADIAN RANGERS.
  Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, following on the visit to Cork of a battalion of oversea troops, the shop fronts of business establishments which had displayed the Union Jack were marked with a white cross, and the following notice posted on them: "From this shop the Union Jack was displayed on the occasion of a visit of some Canadian soldiers; will you support a firm which approved the sinful spending of £500 on debauchery; will you support a firm which displays this cheap and mercenary loyalty?"; have any investigations been made by the authorities into the occurrence; and with what result?
  Mr. DUKE: Some ill-disposed person or persons posted a typewritten notice in the words set forth in the question on the shop front of each of fourteen business houses. The notices were seen by the police and taken down. There were no white crosses. The police have not been able to trace the offenders. I ought to add that the Irish-Canadians were received in Cork with general enthusiasm, and that the incident the hon. Member has mentioned does not at all represent the opinions expressed by the citizens at large.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (DUBLIN).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the offer of the Treasury to increase the Grant to industrial schools by 6d. per head on condition that the local authorities provide 6d. from the rates is considered unjust and presses severely on the Dublin ratepayer; if, owing to destruction of property, the Dublin municipal council will lose £30,000 in rates per year, and that the police tax-collectors have made an additional demand for £5,000 a year from the Dublin rates; if, having regard to the condition of Dublin caused by the loss of trade by business people, the lack of employment, and the lack of munition works, he will
  790
  recommend the Treasury to consider the advisability of paying 1s. per head to the industrial schools without placing any further burden on Dublin city; and if he will advise the authority to withdraw their-demand for the additional £5,000 police tax?
  Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the loss in the Dublin rates attributable to the destruction of property in the rebellion is much less than is suggested by the hon. Member. I am unable to make any statement with regard to the police rate which I understand to be the subject of legal proceedings. The additional Grant for children in industrial schools is the same for Dublin as for other parts of the-country. There are no grounds for an exception.
  Mr. BYRNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Treasury to-make this Grant without any such condition?
  Mr. DUKE: I think that is dealt with in the answer.
  Mr. FLAVIN: In view of the present heavy burden of taxation in Ireland and the undue burden which she has borne for the last 100 years, would it not be a gracious thing on the part of the Government to make this a free Grant without asking for any contribution?
  Mr. DUKE: If I present that argument to the Treasury, they will want to know where it will stop.
  Mr. FLAVIN: The Treasury always take care to extract the last farthing out of Ireland and to give nothing in return.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of promoting assistant teachers in National schools to the second grade on the same conditions as apply to principals; and whether steps will be taken accordingly?
  Mr. DUKE: Under the existing rules assistant teachers are not eligible for promotion beyond the third grade unless in exceptional circumstances the Board of National Education make special Order. Principal teachers have claims to promotion on account of their position which

  791
  assistant teachers have not, and no comparison between the conditions of promotion of the two classes of teachers is equitable without consideration of the other aspects of the question. The promotions of principal teachers are regulated by rule; the special promotions of assistant teachers are made for exceptional cases, and very high qualifications are therefore insisted on.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will take into sympathetic consideration the question of the status of teachers in Ireland, and do what he can to raise their status?
  Mr. DUKE: It is a very large question, and I am as well satisfied as the hon. Member would be that when it is practically possible to take steps in that direction, they ought to be taken without any unnecessary delay.

  PROVISION OF PIERS (COUNTY CLARE).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that if proper facilities and safeguards were given to the fishermen of Quilty and Seafield, West Clare, an increase in the supply of fish available for food could be guaranteed, he will cause works to be undertaken, as, for instance, at Seafield pier, which will help to give these fishermen the needful protection?
  Mr. DUKE: A pier was constructed at considerable expense at Seafield some years ago for the accommodation of the boats of the Quilty and Seafield fishermen. Representations have been made that a passage should be cut in the rock outside the pier in order to improve the approach from the sea, but I am advised that the proposed work would involve very heavy expenditure, and would probably not be effective.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if, without any reflection on the skill of the engineer who gave that advice, he will consent to have another opinion from a civil engineer?
  Mr. DUKE: If an opinion is tendered to me I will take care that it is carefully examined, but I am afraid I cannot put public funds to the charge of an additional opinion when there are no grounds for doing so, as I am advised. I will take any opinion presented into account.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of my opinion?
  Mr. DUKE: As the hon. Gentleman has challenged me in that direct way, I can only say that the competent authority, the Board of Works, promised me that if the hon. Member, who has professional qualifications, prepared a plan for this matter they would consider it carefully.
  Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that my time is occupied in very valuable work?

  LIGHTING REGULATIONS (METROPOLIS).
  Colonel YATEasked the First Commissioner of Works, considering the orders as to lighting which are now enforced in London, if he will say why six hurricane lamps are permitted to be fixed to a white board on the gate between Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, opposite Exhibition Road, without any screen to prevent them being seen from aircraft above?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): It was not thought necessary to screen these lights, and I am advised that the risk is very slight. But, as there seems to be local apprehension on the subject, and the cost of screening is trifling, I have had it installed.
  Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that screens were put up for these lamps after and in consequence of my question on the Paper, and will he have the man who was responsible for this neglect of showing open, unscreened lights prosecuted in the Courts in the same way that I would have been prosecuted if I had done so?
  Sir A. MOND: I cannot admit the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what has been done, nor is there any reason to prosecute anybody.
  Colonel YATE: When my question appeared on the Paper screens were at once put up. Is not showing naked lights for two months, against all lighting regulations, an offence which ought to be prosecuted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is too trifling a matter with which to take up the time of the House further.

  RAILWAY FARES.

    BOX TUNNEL.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the temporary closing of Box Tunnel for repairs and the consequent diversion of the traffic between Chippenham, Corsham, and Bath by another route, the Great Western Railway Company has increased the return fare between Chippenham and Bath from 2s. 2d. to 4s. 7d., and Corsham and Bath from 1s. 3d. to 4s. 7d.; whether he has received representations from the local authorities on the subject; whether he is aware that this increase in fares inflicts a hardship on the poorer classes who have to attend the hospitals and institutions in Bath and also on children attending schools in the area affected by the closing of Box Tunnel; and whether, in the circumstances, he will take steps to obtain a reduction from the railway company in the fares from Chippenham and Corsham to Bath to the rates charged prior to the closing of the Box Tunnel?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): I am in communication with the Great Western Railway Company on this matter, and will inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.

    COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 50 per cent, increase in railway fares and the withdrawal of facilities hitherto granted to commercial travellers not only bears heavily on that class, but is a handicap to the trade of this country; and whether he is yet in a position to state what concessions will be granted to meet these difficulties?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid I cannot add to the reply given on Monday last to questions by the hon. Members for the Houghton-le-Spring and Harborough Divisions, of which I am sending the Noble Lord a copy.

    PAPER COMMISSION (PROVINCIAL NEWSPAPERS).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he
    794
    is aware that there is dissatisfaction amongst many of the provincial newspaper proprietors at the treatment which they are receiving from the Paper Commission; and whether he will see that all parties desiring to do so be given the opportunity of attending before the Commission and being personally heard on the question of restricted allowance and price to be paid before a decision is arrived at?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I was not previously aware of the dissatisfaction referred to, but if the hon. and learned Member will let me have particulars, I will consult the Paper Commission on the subject.

  PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH'S COMMITTEE.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee have now reported as to the course to be taken to give effect to the resolutions of the Paris Economic Conference; and whether he is now in a position to publish the Report?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): A letter has been received by the Prime Minister from Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee convoying some, resolutions which have been adopted by that Committee. This communication will be laid upon the Table of the House.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in accordance with his promise to the House on the occasion of his statement of Government policy, the Government has considered the setting up of Parliamentary Committees before which Ministers of Departments can appear and state facts and give answers which it might be undesirable to make public, or is he prepared to allow Parliament to decide on this policy for itself; and, if so, will he give an early day to debate the proposal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole question was most carefully considered by the Government during the Recess, and a thorough inquiry was instituted into the working of the system in France. As the result of this examination, we have come to the conclusion that it would be very undesirable to make the change suggested.

  CONSOLS (CONVERSION).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if Consol holders will be allowed at a reasonable figure to transfer their holdings into the War Loan; and if he is aware of the number of cases in which the sole possessions of widows and orphans are invested in Consols?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No special arrangements for conversion of Consols have been or can be provided in connection with the present issue.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men of military age are employed in the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The answer is 124. The Department is largely occupied in work directly connected with the War.
    Mr. KING: Will there be any attempt to comb out these 124 men, so that they may go into the Army?
    Sir G. CAVE: They have already been combed out. Their services are required in connection with the War.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary under what powers two conscientious objectors, named Clay and Leathley, who have been found genuine by the Central Tribunal and have been engaged on work of alleged national importance at the Warwick Settlement, were arrested at Warwick on Friday, 9th February: whether the only offence alleged against these men is that of travelling on a railway; whether, on 10th February, these two men were taken before a number of magistrates sitting in camera in the Chief Constable's office at Warwick, though the military and police authorities had been fully informed of the intention of the friends of these men to retain counsel and solicitors to defend them; and whether he will state the names of the magistrates who acted in this manner, and the statute, Order in Council, or Regulation under which a conscientious objector of civilian status may become liable to arrest for
    796
    travelling on the railway, and the date when such statute, Order in Council, or Regulation, if in existence, was first promulgated?
    Sir G. CAVE: One of the conditions on which men who have been sentenced by court-martial to imprisonment, and who subsequently satisfy the Central Tribunal that they are conscientious objectors are released from prison, is that they shall conform to such regulations with regard to conduct as may be made by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors, and on the copy of these conditions which is given to each man on release from prison it is expressely stated that if he fails to carry out any of them he will be liable to be recalled to military service. On 5th December, in view of the railway situation and the restrictions on railway travelling imposed on soldiers, the Committee issued a rule prohibiting any of the conscientious objectors employed by them from travelling by rail without the special permission of the Committee. Both these men applied to the Committee's agent at Warwick for four days' leave at Christmas. The attention of both of them was called to the rule, and both voluntarily signed an undertaking not to travel by rail if they were given leave. Leave was accordingly given to them, and both of them, in breach of their undertaking, travelled home by rail and returned to Warwick by rail. In these circumstances the Committee requested the Army Council to recall both men to military service. I have no information as to what happened to them after they thus passed out of the control of the Committee.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary whether lie can inform the House of the state of health of G. C. Williams, a conscientious objector, whoso last known whereabouts was Wormwood Scrubbs Prison; whether this man has been forcibly fed; whether he has been fed on bread and water for 25 days between the 25th November and the 23rd December; and, if so, whether he will undertake that this sort of treatment of conscientious objectors in the secrecy of civil prisons will be put an end to?
    Sir G. CAVE: The prisoner referred to has refused to undertake under civil control work which is unconnected with the War and is accordingly serving his sentence of imprisonment. He does not suffer from

    797
    any illness, but at one time he refused all food and had to be forcibly fed four times, after which he consented to take his food in the natural way. He has refused to work in prison and has been punished by the Visiting Committee in the same way as other prisoners who refuse to work. There is no more secrecy in his case than in the case of any other prisoner.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Why should not this man be allowed to starve?

    RAILWAY EMPLOYES.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the case of two engine-cleaners named Morris and Woods, both of military age, who were provided with employment by the Great Northern Railway Company during 1915 and dismissed from their employment in December, 1916, with the result that both men were out of work for a period until required by the military authorities; and will he take such steps as will prevent this loss of labour to the nation by instructing the railway companies to retain men in their employ until such time as they are called up for service by the military authorities?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not aware of the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will make inquiries.

    PETROL (TAXI-CABS).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the scarcity of petrol, he will prohibit the present wasteful use of petrol whereby taxi-cab drivers, in order to record the fare to be paid by the hirer, keep the engine continuously running while the cab is stationary?
    Sir G. CAVE: The fare-recording meter is governed when the car is in motion by the revolution of the wheels, and when it is at a standstill by time. The meter is in no way affected by the running of the engine. As a driver has to pay at a fixed rate for the petrol which he uses he has the strongest inducement to be economical in its use.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Seeing that the excuse suggested in my question does not exist, is there any excuse whatever for this reckless waste of petrol?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I know of none.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Pensions what arrangements he has made for controlling the Statutory Committee?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Barnes): I fear that the details of the arrangements could not be set out within the limits of a Parliamentary reply, but ray hon. Friend may be assured that full effect will be given to the functions imposed upon me by Section 3 of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916. Meanwhile, a conference has been held and arrangements made for administrative purposes. I should be happy to supply my hon. Friend with any further details of these arrangements.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend object to giving the House this information as to the carrying out of his intentions, or, if it is too long to give in reply to a question, will he circulate it?
  Mr. BARNES: I have no objection to giving it to the House or anybody else. With regard to the second part of the question, that will be considered.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman still a member of the Statutory Committee?
  Mr. BARNES: No, Sir.
  Mr. HOGGE: If I put another question can we have the information printed with the Votes, or will the right hon. Gentleman give it now?
  Mr. BARNES: I suggest that my hon. Friend should put down another question.
  Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Ellen Salmon, a widow, residing at Peterborough, whose two elder sons have been killed in action in France, while the third son is a prisoner of war in Germany; whether her eldest son, Thomas Salmon, who was a Reservist in the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, was called up for service with the Expeditionary Force at the outbreak of the War and was killed in action on 26th August, 1914; whether Mrs. Salmon, in spite of repeated applications by the local war pensions committee on her behalf, has never been able to obtain any separation allowance or pension in respect of his service and

  799
  death; whether he can give any explanation of the delay of upwards of two and a half years which has occurred since Private Thomas Salmon's death without any settlement in the matter being arrived at; and whether he will at once take such steps as may be necessary in order that justice may be done without further delay?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): I am aware that the circumstances of this case are generally as set forth in the question, and I regret that since eligibility for pension was created in this and in a large number of similar cases by the Royal Warrant issued early in 1916, there has been delay in obtaining the information required to make an award. This is now available, and I have taken steps which will enable Mrs. Salmon, who has been regularly assisted by the local war pensions committee, at once to receive what is due to her. As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Regulations now current are being revised, and the Minister of Pensions hopes shortly to present a new Royal Warrant to the House.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of petty officers and men, Royal Navy, and non-commissioned officers and men, Royal Marines, who have become entitled to pension since 2nd August, 1914, and have been retained in His Majesty's service; the number of these men who are not receiving their pensions; and the total annual value of the pensions due but not paid to the men?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I have already explained in former replies on this subject, no men have become entitled to long service pensions since the 2nd August, 1914, since their services are retained under the Royal Proclamation of the 3rd August, 1914, made in pursuance of the Naval Enlistment Act, 1853. The number who, but for the War, would formally have been granted pension since the date in question cannot be stated precisely, but it is probably about 3,000. The total annual value cannot be calculated without a very great expenditure of labour, which in present circumstances I do not consider
  800
  would be justified. I ought to remind my hon. Friend that the men retained receive, in addition to their pay, a special allowance of 2d. a day detained pay as from the date of completing time for pension, and they are allowed to count their additional service for increased pension, which, will be based on the total service on discharge, subject to a maximum limit in the case of Marines.
  Mr. HOGGE: Suppose any of these men are killed as the result of a naval encounter, what happens to the pension to which they would otherwise be entitled?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They would not get it. The wife and children would get the usual pension.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend mean that a sailor who has served twenty-two years, and who would otherwise be eligible for a pension, but is retained because of the War and loses his life, also loses all that he ought to have?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: He would not have lived to take the pension, which would have been augmented had he lived. He has received the 2d. a day detained pay. His wife and children get a pension.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is 2d. a day deferred pay equal to a pension for twenty-two years?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I did not say that.

  RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade why a number of tradesmen, namely, carpenters, masons, painters, etc., engaged by the Great Northern Railway, Ireland, and living in Enniskillen, Clones, Bundoran, etc., have not been allowed war bonus: and will he have the matter investigated, with a view to having these tradesmen treated fairly, in accordance with the regulations as to war bonus?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The arrangement recently made for the payment of a total war bonus of sevens shillings weekly to Irish railway employed does not apply to men employed in railway companies' shops when the district rate of wage with any bonus given in the district is paid. I have, however, asked for the observations of the Great Northern of Ireland Railway

  801
  Company upon the hon. Gentleman's question, and will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the case of engine-driver Clark, Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, who, in consequence of the reduction in train service, has been reduced in wages 16s. 6d. per week after nineteen years with the company, and that cases, varying in the amount of wages lost, are occurring throughout the country on different railways; and whether he will take steps to secure to these men their standard wages whilst working in other positions?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Representations have already been made to the Board of Trade with regard to the position of the engine-drjvers on the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railways, and the matter is being investigated. I should be happy to bring any other cases the hon. Gentleman may have in mind to the notice of the railway companies concerned.

  MUNITIONS.

    LEAVING CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) under what powers the Great Central Railway Company refused a leaving certificate to a platelayer named Hallam in August last, and objected to him working for the Leicester Tramways Company, whereby Hallam was two weeks and three days out of employment; and what steps he proposes to take in order to avoid waste of labour owing to the misapplication of the Munitions Act; and (2) if a platelayer named Hallam, employed by the Great Central Railway Company, obtained work with the Leicester Tramways Company at 5s. per week more wages, but was not allowed to commence work with the latter company in consequence of the interference of the railway company; that Hallam then applied for a leaving certificate to the local munitions tribunal, which body decided that he did not come within the Munitions Act; that pending the decision of the munitions tribunal Hallam suffered a loss of £3 19s. 7d. in wages through being out of work; and will he say who should pay that sum to Hallam?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not sure that the case to which reference is made is one in
    802
    which the Board of Trade can properly intervene, but I will make further inquiries, and let my hon. Friend know the result.

  DECK LOADING.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the practice of deck loading now permitted on British merchantmen amounts to an abolition of the Plimsoll line; and whether the Government has considered the increased danger to the lives of seamen which such a change involves?
  Mr. ROBERTS: There is no question of abolishing the load line. The deeper loading of shelter-deck vessels, to which the hon. Gentleman no doubt refers, is allowed under the Load-line Regulations when certain openings in the shelter-deck spaces are closed up, and what is being done now is to have these openings closed. The change does not, I am advised, involve increased danger.

  FOREIGN-MADE EMBROIDERY (IMPORTS).
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVEN-DISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is prepared to take to prohibit the import of foreign-made embroidery, seeing that it is purely an article of luxury, that it takes up about 20,000 tons of ships' space yearly which could be used for importing necessaries, and that there is, moreover, reason to believe that a considerable portion of the goods so imported are of enemy origin?
  Mr. ROBERTS: This matter is being considered amongst others in connection with the proposals for further restrictions which are now before the Government.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these imports amounted to upwards of £3,000,000 in value last year, money which might have been spent to great advantage in supporting the Midland trade?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Before the hon. Gentleman takes action will he consider that to stop these imports would disastrously affect one of the few French industries which have been able to maintain an export trade?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The question in all its aspects is under consideration.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will this inquiry go into the importation of the feathers of foreign birds?

  HOSPITAL STOPPAGES (ROYAL NAVY AND MARINES).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the total sum deducted from the pay of officers (Royal Navy and Royal Marines) and petty officers and men (Royal Navy) and non-commissioned and men (Royal Marines) on account of hospital stoppages for the financial year 1915–16 or the last financial year for which the figures are available?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The approximate amount of hospital stoppages in 1915–16 was £8,300. I may add that there is no deduction for men of the Fleet in Hospital as' a result of wounds or injuries received in the performance of their duties and for insanity due to the Service. There is no deduction if they are sick on board or on a hospital ship and not treated in hospital ashore. There is no deduction under any circumstances for service abroad. Men treated at home by the Admiralty surgeon and agent are treated as though in hospital in the matter of deduction.

  CAPTAIN REIPENHAUSEN.
  Mr. HOLTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Admiralty have refused to issue their confidential instructions to Captain James Riepenhausen, a master mariner in the employ of Messrs. Alfred Holt and Company, of Liverpool; whether any reason for this refusal has ever been alleged or exists other than that Captain Riepenhausen's father was a Hanoverian who had lived in Great Britain since the age of thirteen; whether he is aware that Captain Riepenhausen's mother was a Scottish woman and that he himself is a natural-born British subject; whether this refusal to permit Captain Riepenhausen to carry on his profession is in pursuance of any general rule, and, if so, what is that rule, and how many other persons have been affected thereby; and whether such rule, if it exists, applies equally to officers of the Royal Navy and officials in the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend, who has had to leave London on important official business, asks me to say that he has given this case his close personal attention. It is the fact that some time ago the Admiralty decided to restrict the issue of their confidential instructions to the masters of British merchant ships who are British subjects and are the sons of parents who at the time of the son's birth were themselves British subjects by birth or naturalisation. This is the same rule as that now adopted by the Board of Trade for the period of the War in the case of candidates for a master's certificate of proficiency. It is clear that Captain Riepenhausen does not fulfil the conditions stated. It is true that he is himself a natural-born British subject, but his father, who was born in Hanover, did not become a naturalised British subject until seven years after the birth of his son. The integrity and trustworthiness of Captain Riepenhausen are in no way doubted. The only question is whether a principle, which my right hon. Friend feels confident the House will recognise to be sound and necessary, should or should not be sacrificed to meet the circumstances of an individual case, however deserving. My right hon. Friend, after the fullest consideration, has come to the conclusion that now of all times no precaution to safeguard the British mercantile marine must be neglected, that an exception in this case could not be made without serious injustice to other individual masters similarly placed, and that, therefore, the decision must stand.
  Mr. HOLT: Will my right hon. Friend answer the whole of my question, first of all, how many other persons are affected by this decision; secondly, does it apply to the officers of the Royal Navy; and, thirdly, does it apply to the officials of the Admiralty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards persons in a similar position to Captain Riepenhausen it will apply to them.
  Mr. HOLT: How many of them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say. If my hon. Friend wants the information, I will get the Regulations affecting entry to the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Air Service, the Civil establishments of the Admiralty and the lower deck are varied. My hon. Friend shall have it

  805
  fully if he wishes it. In one particular they correspond to this precisely. In other cases they do not.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the rule that the right hon. Gentleman has just laid down be applied to members of the War Cabinet of Hanoverian origin who are not natural-born British subjects?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot carry the answer beyond what I have said.
  Mr. DILLON: I will put down a question.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not true that a Gentleman with a foreign name which he has recently changed is employed in the Chief Whip's Office of the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rosenbaum."]
  Mr. HOLT: Does the Gentleman recently appointed Judge Advocate-General comply with that condition?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. HOLT: That is the question on the Paper.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With great respect it is not.
  Mr. HOLT: I will raise the subject in debate on the first possible opportunity.

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING FOR SOLDIERS.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, with reference to a recent Army Council Instruction ordering the discontinuance in military and auxiliary hospitals, convalescent camps, and command depôts, of instruction in trades and occupations, workshops, and poultry farms, he will state the reason for this Order putting an end to teaching which is proving very beneficial to the mental and bodily health of the patients?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I regret that I can hold out no hope of this Order being reconsidered. Hospitals, convalescent camps, and command depots generally, if they are to fulfil their proper functions of getting the men fit for discharge as quickly as possible, and so setting the accommo-
  806
  dation free for other patients, must be entirely devoted to the purposes of medical treatment. As my Noble Friend knows, there are special hospitals where manual training forms part of the sanctioned system of curative treatment.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the War Savings Certificates defer payment for five years or whether the interest becomes payable from the end of one year?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The facts are as follows: It is true that the 15s. 6d. does not become £1 till the end of five years, but after one year the certificate is cashable at 15s. 9d., and it increases in value by a penny each month thereafter. Thus, after two years it can be cashed for 16s. 9d., after three years for 17s. 9d., and after four years for 18s. 9d., and so on. The holder of a certificate can realise it at any time during its currency.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    SUPPLY OF MATERIALS OF WAR.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement with regard to the Court of Inquiry to investigate the circumstances attending the raid on Sir Theodore Cook and Mr. Blanch?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The terms of reference for the proposed inquiry are: To inquire into the explosive substances submitted to the Munitions Department and to the Allied Governments under the name of halakite, and into the refusal of the Department to use the same; to inquire into the refusal of the War Office to issue a licence to the White Powder Syndicate, Ltd., to trade in explosives and into the subsequent trading or attempt to trade (if any) in explosives entered into by any of the persons, concerned; to inquire into the circumstances which preceded and attended the raid upon Sir Theodore Cook's room at the office of the "Field" newspaper, or any other raid or raids made in relation to the same matter; and to report to the Army Council upon all

    807
    other such matters connected with the above as in the opinion of the tribunal may be relevant or important.
    It is the strong desire of the Government that the inquiry should be an open one. They will make this view known to the tribunal, and it is not anticipated that any difficulty will arise in hearing the evidence in public, unless the tribunal thinks it necessary to hear in camera the technical chemical evidence or any other evidence which evident public interest makes it desirable to preserve secret, such as confidential documents between ourselves and Allied Governments.
    It is not possible to hold this inquiry under the Army (Courts of Inquiry) Act, but it is not apprehended that there will be any difficulty in securing the attendance of any witness. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State has been fortunate enough to secure the services, for the purposes of this inquiry, of Mr. Justice Shearman, whose release from his judicial duties has been approved by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Shearman will be assisted by Professor William Jackson Pope, the distinguished Professor of Chemistry in Cambridge University, as expert assessor. The matter being now sub judice, the House will realise that I shall not be in a position to answer any further questions that may be asked in connection with this matter.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does my hon. Friend mean that he will not answer this question? Am I to understand from him that all the parties interested will be allowed to be represented by counsel, and will the Court be able to compel the attendance of witnesses?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not sure about the last part of the question, but, in answer to the first part of the question, I can assure my hon. Friend that every person concerned can be represented by counsel.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the documents material to that investigation which have been seized by these raiders will be restored before the inquiry is held, and that Mr. Blanch, one of the gentlemen mentioned, will be allowed to bring from Paris the evidence which he may have there without danger of its being taken from him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All I can say definitely is that any documents in the possession of the Government will be produced at the inquiry. I cannot say at present with regard to the other parts of my hon. Friend's question. I will see what can be done.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Will this tribunal be considered a bar to any further proceedings that may be considered necessary, legal or otherwise?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Not necessarily.

  SIR DOUGLAS HAIG (INTERVIEW).
  Commander WEDGWOOD(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been drawn to an interview reported in the Press, purporting to be between General Sir Douglas Haig and some French journalists; whether the interview was held, and is correctly reported; whether such an interview was authorised or approved by His Majesty's Government, and if not, what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. DILLON: Before my hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the reports of the interview in the newspapers differ materially, and, in view of the unprecedented character of the interview and the great public interest which attaches to it, will the Government circulate in the form of a Parliamentary Paper an authorised official report of the interview?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: With regard to the first part of the question of my hon. Friend which has just been asked, I have seen various reports of the interview, and in reply to the second part it is entirely a question for the Leader of the House and the Government.
  In reply to the question of my hon. Friend, of which I have received private notice, I have seen what purports to be a report of this interview. An interview was given, but particulars of the circumstances and exactly what passed have not been communicated to me. Inquiry has been made.
  Mr. DILLON: Will the Leader of the House take into consideration the suggestion which I have made—that some authentic report of the interview which has taken place should be circulated to the public and to the House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have already taken steps to find out from the Commander-in-Chief exactly what happened. Until we receive that information I do not think that it is desirable to say anything more upon the subject.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that before sending our troops forward to the trenches we in this country ought not to under-estimate the task in front of them?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the House will consider it wise to pursue this question.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the untenanted lands of Ballyfeeny and Gortlustia, in the rural district of Strokestown, county Roscommon, have been in possession of the Congested Districts Board for six years; that the former owner has been paid for these lands; that they are actually vested in the Board; and, seeing that there is a general feeling of disappointment expressed in a recent resolution of the local district council that there should be such delay in their distribution amongst the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood, whether he will urge upon the Board the desirability of taking action in this matter without further delay?
  Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board hope to dispose of these untenanted lands before the 31st March next by dividing and adding them to the tenants' holdings on the H. P. Mahon estate.

BILLS PRESENTED.
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE BILL,— "for establishing a Ministry of National Service and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON; supported by Sir George Cave, Dr. Addison, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and Mr. Hodge; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL,—"to make further provision with respect to the punishment of sexual offences and the prevention of indecent advertisements, and matters connected therewith," presented by Sir GEORGE CAVE; supported by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business he proposes to take next week, and what Orders on the Order Paper to-day will be proceeded with before we rise?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The only Order in addition to the first which we propose to take to-day is the Grand Juries (Suspension) Bill, which was under discussion last night.
  On Monday, we propose to take the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Committee, which is purely a formal stage. We also hope to get the remaining Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. There are only two or three of them. After these have have been taken, if, contrary to my hope, there should be any delay, the Adjournment will be moved, in order to enable the Prime Minister to make a statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to further restrictions of imports, and as to agriculture, especially in reference to the submarine menace.
  On Tuesday, we propose to take the Consolidated Fund (No.1) Bill, Third Beading, and I hope that the House will allow the Second Heading of the National Service Bill, which we propose should be taken on the same date.
  On Wednesday, we hope to take the Navy Estimates, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair.
  The business for Thursday I should like to leave over until early next week.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Having regard to the three promises made, when will the Government proceed with the introduction of the Bill depriving German princes of their titles?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A Bill has been prepared, and will be introduced into the House of Lords.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Is the Ministry of Food (Parliamentary Secretaries) Bill to be taken, to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; we are not going to take any Bill beyond the Grand Juries Bill.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: When will it be taken—next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not yet arranged for a day.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: With regard to Monday's business, when the Supplementary Estimates are to be taken, we shall want to discuss on one of the Votes, the Ministry of Pensions, in which we are specially interested, unless, when the new Warrant is introduced, the House will be allowed to discuss it separately? Obviously, our only other opportunity would be to discuss the subject on Monday, on one of the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I informed my hon. Friend, the matter has been under the consideration of the Government, and I hope they will finish their labours to-day.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend tell us the form in which it will be brought forward, and when it will be brought forward, as, otherwise, Monday will be the only opportunity to refer to the subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Henderson) promised a discussion if there is any general desire for it, but I hope there will be no such general desire.
  Mr. HOGGE: Then I will raise the question on Monday.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the Government proceed with the Bill relating to German princes next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already told the hon. Member that there will be no delay, but there are important subjects for discussion in connection with the War, and I am afraid that the question of the German princes will have no immediate effect on the War.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does not their presence defile the peerage?
  Ordered, "That the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill and the Proceedings on the Grand Juries (Suspension) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

WOOL SUPPLIES COMMANDEERED.
Mr. SHERWELL: Before this House gives a Second Reading to the Bill there is one matter of vital importance to one of the largest textile industries in the country to which I have risen to refer, and a matter which, also, incidentally intimately concerns the privileges and prerogatives of this House. Those who have studied the provisions of the various Consolidated Fund Bills, and the Votes of Credit on which they have been founded, during the last two and a half years, will have noticed that the most notable feature about those Votes has been the extension and the expansion of the objects to which the moneys voted by Parliament are proposed to be devoted. We have long ago passed outside and beyond those objects of national expenditure which was ordinarily conceived of as being war expenditure. The national expenditure has extended the range of actual expenditure, in the course of the last eighteen months particularly, into new and, in some respects, dangerous directions. In Vote after Vote the collectivist energies of the Executive have been expanded, and commodity after commodity has been seized and controlled in the alleged interest of some vital necessity or emergency of the War. The Executive—I do not of course refer to the present Government, but the Executive, through its predecessor, began with sugar, they went on to the control of wheat, to the monopolised control of timber, to the monopolised control of steel, to the monopolised control of leather, and now more recently they have extended it to the monopolised central control of the whole supply of raw wool. It is to this last application of the simple monoply principle to which I wish to direct the attention of the House.
In reference to Government monopoly as a whole, it will be within the recollection of the House that the Executive began last year by monopolising the British clip. They commandeered that clip on the conditions of which I will only say that they have left a rankling discontent and sense of grievance in the hearts of every farmer of Great Britain. But still more recently the Government have extended their commandeering principles by seizing the whole of the clip of Australasian wool, including both the New Zealand clip and the clip of the Australian Commonwealth.
832
There has been one curious feature about these various experiments in State collectivism—they have all been done, I believe, without the slightest consultation with this House or with Parliament. In reference to this latest experiment in State collectivism, the whole scheme of the War Office and the Army Council has never been so much as intimated to this House, has never been expounded to this House, nor have we ever had the smallest explanation of the proposals of the Government. I presume the Government has authority; I presume that the Army Council has already satisfied itself that it is acting within the terms of its powers of commandeering this Australasian clip at a figure below the market value; but I would at least suggest to my hon. Friend this query: Has he consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether there is any provision under any of the Defence of the Realm Acts which allows the Government to commandeer the whole of our available product in the shape of raw material at a price below the market price of the commodity at the time when they make a seizure? I only suggest that to my hon. Friend. I am not a legal expert, but I understand on competent authority that there is a doubt as to the competency of the Army Council to take this particular action—so far as the Army Council's action in commandeering the whole Australasian wool clip is concerned.
I have no quarrel or indictment to make. I do not indict the Executive, because they have by direct negotiations with New Zealand and Australia purchased the whole of the available wool clip. The Government, or the Army Council in particular, were faced with a danger, or a supposed risk or danger, of a shortage in the supply of raw wool. I do not, either, indict the Army Council for the terms on which they have to purchase the Australasian clip. Those terms, I understand, are these, that the growers shall be compensated on the basis of 1913–14 prices, plus an increase of 55 per cent., plus an additional sum of five-eighths of a penny to cover delivery f.o.b. The net result of that deal is that wool which in 1913–14 cost us 10d. per lb. will, under the new deal of the Government, cost the Government 1s. 4⅛d. a pound. Then if you allow for the fact that the freight must average at least 3d. or 3½d. per lb., there is room for questioning whether the deal as a whole is as sound as the Government imagines. The point

833
I want to emphasise particularly is this, that, in commandeering the whole avail able supply of this raw material, the Government have instituted, through the Army Contracts Department, a wholly new departure. They have commandeered not merely the supplies of stocks of wool, but they are also attempting now—indeed, they are actually doing it—the complete control of the distribution of the raw material. They are doing this by setting up a new sub-department of the War Office. They have taken premises in Tothill Street, where there is the nucleus of another small army of officials and clerks. They have commandeered, under what powers I do not know, the Victoria Hotel in Bradford; they have also com-deered large warehouse premises in Bradford. This is a wholly new departure.
In the case of wheat, in the case of sugar, in the case of steel, and in the cases of leather and timber, the Government, in commandeering the supply, allowed the distribution of those commodities to take place through the ordinary distributing agencies of the trade. In this case they go out of their way, as it seems to me, to superimpose upon themselves the very difficult and intricate responsibility of controlling the distribution of the raw material, as well as of commandeering the whole supply. They have cast on one side the whole elaborate distributing agencies and machinery of the wool industry in the interests of the new Army Control Department in Tothill Street and in Bradford. I confess that it passes my comprehension why the Army Council should have saddled themselves with this new and wholly unnecessary duty, and this very heavy responsibility. My hon. Friend will readily admit that the ordinary officials of the War Office are not competent, by their experience or knowledge, or by the duties which they have been called upon hitherto to discharge, to control intricate business arrangements of so extraordinarily difficult a business as that of the wool industry. The War Office, I understand, is not advertising for new work; we all know that it is preoccupied with the most gigantic task which has ever occupied the War Department of this country, and yet it has leisure to take upon itself the responsibility of a new experiment which is wholly unnecessary in the very interests of the Government itself.
834
Now what are the grounds, and the only grounds, upon which this drastic executive action of the Army Council has so far been justified? The only justification I have seen offered, so far, is a twofold one. It is said, and said very properly, that it was absolutely necessary for the Army Council to safeguard the supply of so essential a raw material as wool in order to ensure our ability to supply the needs of our own Army and those of our Allies. It is said also that it was necessary to protect the interest of the taxpayers by controlling the prices of this raw material. I do not quarrel for one moment with those grounds of defence. That is not my indictment against the Government. I admit that in the urgent conditions of the day it is absolutely essential that the War Office should be secured of its supply of wool. I also admit the desirableness and legitimacy of the Army Council trying to protect the pockets of the taxpayer by putting some restriction on prices. But I may remind my hon. Friend incidentally that the great inflation in the prices of wool and of wool products which has taken place in the last two or three years is not predominantly or to any material extent due to the aggrandisement of the trade or of the manufacturers. It is due to the perfectly abnormal conditions of demand, transport, and labour. I cannot acquit the War Office—I am not speaking here of my hon. Friend, as this was done before his time—I cannot acquit the War Office of all responsibility for the great inflation in the prices of wool since the War began.
Let me give an illustration of what happened in the early days of the War, when there was a widespread fear of unemployment. I was authorised by the leading manufacturers of Huddersfield and in the Colne Valley—the most important woollen districts in the country—I was authorised by the Chamber of Commerce and by the Manufacturers' Association to go to the War Office with an offer that, in order to keep their mills going and to support their thousands of workers, they would undertake Government contracts for khaki at the mere cost price. They did not, in making that offer, claim that they were committing themselves to any exceptional fervour of patriotism; it was a straightforward offer for the sole purpose of keeping their machinery going and their hands in regular employment during the War. I went to the War Office and saw the then Director of Army Contracts. He is not

835
the gentleman who now holds that very important position. I explained to him the offer I was empowered to make. What was his reply? He told me curtly that if my friends, as he called them, cared to put their offer in writing their names should be indexed, and, in the remote contingency of the Government needing to expand their list of contractors, their applications might be entertained. I asked him whether he really believed that the existing list of Army contractors, the dimensions of which I knew—and firms, I knew, had been working under pressure day and night and on Sundays for weeks past—was sufficient to meet the abnormal demands of the Army? I put it to him, "Do you really mean to suggest to me that your limited list of Army contractors will be adequate to meet the enormous and unprecedented demands of the New Army?" Only the day before this House had passed a Vote for, I think, an additional 500,000 men. The only reply I could get was, "So far, as I believe, our existing lists of contractors will be adequate for all our purposes and needs, but if, in the remote contingency, more should be required, we may entertain the offer of your friends." That was the end of that offer. By the good offices of my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade, arrangements were made, with the knowledge and sympathy of the present Prime Minister, for a wider distribution of Army clothing contracts. But that is one of the ways in which the Army Council from the beginning has inflated prices against itself.
Let me give another illustration of the sort of thing that has affected the inflation in the prices of wool. There happened to be a time when the Army Council called for additional tenders for khaki cloth. It was in 1915. The tenders were sent in. They were retained for a fortnight and then were accepted, and how? By the launch of telegrams in the early hours of Sunday morning—between Saturday midnight and Sunday morning. The result was that when the manufacturers got the acceptance of the tender and went on the following Monday morning to market for the supply of raw material, they found that wool, cloths, and yarns, had risen in price because the news of the acceptance of the tenders had leaked out, as it was bound to do, owing to the absurd action of the War Office in sending out the telegrams in the middle of the night. It is
836
only fair to the manufacturers engaged in the industry to say that, whatever may have been the ease in the first year of the War, during the last year at least they have been fulfiling loyally all the demands of the War Office on a reduced and very slender margin of profit.
My point is this: Both objects of the Army Council, perfectly commendable objects, the securing an adequate supply of raw material and protecting the taxpayers' pocket, could have been met simply and completely by utilising the existing distributing agencies of the trade, which would have been quite glad and willing to work on Government contracts. What are the absolutely inevitable effects of this, as I conceive, mad project of an overtaxed Department which you unnecessarily created—a new Department headed by amateurs—for the regulation of the distribution of wool? In order to create this new sub-department of the Army Council, and it is merely a sub-department of the War Office, you start by putting completely out of commission hundreds of firms, large and important firms, who, through the Colonial Wool Merchants' Association, through the Colonial Buyers' Association, and through the Brokers' Association, have during the last 100 years built up the magnificent supremacy of the Port of London as the centre of the world's wool market. They have stimulated and developed the extension of great docks. Their action has led to the erection of vast warehouses. They have secured to the whole of the manufacturers engaged in the textile industry of the country an absolutely sure and certain supply of raw material. And what is their reward? They are to be put out of commission because the Government were anxious to borrow their staffs, but were unwilling to use them as a responsible agency at however small a margin of commission in the interests of efficiency and in the interests of economy itself. All this great work has not been done lightly by the Wool Merchants' Association and by the Brokers' Association. I am old enough to remember it has been done in the face of long and very skilful competition. I remember a time, years ago, when, the new Antwerp docks were created, when very definite bids were made to divert supplies of wool from London to Antwerp. I know attempts were made to divert the trade from London to Hamburg and Bremen, and I remember still more-recently the skilful and active attempts of

837
our friends across the Atlantic to secure the transference of the world's market in wool from London to the harbour of the City of Boston.
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to underestimate the serious injury and damage to a great and important trade which must result from this arbitrary end, as I believe, unnecessary action, of the Army Council. You are certain to ruin not merely hundreds of small firms, but you will put out of commission large firms also. I know a large firm that prior to the outbreak of War—at the time of the outbreak—had ninety-four employés, fifty four of whom were of military age, and of the fifty-four, forty-four are now serving at the front. The heads of that firm undertook when these men went to keep their places, open for them and to look after their families and dependants at home. What is their reward? You close down their business by refusing to use their services on any terms, and you make it impossible for them to keep their promise to their employés, who are serving at the front. That is a consequence that ought not lightly to be undertaken by a great and busy Army Department.
That is not the only thing. Can the hon. Gentleman assure this House that this novel experiment of the Government in undertaking the distribution of this raw commodity will succeed? Does he think it can succeed by attempting to replace men who have spent their lives in training for this complicated trade—does he think that you can replace all these agencies by a stroke of the pen, creating an ad hoc new sub-department in Tothill Street or in Bradford. The thing is inconceivable. The hon. Gentleman has, in connection with this new scheme, one or two admirable men intimately acquainted with the trade. But the heads of the Department, the real controllers, are men who, however admirable their qualifications and abilities, are absolute total strangers to the details of this trade. I shall be told that the Government have set up an expert Advisory Committee. I have no quarrel concerning that Committee, but I will ask the hon. Gentleman this: Does that Advisory Committee meet? How often has it met since it was appointed? I understand that that important Advisory Committee consisting of some of the leading men in the woollen trade of the country has not been formally called together since it was first nominated. There was one scratch meeting held
838
many weeks ago, convened by telephone, but it could only be attended by those members who happened to be in town at the moment. The only use the Army Council has put that Advisory Committee to is this: It is using it as a sort of panel from which to appoint certain sub-committees. But these sub-committees have no power or authority so far as I can see; they are casually called together by telephone, but they are not taken into the secrets of the real controllers who direct all these important matters. Let me give an illustration of that. One important sub-committee, members of which are well-known trade experts, considered the other day the question as to whether the residue of the raw wool—that is to say, the surplus remaining over after all the Government needs were met, should be treated as free wool and sold on the London Wool Exchange in the ordinary way. That sub-committee decided to treat it as free wool, and the following morning another sub-committee in Bradford wholly unconnected with this sub-committee in London, also considered the question, and the Bradford sub-committee decided that the surplus wool should not be treated as free wool, and that is the sort of chaos that obtains.
There is only one other point I wish to make, and that is this. Not content with monopolising the sources of supply, and with monopolising the control of the distribution of wool, the Government are now extending their action to absolute control of the export of finished woollen and worsted goods. They have appointed a Committee, the chairman of which, I believe, is an hon. Member of this House, which Committee or its chairman can go any day to any manufacturer in the land and say: "How many pieces are you making?" and the manufacturer gives the number. This chairman, by whose authority no one knows, can say to that manufacturer, who has spent his life in the trade: "Reserve those pieces for export, and when you have completed the job, see that they go to the United States of America or to South America," or to any other country that the chairman of this Committee appointed by no one knows whom, may decide on the spur of the moment. I do not know whether the Army Council or the Army Contracts Department has attempted on any occasion to consult the great manufacturers in the cloth trade as to the practicability of that. It purports to be decided on the ground

839
that it may benefit exchange by directing the ultimate destination of finished goods, but however commendable the scheme itself may be, I am satisfied if they put that scheme in its present crude form before any competent manufacturer or Chamber of Commerce engaged in the trade, they would be told at once that the whole scheme was bad and absolutely impracticable.
I have practically finished, but I want to conclude with a word of warning to the Government. I hold that this Government is running great and quite unnecessary risks in several important directions. It is entering, apparently light-heartedly, upon constant novel experiments which are setting trade after trade against the National Executive of this land. It is not that the manufacturers and the traders are unpatriotic. The Army Council knows perfectly well, and has had full proof, of their great and unlimited patriotism. It is not that the discontent represents the lack of patriotism on the part of these great traders, but it is that the great traders and manufacturers of the country are getting tired of being bullied and harried and threatened and coerced in all sorts of directions by amateur bureaucrats. This Government, like its predecessor, came into power to find everywhere a fine and splendid national spirit. I put it to the heads of the Government that they do not abuse that spirit, and by abusing it destroy it.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I am very reluctant indeed to get up and speak on a subject about which I know at least as much as anybody in the House, and perhaps it is for that reason, and having been urged by so many leading members of the trade to put the case for the trade in this House, that I speak to-day, though very reluctant under present circumstances to criticise any Government Department in any direction whatever. But I feel that in making known the conditions which at present prevail in the woollen and worsted trades I am only doing my duty. Although there are hundreds of different kinds of wool in this country—there are at least 300 different classes of British wool and many hundreds of different classes of foreign and colonial wool—yet for Government purposes and for purposes of convenience we may group them under three heads. First there is merino, or botany wool as we call it in the trade, which is produced mostly
840
in Australia, also in South Africa, in South America, in smaller quantities in New Zealand, and not much anywhere else. This wool does not concern the Government for the most part, because the goods that the Government chiefly order are made of the other two classes of wool. The second and most important class for Government purposes is what is known as cross-bred wool, that is, halfway between fine and coarse. It is from this cross-bred wool, grown in different countries—mainly in New Zealand and South America, and to some extent in this country—it is from this intermediate quality that the overcoats, tunics, trousers, and puttees of the soldiers are chiefly made, and it is this quality of wool, therefore, which concerns the Government most. Of the coarser types of wool, coming largely from India, Persia, and Asia generally, the blankets and rugs so largely used in the Army are made, so that the Government really is not much concerned with the finest types of wool, but it is, as an indirect buyer of wool for cloths and rugs and blankets, largely concerned with the price of the coarser types of wool.
Of course, in addition to the Government use of wool, even in war-time, there is a very large use of these three classes of wool, and particularly the finer, for civilian purposes. In ordinary times the whole Government consumption of wool does not play a very large part in fixing the price of wool in the market. It was only after the War began, when the demand for Government cloth was very great, that the Government demand for cloths made of cross-bred and coarse wool began to affect the price, as it undoubtedly did, and continues to do very largely. The Army Contracts Department—I ought to say, after prices had risen from 50 per cent, to 80 per cent.— reviewing the situation, came to the conclusion that under the system of free competition for wool, prices would rise further, and not only so. I am speaking with a good deal of sympathy for the Army Contracts Department, and knowing perhaps more than most Members know of their difficulties, and with a full knowledge of the figures which is not possessed by many hon. Members of this House, when I say that they were almost forced to consider measures for preventing a further advance in price, and not only during the War, but after the War. They were almost compelled to consider

841
it as part of the duty of the British Government—I do not say of the Army Contracts Department in particular, because I think this is not one of their functions—but to consider the question of safeguarding the supplies of wool for after the War. I am not going to argue, therefore, that their view was wrong, that wool would not have risen further if they had not interfered, but I cannot help saying this, that some of the greatest authorities in the wool trade have told me personally that if the Government had not interfered at all, they believe that the present price of wool would be no higher than at the time when they did interfere. I give that for what it is worth. It is the opinion of very competent judges; but, of course, it is entirely problematical, and as it is only based on considerations that very few of us can measure, I would, for my argument, agree with the Government that they were bound to take into consideration, as they did last spring, the possible supplies of wool.
At all events last May, I think it was, the Army Contracts Department purchased the whole of the 1916 British wool at values to be fixed by Government valuers at prices 35 per cent, above the immediate pre-War price. This, of course, involved setting up a new Government Department with a large and expensive staff to do the work of buying, collecting, and selling British wool, which beforetime had found employment for a great number of small merchants up and down the country—the wholesale merchants, of course, centring in Yorkshire—in the neighbourhood of Bradford—who were carrying on this business, as I believe, thriftily and at not a great expense to the country. I am myself only a wool buyer, not a merchant at all, and it is to my interest as a manufacturer that the purchase and distribution of wool should be done as economically as possible. I think we are all of one mind that it is to the general interest that wool should be distributed as cheaply as possible, and I say, speaking as a manufacturer, that it is my deliberate conviction, for what my opinion may be worth, that under the other system of distribution by private merchants the wool was distributed more efficiently, certainly much more expeditiously and more economically, than is possible under any Government scheme however well
842
managed. The course of things since May last has certainly justified this belief.
When all allowance is made for the inevitable difficulties of starting a new Department, it must be admitted, in fact it is recognised throughout the trade, that there have been innumerable difficulties placed in the way of business men, dealers, and consumers of wool. To begin with, there is the taking away of the living of a large number of small business men throughout the country, and the substitution for them of Civil servants. It is true that the Department has engaged several most efficient members of the wool distributing industry. I take it that their opinion cannot be given openly if it is averse to the carrying on of their own work, and I am not here going to say what it is, though I happen to know something about it.
At all events there is one thing we are entitled to ask the Government to answer from that bench opposite. Let me say that in this matter, as in every other matter, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) has behaved with the utmost courtesy to everybody concerned. I for one can honestly say I do not want a better man with whom to deal. But we are entitled to ask and to receive, at all events, a formal answer to a question which was put to him a few weeks ago by a large wool trade deputation that saw him.
The House of Commons and the country are entitled to be told officially whether this scheme is intended to be permanent or not. Is there any intention whatever of continuing it after the War? If so, for bow long? The only safe line for the Government so overburdened with work, for any Government during such a great War as this, must be to meddle as little as possible with private business, and when it is necessary to interfere only to do so with full knowledge and approbation of some authoritative and duly constituted technical advisers. Having been in the woollen trade as a manufacturer now for about half a century, and having intimate knowledge of it, I venture to say that there is no trade in the world that is more highly technical and the different items of which differ from each other so much as the wool trade. I know something about cotton. It can be more easily classified than wool. People talk about wool. They give it a name. They say it is of such weight and of such quality. Why, the

843
different flocks in the same district differ from each other in value; it depends upon the breed and upon the condition.
An HON. MEMBER: And the different parts of the same fleece!
Mr. TAYLOR: As my hon. Friend beside me reminds me, there is a vast difference in the different parts of the same fleece. Perhaps I ought to have told the House that, but I rather assumed that the House would know. Anybody who knows anything whatever about wool knows that there is no more highly technical business than the business of dealing in the purchase and sale of the different qualities of wool. We have, however, fortunately for us, in this country a body of highly-trained technical experts who are competent to deal with this matter, and who have dealt with it, as I have said, on the whole, very well. Let me make myself clear. There is an Advisory Committee—there are really two Advisory Committees. There is the British Wool Advisory Committee appointed last spring, about the time the Government bought the British clip. There is also the Australasian Wool Advisory Committee, set up when the Government bought the Australian and New Zealand wool, about last November. My hon. Friend has asked how often this Committee—I suppose he means the latter—has met. T would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite how often both of these Committees have met? Have they even appointed their own sub-committees? Have those sub-committees reported to the parent committees—if I may call them so? These are pertinent and are not impertinent questions. I want to know what is really the value of these so-called Advisory Committees. If they have not chosen their own sub-committees, and if these sub-committees have not reported to the parent committee in each case, why is it? If it be the case with each of these Advisory Committees—I do not say it is, and the hon. Gentleman will tell us—but if it be the case that this latter committee, the Australian Committee, upon which are some of the most competent judges and the greatest authorities in the trade, I only ask whether their meeting is a reality or whether indeed their existence is a reality at all? If the opinion which prevails largely in the woollen and worsted trades, that these committees are shadowy bodies without real power, is founded on fact, it is time, in the interests of the Government
844
itself and in the interests of the good administration of this great wool industry, that these questions should be answered, that doubts should be cleared up!
Let us remember what the Government have done. Take British wool. I am not acre to speak for the fanner, but I believe that if one-tenth of what I hear is true there is reason for the grave dissatisfaction evinced on the part of the farmers in different parts of the country that they are being unequally treated. I will not, however, go into that because I am not competent to do so. I will confine myself to what I understand best. Let us face the case and ask, What really is being done? The Government as regards the British wool has created a huge monoply, or, as the Americans phrase it, they have made "a corner in wool." A large part of British wool is unsuitable for Government use at all. Very disastrous and wasteful attempts have been made and are being made to force worsted spinners to use wool for purposes for which it is not at all adapted. For example, there are what we call twenty-fours, a common count—I am trying to make it clear to the non-technical mind. The smaller the number we use about a count means a thicker yarn—that is to say, twenty-fours is twice the thickness of forty-eights, and so on. The coarser counts have coarser qualities of wool. For finer counts you must have finer qualities of wool. I am stating what I know to be the fact when I say that, owing to mismanagement—good intentioned no doubt—but owing to the inevitable result of non-technical control, recently and at present, spinners in Bradford are being asked to spin wool which is not fit to be spun more than twofold sixteens—to twofold twenty-fours, which is the great count for our own khaki and for the Russian khaki. There is great waste of material going on. The workpeople are being asked to do this. One knows it is difficult to get the workpeople to do some of these difficult things, and it is putting them about a good deal, the workpeople as well as their employers. In other words, unpractical things are being attempted. I heard only on Monday of another case that to a practical man would look very bad. We know the Government have commandeered the wool and have large assortments of Australian wool. I heard the other day of a buyer who is spinning twofold sixties, taking the wool at the Government price, of course, by arrangement with the Government, which ought to have been sold

845
fora much finer purpose, and spun up to what we call twofold nineties. There is only a limited quantity of this finer wool, and it is against the public interest for this fine wool to be taken for coarser purposes. It is one of the results of the present state of things.
What about the prices at which this Government monopoly wool is being sold? In what I say I will draw a very sharp distinction between the wool that is going to be used for the Government only and the rest of the wool which it is very proper to use for civilian purposes. I will say this: that it is lightly within the competence of the Government to sell wool to the manufacturer expressly for making into Government cloth at any price they like, either high or low, if they give a corresponding price for the article. That is to say, if the Government sell wool at a lower than market price they have a perfect right to ask that they should have an equivalent amount of cloth below the market price. If they choose to ask a high price, of course they must pay a price in proportion. In what I am about to say I will refer chiefly, not to the wool which is used by the Government for Government purposes, which we are all of us agreed to be the first consideration—we all say that without any doubt whatever—the whole trade agrees that Government purposes must come first. In the trade all are willing for that. But there is a lot of wool that is used for other purposes. There is such a thing as the export trade. I will have a word to say about that in a moment, and there is the civilian trade at home. People cannot go naked, and they cannot wear nothing but cotton in weather like that which we have been having. There should be wool for the home trade as well as for export.
There are many kinds of wool which the Government do not require. What price then will the wool be for civilian purposes? Who fixes these prices? That is an important question. Here you have the raw material of the home trade, and, under the Defence of the Realm Act, you have the Government with the power controlling the supply that is to say, controlling whether those who use it can go on at all with their business. It is very important that the user of wool should have a fair show, that there should be no favouritism between one buyer and another or between one trade and another. Who fixes the prices? I want to ask this question, it is a very, very plain, ques-
846
tion: Is it or is it not the case that on the same day the Government wool department have sold wool at one price to one man and at a less price to another man, in neither case for Government use? I want to press that question home, and I desire a clear answer to it.
5.0 P.M.
Let the House remember that this may be an illustration of the enormous power possessed by the Government under the Defence of the Realm Act. I have used some of the Government wool myself for both Government and civilian purposes. I know of what I am speaking. I am sorry to have to use my own business as an illustration, but the House knows me well, and knows that I do not come here to curry favour or further my own interests. I am not talking here for myself or on behalf of the trade only, but on behalf of the country which should come first. The price of the wool that we have to use is varied. But I have been told by some of the largest users in the trade that on the same day similar users for similar purposes in the civilian trade have bought, one man at one price and another at another. I maintain that in a Government article like this, which is a monopoly, the users of Government wool have a right to expect that the prices should be alike. What is the only security for this? Absolute publicity! Would it be believed—I am speaking of British wool in connection with which I am most experienced—that since the Government have had control of the wool, that auctioneers in Bradford—I will give names if necessary—who have been accustomed to sell wool for dealers by auction have been told by the Government that they are not to publish the prices for which they sell the Government wool. I think that is an absurdity. What is the real object and the reason for it? Why this policy of concealment? Is it dreamt for a moment that the producers of this wool, the farmers, will not get to know at all; that they will not have anybody going to the auction sales to get the prices for them? I maintain that instead of allaying any feeling of soreness that there may be on the part of the farmers that the Government is making a great profit out of the matter the opposite result will be produced, and they will feel sorer than need be. I maintain that the user of British wool has a right to a published statement as to what is the price of wool at that particular time. I know of some of the very big concerns in the

847
country—railway companies and the like— where the directors know nothing about the accounts until the day comes for the declaration of the dividend. The accounts are then all brought before them, and the moment the dividend is declared it is telegraphed all over the country and to the Stock Exchange. Why? To prevent the men with inside knowledge taking unfair advantage of the situation. I do not believe in the policy of the concealment of prices at all. I am sure the House will agree, especially in relation to this arrangement of a monopoly in buying and selling, there should be no favouritism. The position in the trade is becoming almost intolerable. What is the Government controlling? The Government is controlling railways, steamships, labour, mines, and it has been said already—I do not know to what extent it is contemplated, but I am aware that some control is contemplated by the Department—of customers. What liberty has a manufacturer left? Remember I am speaking about an article not necessary for Government War purposes, but of civilian trade. What liberty has a man left in his trade? His labour, his raw material, his customers, are under Government control. Some people who do not believe in liberty—I presume there are none in this House—may think that that is a good thing, but I do not. There are two great motives which prevent the dissatisfaction, the almost rebellion in the trade breaking out, and shall I tell the House what those motives are? In the first place, there is the patriotic desire not to hamper the Government in any way—a very widespread and, I believe, universal feeling; and, in the second place, let me say in this free and open forum of the House of Commons that there are a great many people, wealthy as well as poor, who are holding their tongues about this because they are afraid. They dare not defy the Government. I do not think they have any reason to apprehend any unfair treatment by members of the staff. There have been mistakes, but I do not want to talk about them. But how does it work out? Without any intention whatever to be unfair, it cannot work out fairly if prices are not the same to everybody.
This situation would be bad enough if that bureaucracy were advised by a committee of experts having the confidence of the whole woollen trade. That is bad
848
enough, and I will tell you why it is bad enough. I put this to myself: Those who are in authority were good enough to ask me to serve on the British Wool Committee. I declined because I am a user of this British wool. H I had been on that Committee I should have had prior knowledge over my competitors of wool prices. Supposing the price of wool had been discussed by the Committee, and there had been five one way and five another, and I was intending to buy British wool, and I doubted in my own mind whether the price should be advanced or not, how could I prevent myself having some interest to vote against an advance until I had bought my wool? They say you ought to have technical men not in the trade. That is a difficult thing to get. I am disposed to agree with the Government in appointing the best Committee they can, but I do ask the Government to get to know the real opinion of this Committee, and be guided by it. If they are, we shall not have the mistakes we have had. The scheme is conceived by officials of the Army Contracts Department—able, patriotic men who know as little about the wool trade as the wool trade knows about them, but, with the best intentions in the world, the most outrageous injustice has been done to individuals.
There is one thing the trade feels very keenly, and that is the insinuation that it is not patriotic to say anything against a scheme conceived in a Government Department. It is not fair play for a Government Department to set up a particular scheme and then say, "If you are patriotic you will fall in with it." We in the trade, who are outside the Advisory Committees, have confidence in the leading men in our trade, and I beg the hon. Member opposite to make these Committees real, to consult them and to be guided by them. If he takes that course, I believe those difficulties will disappear. As regards the purchase of British wool, my own view is it was not necessary, because the wool was here already. We had only to continue the policy of embargo to prevent it going out of the country. But for the sake of argument, if it was necessary, then I emphasise this point—that practical men should be in control. As this concerns the very existence and carrying on of the oldest textile trade in the country, I think the matter ought to be ventilated here.
I have said little about the Australian and New Zealand wools. Although the

849
New Zealand wools are largely used for Government purposes, the Australian wools are very little used for Government purposes. If they had bought the new Zealand wool, all right, but I believe it was totally unnecessary to buy the Australian clip. When they bought the New Zealand and Australian wool they gave an increase of 55 per cent, over pre-War prices. I understand that the profits are to be shared with the Australian and New Zealand Governments. The Government reason for purchasing the Australian clip could not have been that it was for Government use. It must have been another reason. My hon. Friend will recognise that I am trying to put his case fairly as well as that of the wool trade. I am going to say here that there is a case for safeguarding the supplies both during the War and for a short period after the War, at all events against any being taken away by large neutrals who desire to use British Empire wool. In the matter of Merino wool, the British Empire does produce more than it can consume. If an arrangement could have been made with Australia—I do not say it could—it would certainly have been better for the Government not to buy it at all. But assuming that there was a case for purchase, at all events, now that we have purchased, I think it will be the very greatest mistake not to allow the Merino wool to take its usual course and to be sold at the sales. There is an open market, and it is a true market price, and I defy any committee in the world to fix a price equal to what is produced by what is called the "higgling" of the market. If it had gone to a higher price the Government would have got the profit, and divided it with Australia and New Zealand. I think that as regards such Australian wool as is used even for Government purposes, the Government would have been well advised to let the ordinary trade methods take their course. They would have been recouped in the price they got for the wool, and if they had had to give more for Army purposes they would have got it back.
But there seems to have been a preference on the part of the Government to get everything into their own hands. I say let the wool be sold as usual. Well, it is being sold to some extent, but there was wool withdrawn from the sale yesterday, and I am told the valuation put upon some of the finer wool was so high that it was evidently intended not to sell at all, because the price put on wool suitable for
850
spinning for 60's, I am told by practical spinners, was so high that if they made them into tops they could not realise cost price on the very high price the Government had fixed. So the Government did not mean to sell it. Safeguarding supplies is all very well, but let us do it as far as we can by the old policy of putting on embargoes. That can be done, and should be done, and I will support the Government in doing it, but I do object to an unnecessary extension of the powers and action of the Government. I am not one of those who think that Governments-do things more cheaply, more exactly, more expeditiously than other people— quite the other way about. Let the Government secure the wool first for their own purposes, and even if it is left to the market prices they will get the money back; but beyond the necessary extent to which the Government should go in protecting us I say they do wrong when, undertaking a vast and unnecessary expense, and I believe a waste of money and of material and a large staff. There is great injustice to many smaller firms, to whose business connection an irreparable injury is being done, and we do not know what is inflicted on them. Then, again, the fact that members of the Advisory Committee know what is going on gives others a very unfair advantage, if they choose to exercise it, of seeing what their competitors are doing. Tops are a very large trade in Bradford. Smaller men, who perhaps have worked up a connection in some special article, have to give a return, not only of persons to whom they have sold their tops, but the names of the customers. Very many of them have asked me to speak as to what a very great injustice that is.
I want to warn the Government of the absolute impossibility of knowing from a manufacturer or spinner the ultimate purpose of the wool he buys from the Government and of saying whether for export or home trade. When a man has a Government order he can just use it for that order, but the greater number of manufacturers, both worsted and woollen in the West Hiding and in Scotland, do not know when they buy the wool from the Government to what market it ultimately will go. Take the case of the man who buys wool to make tops. He sells those tops to a spinner who spins them into yarn and sells his yarn to a manufacturer. I am a manufacturer. I know a manufacturer is utterly unable to tell

851
where his customer is going to send his goods. When a man is asked whether the wool is for home trade or export he may say it is partly for one and partly for the other. I want to warn the hon. Gentleman that if he endeavours to control the export trade by saying to a man, "We will give you wool at such a price and on such conditions for export, and on such conditions for home trade," speaking broadly for the wool trade, I say it is only encouraging dishonesty and lying. I say it is impossible for the average woollen manufacturer to say in the ordinary course of trade where his articles are going. I have heard in the country—perhaps I can hardly believe it possible, but one believes almost anything now—that the Government will deliberately sell it at two prices, and at a much higher price for home than for export trade. If it could be divided into watertight compartments it would be all right, but any practical man will tell you it is utterly impossible. My strong advice to the Government is to get the real opinions of their Advisory Committee of practical men and follow their advice. That is my first word, my second word, and my last word.
Sir W. PRIESTLEY: I do not want to go over the ground already covered, but I want to look at this from one or two different points of view. I do not know another case in this country where a trade has been taken over by the Government where the men in that trade have not been considered and been given an opportunity of continuing their work and also earning a little. But in this trade, especially in the home-grown wool trade, it has been taken over by the Government, and a great many honourable men in this country have been left high and dry, and they do not know where to make their living. That is a very cruel thing to do at a time like this. You must also remember that after the War is over they have not got a chance of getting that business back again. I do not think this matter has been properly considered by the Government. This trade of ours seems to have been taken over without the slightest consideration as to what is to become of those who are engaged in it. Bradford is the centre of this great trade, and we have done it for a hundred years. We have exported these goods to all parts of the world. We have mills, machinery, and warehouses large enough and capable of doing a great trade, but to those acting
852
for the Government all our ideas are puny and small, and they practically say that we do not understand our trade. The first thing that the Special Committee appointed by the Government does is to commandeer our supplies. I want to know what authority you have to commandeer our trade. Look at the question of rates, the people displaced, and the number of people who come from all parts of the world to purchase our goods. Our biggest hotel is being used—what for? To supply the ambition of some particular Committee which has been set up by the Government. That is not practical business. We are as patriotic there as anybody can be, but when we see things managed like this we lose heart and we say to ourselves, "If this is the way one thing is to be done, have we confidence in the way other things are being done," and we go home many a time almost heartbroken, wondering what will happen next on account of our experience of certain things which have been done.
There are two points I want to put. This country of ours has been built up through the export of its goods to all parts of the world. It has not been a small trade, and we are not a small country in that respect, and through having to export to all parts of the world we have had to make our arrangements with respect to the purchase of our raw material, and we have had to put material into our looms and machines in tremendous quantities in order to work economically. What is the Government saying to us to-day? "Stop your home trade; build up your export trade." I say that you cannot separate the two because you cannot work your business economically without the home trade. I have to buy material in such great quantities as to run my machinery economically and export my goods to all parts of Europe as well as the home trade. They tell me I must separate my trade, but it is childish to talk like that because you cannot do it. They say, "You are going to buy so much material; how much is going into the home market and how much into the foreign market?" I say, "I cannot possibly tell you, and no man can tell you." Then another thing. You have first of all to make for the War Office and then for foreign countries, and then you can make for the home market. Do these gentlemen realise that there is a great quantity of machinery in my own town that cannot turn out goods for the

853
War Office because the machinery is not suitable. Are they aware that there are a great many people in our trade who cannot turn their hands suddenly to this work owing to the kind of machinery which is necessary for the goods for the War Office? They do not seem to realise this. Are they also aware that some of our machinery is simply adapted for foreign and some for the home trade. When I put these things before them they say, "Stop all your trade except your export trade and trade for the War Office." I ask, "What is going to be the position of the community in my city in six months' time? Are you going to turn them out of work, because I tell you your policy is leading to that."
You cannot turn out machinery exactly as you want it. We have built up a world's trade. What are we faced with? We are faced with a lot of unemployment. We practical men are trying to look ahead, as has been rightly said, with respect to wool, and you commandeer the lot, but you cannot use the lot, and you can only use certain grades and qualities. You have not left the other free to us to employ our workpeople and our machinery, and you do not seem to consider that. I want to say to the War Office that no great industry can do business from hand to mouth. He is a poor sort of business man who does not look ahead. My city, from the wool point of view, has to look six months ahead, and if we do not do that we cannot keep our machinery going You are preventing us from looking six months ahead. There is not a single spinner in my town to-day who dare quote you a price for future delivery, because he does not know what the conditions are going to be. I cannot buy yarn six months ahead, and therefore I cannot continue my business, and I am an example of the whole lot. Workpeople come to me and say, "Why do you allow the War Office to do this sort of thing?" I am warning the War Office to be very careful to have long views, especially when dealing with raw material, and they ought to know that with the greatest manipulation of raw material—and our markets are more extended than any nation in the world—you must have no small views. Your policy must be to get all you are justified in having for Army purposes, and we will back you up, but when you have done that conduct your policy in the way this country has been built up with perfect freedom, leaving all the remains of raw material to go to the
854
home trade. I honestly think, as a practical business man, that we are drifting and drifting into foolish expense, and not trusting those that now make great big organisations and works, not appreciating what has been done in the past, making such hard bound rules that when you go into the War Department and ask for a thing to be done they receive you in the most gentlemanly way, and say, "My dear fellow, leave this entirely alone; we will carry it through for you."
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I want to call the attention of the House to the position of farmers engaged in the wool trade. With regard to the basis fixed, I have not heard any farmer object to the price, but there has been considerable dissatisfaction with regard to the way it has been valued. I communicated with the Financial Secretary to the War Office on this question, and I was treated with the utmost courtesy. We called attention to this question in July last, but the arrangements which were then made have proved entirely unsatisfactory. I understand now that farmer's wool is taken and is not valued in their presence, it is not valued in bulk and not paid for on delivery, with the result that it is practically impossible to compare the price and secure the price the farmer is entitled to on a basis of 35 per cent, addition to the price of 1914. The farmer's complaint is that he has no protection. I called attention some months ago to the fact that the farmer's wool is not valued in the presence of anybody authorised by him, and consequently he has no assurance that the sums which he receives are those due to him. On a complaint being made by a farmer, he was told that the wool was greasy and unwashed. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the same explanation is given in every county throughout the Principality. In every case the same explanation has been offered.
I do not understand why the farmers of the Principality should be so foolish as not to wash the sheep. I submit that if an inquiry were held, the hon. Gentleman would find that the undervaluation was not due to the condition of the wool. I will give two eases. I take two farmers on adjoining farms, with sheep grazing on the same land. The wool was washed on the same day, sheared on the same day, but one of these farmers received 9¼d. per lb. and the other

855
1s. per lb., and those two farmers were in exactly the same position. In the case of two brothers, with the same class of sheep and under the same conditions, with wool prepared for the market at the same time by the same men, one of these brothers was paid 10¼d. and the other 5d. Obviously 10¼d. was too high, or else 5d. was too low. On the basis of 1914 the price of classed wool should be 10½d., and consequently the minimum price should be 1s. 1¼d., whilst in the cases I have just given, 9¼d. was paid in one case and 1s. in the other, and 10¼d. and 5d. in the other cases. The farmer complains that he has not been paid the price promised by the Government. I have here the figures of the case of a large farmer, who in 1914 was paid 1s. 1d. and this year he was paid only 10¼d. He is a man with several hundred sheep, and he has suffered a very large loss indeed. I will call attention to another case where three farmers had their sheep sheared on the same day. The fleeces were put together, but ultimately they were distributed in different places and sold to different buyers. The result was that one farmer got 11½d., another 1s. 1¼d., and the third man 1s. 0½d.
I do not think that I need tell the hon. Member that there is very grave dissatisfaction amongst the farmers. They were led to believe that they were going to get 10¾d., plus 35 per cent., and I know of no instance where any farmer raised any objection to the standard then fixed by the Government. They do, however, complain that their produce is not valued in their presence or by any person over whom they have any control. In the case of the smaller farmers, the amount in dispute does not justify an appeal to these Committees which have been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman. I appeal to the Government, in making preparations for the coming season, to provide for the farmers' wool being taken at a reasonable time of the year. It is perfectly well known, for instance, that in large portions of the country the sheep are sheared at the end of June and in early July, and the money is always used for the payment of the rent. The result last year was that the wool was not taken in July, and not even in October. In some cases, I believe, it has not been taken yet. The permanent charges of the farmer—rent, rates, and incidental expenses—have, however, to be met, and I would ask the right
856
hon. Gentleman whether he cannot arrange that those who take the wool over from the farmers this year should take it at the usual time. The farmers in the past have been accustomed to deal with certain dealers. Why cannot those dealers be employed in the future? They know the men and they know the quality of the wool. They know all about the farmer and his position. I suggest also that the wool should be valued on delivery. That was always one of the conditions upon which it was sold. The farmer took it to a central place, and it was weighed and valued and paid for on delivery. I see no reason, when the Government has taken it over, why it should not be valued in future in the same way, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to deal with this matter, will be in a position to give some assurance to the farmers which will not only allay their anxiety, but also remove their suspicion that at the present time they are not receiving fair play from the representatives of the Government.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Before I come to the general criticism which has been directed against the policy of the Government perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two in answer to the points which have been made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. The points he has mentioned are perhaps incidental to an organisation which, as I have said on previous occasions, have to be brought into being quickly, manned, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Sherwell), who opened the Debate this afternoon, said, to a large extent by men who had had no previous experience of the business. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising if mistakes had been made or that there should have been individual cases of hardship. I think, however, that I may bring some comfort to the mind of my hon. Friend when I tell him that we have recently been engaged in reviewing the situation with a view to preparing for the taking over of the coming clip of the present year. The questions which he has brought to my notice have been under consideration at a meeting of the Advisory Committee today, and I hope, as the outcome of their deliberations, that we shall be able to grease the wheel, so to speak, and to avoid preventable hardship in individual cases.
Mr. DAVIES: Is it proposed to give some redress to these men who obviously have been underpaid?
Mr. FORSTER: In cases where there is any dispute as to the price which has been received, I think far the best way would be to submit the matter to the County Advisory Committee, on which there are representatives of the farmers, and to let the matter be thrashed out there. After all, it is a question of fact, and I really think the people who are in the locality are the best judges. That is the system which has been followed in cases where there has been any dispute, and I think I am right in saying that in every case the decision of the Committee, what-ever the decision may have been, has been unanimous. It was a decision given by all the representatives of the various interests who were concerned. That shows, when it comes to a question of fact, that a reliable, and I am quite sure a just, judgment is arrived at. My hon. Friend who began the Debate this afternoon, spoke, as he always does, with great moderation, but he had some very pointed things to say about the organisation of the Department and its activities in connection with the commandeering of various produce. I think, however, he used a wrong term when he spoke about our having commandeered the Colonial clip. We did not commandeer it; we bought it from the Colonial Governments, who acted as our agents in the matter. I do not like commandeering things. It is entirely foreign to my political convictions, and to everything in which I have been brought up to believe. But I am afraid necessity knows no law, and I want to make it quite clear that I am resolute to stick at nothing which I am convinced is essential for the purpose of winning the War. I am quite sure my hon. Friend will agree if it is essential. Was it necessary to commandeer the wool, and, if so, was the method of distribution that we adopted also necessary? I hope I may be able to convince the House that both those courses were necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Sir W. Priestley) asked the War Department to take a long view. It is just because we have had to take a long view that we have found these drastic, and to all of us disagreeable, steps necessary.
I doubt if anyone outside the actual wool business has any conception of the quantity of wool that we require for military purposes. I doubt very much whether he has the slightest idea that wool is one of the prime necessities for troops in every part of the world
858
fighting for the Allied cause. We are the great wool-producing Empire in the world, and unless we bring to the assistance of our Allies a large portion of the wool that we are able to produce their soldiers will have to go short, and the Allied cause will suffer in consequence. We therefore require for military purposes practically the whole of the cross-bred wool that the British Empire can produce. I think that so far we are agreed. The question has been asked whether it was necessary that we should acquire the merino wool from Australia. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, merino wool is not used largely, although it is to a considerable extent used, in the manufacture of clothing for military requirements, and, indeed, it may have to be used a great deal more. Was it necessary to acquire it? Yes, I think it was necessary, for this reason: There has been, in addition to the enormous demand for military requirements, a very heavy shrinkage in the total of the world's production, and in order to safeguard our supplies we had to make sure of being able to lay our hands upon the wool, and to bring that wool into use as soon as we could. Supposing we had done nothing, and the Australian clip was still in Australia? We went very carefully into the question with the representatives of the Dominion Governments and with the Admiralty to see how that wool was to come over and what freight was to be charged upon it. We went into it closely in all its bearings, and we came to the conclusion that the surest way of getting the wool from Australia into this country was to buy it and make it Government property and bring it over at the cheapest rates the Admiralty could provide. It was a very heavy responsibility that we had to take in doing it, but it was considered not only by the War Office, but also by the Government, and it was decided that it should be done.
I hope that the supply of wool is going to be continuous. I hope that the wool will come forward from Australia and from the Dominions to this country in a continuous and steady stream, but I am afraid that the stream will be thinner than usual. We cannot count upon that abundance of supply to which the country has been accustomed in all times. Having acquired the wool and having made such arrangements as we were able to make as to its transport, what was the best way of distributing it and getting it into the hands of the manufacturers when it arrived? I

859
have had a very interesting discussion with a very representative deputation who came to lay their views before me with regard to this matter, and the view they urged very strongly, and the view which both my hon. Friends have urged very strongly, was that we should leave the matter to the ordinary business channels rather than create a special organisation to carry it out. Of course, the usual way of distributing the Colonial clip is by means of the London auction sales. I was obliged to point out to the deputation that the circumstances under which the ordinary London wool auction sales are held are different from those of to-day. In the ordinary event the ships come to London and the wool is unloaded into warehouses at the docks. If I remember rightly, it is placed on view in the warehouses, but whether the auction sales actually take place in the warehouses or not I am not sure. That, however, is immaterial. The important point is that the wool in normal times comes to London and is unloaded in London. The auction sales take place in London, and the transaction goes through in that way. We have got to face this fact that a large proportion of the wool cannot be landed in London at all. Owing to submarine difficulties, and matters of that kind, the people who have to manage this wool business, although a Government Department, cannot say where the ship will come to port. That is a matter in which the Admiralty must have leave to give directions. The Admiralty say, "A certain ship on its way will go to Liverpool. We will see it gets to Liverpool as far as we can, but circumstances prevent it going to London." Already I think since the beginning of the year four ships with wool have been reported at Liverpool instead of coming to London. Is it a businesslike proceeding, I asked the deputation who urged this upon me, to unload the wool at Liverpool, bring it up to London, hold an auction in London, and then send the wool back to Yorkshire to be combed? What I suggested to the deputation was that I did not want to interfere with these auctions any more than I could help.
Mr. MALLALIEU: There are Liverpool wool sales as well as London wool sales.
Mr. FORSTER: That is a point I was going to make. I invited the deputation to see if arrangements could not be made for having these auctions in Liverpool
860
without bringing the wool to London. What has happened in the case of those four wool ships at Liverpool? The railways will not bring it to London in order to carry it back to Yorkshire. The railways insist upon carrying it from the port of debarkation to the place where it is going to be used. I think that in these days of great difficulty in railway traffic the whole of the hon. Gentlemen concerned will agree that that is a reasonable and necessary step to take. I was anxious not to interfere unduly or any further than I could help with the ordinary play of supply and demand of these auctions, but there is one reservation I must make, and that is wool required for military purposes we must send straight into the hands of the manufacturers. As far as we can we are all agreed about this. I speak for the whole Department. We wish that the wool which is required for the civilian trade shall be sold in the usual way by auction. I should like to give the assurance that my hon. Friend asked for while he was speaking, and that is that this is a war measure simply and solely. We have no ulterior motive in setting up this organisation—no ulterior motive whatever. I quite understand the anxiety of those who build up great businesses by their ability, industry, and so forth, to have an assurance of that kind, and that assurance I freely give. I have been anxious up to now to point out that our first consideration in carrying out the bringing into being of this organisation, and acquiring both the British and Colonial clip, was to secure the wool, and for military purposes as the first consideration. The question of limiting the price, immensely important as it is, considering the gigantic quantities of wool involved, came second. My hon. Friend says it is the opinion of those who are well qualified to judge that the price would not have risen even if we had not taken the action that we took in commandeering the wool. I suppose we all can form our own opinion as to that, but at any rate we had reason to think that there were signs that the price of wool would rise to such an extent as to impose a very serious burden on the taxpayer.
We ought to have this power for another purpose. We want to get wool into use at once. We do not want people to hold up stocks; we want to get wool into the hands of the manufacturers as quickly as possible, and also to get the wool into use in the direction where we

861
most need it. We are all agreed about the military use; at least, I think the House is unanimous that we must have the right of saying that cross-bred wool must be used for military purposes. Then the question is ought we, can we say that the second best use to which wool can be put is in the manufacture of commodities for export? The question of manufacture for export is one of enormous importance. It is of great importance to assist our Allies in meeting the problem of exchange; and many other suggestions will spring to mind without development on my part. What I am anxious to arrive at is this: We must have a certain amount of manufacture for our own purposes, but it we can arrange it, and if we cannot arrange it it cannot be done and it will not be done, but if we can arrange it, it is desirable from the broad point of view that we should develop the export business as largely as possible. My hon. Friends who have spoken say that it is really impossible, and that the business of the manufacturer does not allow that to be done. We are not going to force manufacturers by bureaucratic action. I want the House to realise that in this matter, although the heads of the Contract Department may not be wool men, practically the whole of the staff who are really running the business consist of wool men.
Mr. SHERWELL: Not the chairman of the Committee, who has to work the question of the control of exports.
Mr. FORSTER: If he is not a wool man he is a very well-known business man. I am not sure that it is not desirable to have someone other than a wool man who has to weigh problems in which there may be different interests in the same industry.
Mr. SHERWELL: Not problems of manufacture.
Mr. FORSTER: Let me make the point I was endeavouring to make. A question of that kind is not going to be settled by people who have no business experience. Naturally it could not be settled without close consultation with the Board of Trade, but if it can be arranged, and shown to be practicable, then I say that in my judgment it is right that we should do everything in our power to stimulate export business even at the sacrifice of some part of our home trade. I think I cannot carry that further. It obviously can be arranged in some cases, and where
862
it can be arranged I say it ought to be arranged. Where it would be foolish to do it I hope it will not be done.
Mr. TAYLOR: Is it proposed at all to arrange it by differential prices for the same article at the same time?
Mr. FORSTER: You mean selling the wool here?
Mr. TAYLOR: Yes.
Mr. FORSTER: It might be done in that way, and I think the hon. Member said if it could be done it would be quite well worthy of consideration.
Mr. TAYLOR: It would be impossible fairly to do it that way. It is only a premium on lying and deception.
Mr. FORSTER: I will consider it. It could, of course, be done by refusing the wool, which I should be very reluctant to do. Still, if it can be shown to be practicable, I think we ought to do it somehow or another. I think I have dealt with the broad aspects of the question. I desire to say a word with reference to what fell from my hon. Friend in regard to the staff who have charge of the business. He says that this is a new department, and that the officials, of course, have no experience, and cannot be expected to manage intricate business problems of this kind, and that this new department which was created is largely manned by amateurs. I only want to say that we have secured the assistance and co-operation of a large number of men who hold leading positions in the woollen and worsted industry, and I am greatly indebted to them for the way in which they have placed their services at my disposal. I am only sorry that the hon. Member opposite was unable to join the Advisory Committee which we formed last year. He spoke to me about it at the time, and gave me reasons for thinking it better not to do so. I am sorry he could not join that Committee, as I am sure his advice would have been of great value. We have got the assistance of those gentlemen. I think both hon. Members wished to know whether the Committees which have been set up really did anything, or whether they were window-dressing.
Mr. TAYLOR: If they had control.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. FORSTER: With regard to the British trade, there is an Advisory Committee. There are then the district committees, sub-committees, which have the

863
executive functions. The Advisory Committee for Great Britain has met on a good many occasions, and as I said in reply to my hon. Friend, it has been sitting to-day for about five hours settling various problems. With regard to the advisory panel, not a committee, with regard to the taking over of the Colonial clip, there are a number of names with which I think my hon. Friend is familiar. That is not a committee, and is not called together, and will not be called together unless some situation of special difficulty should arise. That is a panel from which are drawn the four Committees who advise on the special features of the business. Those Committees consist in every case of not more than four individuals, because in these cases you want quick action. If you want quick action you must have small Committees, and it is not the slightest use having large Committees. I want the House to realise that nothing but necessity would have driven us to take the drastic steps we have been taking; but in taking them we are making the fullest use of the best business brains that we can obtain. I recognise that whatever we do we are bound to cause a certain amount of hardship in individual cases. We are anxious to avoid doing permanent injury to the trade as far as we can. I should like, in conclusion, to express my thanks to the hundreds of business men who have been good enough to come forward to assist us, and to express my acknowledgment of the forbearance and loyalty with which the trade in general has consented to what I know they dislike.
Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question which he has not answered? May we have a published price list? May we have an assurance that the price of the wool sold to different people in the same trade will be the same price, and not a different price?
Mr. FORSTER: Yes. When I say "Yes" I cannot think why there should be any difficulty about it. I understand that my hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that the wool is sold to different people at different prices.
Mr. TAYLOR: That is not so, you say?
Mr. FORSTER: No. If my hon. Friend will give me the particular transaction
864
he has in mind, I will look into it. If it is typical, I will see if we cannot do something in the matter.
Mr. TAYLOR: May we have the published prices?
Mr. FORSTER: I hope so, but I can not say offhand.
Sir F. BANBURY: Everybody in the House will agree that if it is necessary to commandeer wool for military purposes it must be done. Whether or not it is necessary to commandeer it in order to start an export trade is quite another matter altogether. I do not pretend to have gone into the question very closely, but I do not think it is advisable, however necessary it may be to preserve the exchanges, for the Government to commandeer wool and, under that cover, to start themselves in a business, which I understand is exactly what is being done at this moment. Assuming that it is necessary that wool should be taken for military purposes, the question that next arises is what the price should be. I admit that in regard to the last clip there was a great deal of confusion and the farmers were put to a great deal of unnecessary trouble. I do not think that could have been avoided, because the Government were just starting it. I do not think that will occur again—at any rate I trust not. There is a considerable feeling among farmers and many other people, who think that if the Government take their wool they should be given a fair price. What is being done at the present time? The Government have taken the wool under the market price and have resold it at the market price, thus making a profit out of the farmers. It may be said that that is in the interest of the nation. It is in the interests of a certain portion of the nation, but the effect of it—this is what I want to emphasise to the House—is to put an additional tax upon one class. The farmer is being taxed in an exceptional way in order to benefit the remaining classes. That ought not to be done. I hope that the Government will consider that point and endeavour to meet it, because I am quite certain that if they did so the farmers would not feel the grievance which they feel, and justly feel, very much at the present moment.
There is a feeling certainly in my own mind, which, I believe, is shared by a large number of people in the country, namely, of distrust at the great and ever-increasing creation of new officials and

865
new Departments. I do not blame the officials—it is natural that when once they are created they should desire to increase their powers and to have more subordinates under them, and, with this power of commandeering, which I admit must be given in a time of crisis like this, they are apt to use it in an arbitrary manner. That is a very serious danger to which the House of Commons ought to devote serious consideration. If one looks into the hostory of countries which suffer from officialism one is always met by the fact that when, as usually happens, the finances of the country begin to go out and it is desired to cut down the officials, the opposition is so great that it is impossible to do it. Therefore I am very sorry for this enormous growth, which has not stopped since we have had a new Government, but which, if anything, has increased. I should like to ask one question in regard to this matter. The Food Controller has told us that we are not to feed wheat to chickens or grain to pheasants, and that certain allowances are to be made. Was it necessary to have a ducal mansion, with most of the houses on the other side of Grosvenor Street, and a large staff in order to do that? He might have done it with one secretary or even without a secretary. If it is asked where was he to get the information upon which to base the allowance he has announced, I would point out that he could have obtained it from the Board of Trade. That information was already in the possession of a Government Department. He might have secured it by sending round to the Board of Trade all the information which up to the present time, so far as the ordinary public is concerned, he has acquired without having this enormous ducal mansion or most of the houses on the other side of the street, which, by the way, when I walked down Grosvenor Street the other day had no blinds and were lit with any quantity of electric lights. That, I believe, is contravening the Regulations in regard to the Zeppelin danger. I happen to have read the remarks of an hon. Gentleman presiding over one of the tribunals who said that what was wanted was not the commandeering of hotels or ducal mansions, but a little more common sense. With that remark I thoroughly agree. I rose chiefly to ask my hon. Friend, because it is really a burning question with the farmers, whether he could not contrive that they should receive a price which more nearly
866
approaches the market price, and that they should not be singled out by the method now adopted for special taxation. I hope the House of Commons and the Government will consider very carefully the advisability of diminishing instead of increasing the numerous Departments which have been brought into existence lately.

MERCANTILE MARINE (SUBMARINE MENACE).
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: We have had a somewhat technical, but very interesting Debate on a subject which greatly interests many Members of this House, and their constituents in Yorkshire and parts of Lancashire. The only contribution I would make to that discussion would be that when Governments begin to interfere in markets they cause merchants a certain amount of trepidation, and very often interfere with the supply. I happen to be a wool merchant in a small way. The South American wool, which my firm buys, can come over to England or go to New York. Under the present conditions, with the Government in and out of the market, I candidly have been afraid to bring the wool here. Although I could have brought it here at the same cost, I have been obliged, owing to the uncertainty, to send it to New York. That condition must apply to a great many people, and cannot but be adverse to the wool manufacturers, because you have a less assortment of wool from which to buy.
I make no apologies to the House for rising principally to raise another subject, that is in connection with the submarine peril and the great menace which at present exists to our shipping, to our food supplies, and to other interests in this country. Yesterday we had the advantage of reading a very interesting Debate on this subject which occurred in another place. I am bound to say that the impression made upon my mind, after reading that Debate, and especially the speech of Lord Curzon, was that there was a minimising of the danger, which, I think, is dangerous to the country. Observe, for a moment, the treatment of the figures by Lord Curzon. He pointed out to the House of Lords that in the thirty months of this War there had been a diminution in the British registered tonnage of vessels over 1,600 tons register of only 5 or 6 per cent. When the country realises and when this House remembers that of the British ships over 1,600 tons register the great bulk are used for naval

867
and military purposes, and, further, when it is remembered that of the residue a large number is employed in local services abroad and are not available for bringing commodities to this country—such services as the coasting trade of Australia, New Zealand, South America, India and China—boats which are unsuited, even if they could be removed from those trades, for food ships, when they are deducted and the vessels used by the Army and the Navy for military and naval purposes are deducted, then we are left with the fact that of the residue it is not 5 or 6 per cent, of which we are short, but a very much larger percentage. I speak, of course, of the residue of ships available for merchandise and available for food, outside those used for purely naval and military purposes, that is for all the other requirements of the country. The percentage is very much greater than a diminution of 5 or 6 per cent. Indeed, that use of figures in the House of Lords is entirely misleading to the country and gives a wrong impression of the present conditions.
The losses by submarines and mines in the month of December have been published in the papers and have been put down at 400,000 tons. That, I understand, to be the gross registered tonnage. I believe that the figures in January were somewhat more than that. Lord Beresford, in another place, gave the figure of 105,000 tons of British tonnage which he said had been lost in the last seven days before he spoke. In order not to exaggerate this matter, let us not take Lord Charles Beresford's figure or the figures for January. Let us take the figures for December, which I believe are admitted—400,000. These are gross registered tons, and to that extent they convey a misleading idea, because gross registered tonnage does not represent the cargo-carrying capacity of a steamer. You must add to that something which may be taken arbitrarily at 40 per cent. Some steamers will carry 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, more, and some less than the 40 per cent, more, and in arriving at the 40 per cent. I am deducting the bunker space. I am taking only the cargo which she will carry. If we add to this 400,000 tons gross 40 per cent, you get a cargo-carrying capacity of 560,000 tons. If an equal rate of loss occurs over the whole year, you have a loss of tonnage of 6,720,000 tons carrying capacity. But that is not all, because every steamer makes more than
868
one voyage in a year. It may be said that steamers can make five voyages a year, but I take it at four and a half. A steamer that goes to New York will make more. A steamer that goes to Australia will make hardly as much, but taking one with another, four and a half voyages a year, I think, is not an unfair estimate. At four and a half voyages a year the loss of tonnage will equal 30,250,000 tons of cargo-carrying capacity per annum. That is a very different view of the subject from telling the country that in thirty months of war we have only lost 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, of our tonnage. On the basis of the other figures to which I have alluded, of course, the losses will be still greater. These last, it is true, are vessels of all nationalities, but, after all, does that make any difference to us? At present we are more dependent on neutral ships for bringing the commodities and merchandise we need than on our own vessels, the bulk of which are engaged in Government service.
Three remedies for this state of matters have been suggested. The first is the destruction of the submarines which cause this great loss and danger. It was with great satisfaction that the country read that steps are being taken to combat the evil, and that new devices have been adopted, which promise to give great success, and I join with the speaker in the House of Lords in congratulating those in charge of the matter at the Admiralty on the success they have so far achieved. I hope it will be still greater in the future than in the past; but I am afraid the Admiralty have not up till now always welcomed, with that avidity that one would like to have seen, the assistance of people who have come to them, or wish to come to them, with devices and new ideas for combatting this evil. I happen to know of one or two cases in which men, not people of no position, not people who have some wild idea in their heads, but people of repute, have gone to the Admiralty with well thought out schemes and ideas and have found weeks of delay before they could get the thing seriously taken up. In war-time, at any time during the past year, that such a thing should take place deserves inquiry. I hope it is not occurring at present, but I believe it has occurred.
These devices and new steps which are being taken are one way of dealing with the subject of destruction. Another way is the arming of cargo ships. I should like

869
to ask the representatives of the Admiralty why they have not given this matter of the arming of our cargo ships more attention at an earlier date. I understand that some ships have been armed for some time—certain picked vessels, mostly high-class vessels—but so scarce have the guns been that as soon the vessel got to Gibraltar, at a time when the Mediterranean was safer, and to Port Said more recently, the guns have been hustled off the ship as quickly as possible in order to be used for another vessel which was coming this way. Similarly, when ships have gone to a port in this country, to stay only for a week or ten days, so scarce have the guns been that the gun has been taken off one ship and put on to another, so that she may have a gun to go out with. That is a very good thing to do in an emergency, but why should there have been an emergency of that sort? Giving credit to the Admiralty for the foresight which they ought to possess, and the foreknowledge of what was doing in the way of building submarines in Germany, which they certainly possess if anyone does, they ought to have provided more guns for merchant ships at a much earlier date.
With regard to gunners, are there enough; and, moreover, what is the Admiralty doing to train more? It is one of the most highly important matters to have gunners. I heard of a steamer the other day, mounted with a gun, and a submarine rose in her neighbourhood and fired a shot which narrowly missed the bridge. It fired another which narrowly missed the gun on the stern. Then the gun got to work, fired a shot at the submarine which went ever so far beyond her, and then fired another which only went half-way to her, and then she dived without being struck. Of course, we cannot always hit the object we aim at even when the sea is calm, as it was on this occasion, but it points to the necessity of training the gunners. I hope the Admiralty is providing a sufficient supply of trained gunners for the ships they are now going to arm. We have been told publicly, although I do not know whether it is true or not that the Germans are now turning out three submarines a week. Many times the Admiralty has been asked how many submarines we are really destroying. So far as I know, we have never had a definite figure. I believe it is difficult to give a definite figure. It is quite possible to think you have sunk a submarine, when it dives, when in reality you have missed it altogether. It is also
870
possible that you have destroyed a submarine without knowing it. Consequently there would be a certain amount of guesswork as to the numbers; but there is no doubt the Admiralty has an idea how many have been destroyed—a pretty close approximation to the facts, no doubt. I should like to know, and I ask the Admiralty to tell us, are we destroying more than the Germans are building or fewer? Is the evil getting greater or have we mastered it and is it getting less?
There is another way of maintaining our food supplies beside the destruction of submarines, and that is keeping up the supply of tonnage and increasing it. There must, of course, be economy in the use of tonnage. I would call attention to these numerous expeditions which we have in the minor theatres of war, the expeditions in East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Salonika. I should be the last person to attempt to pass judgment on the need for every one of these expeditions I should not feel myself competent to express an opinion on all four of them, but it is right to call attention to what it means in shipping. It means an immense number of vessels, far beyond what the ordinary man in the street realises. In connection with the comparatively small expedition to Mesopotamia, 430 ships in something like fifteen months entered the port of Basra; and not only is it the number of ships that take the troops for these expeditions, but it is the number of ships that are required to maintain supplies for the troops when they are there—the ammunition and food and the thousand and one things which an army nowadays requires. Then when you have got all these expeditions going, certain vessels are placed at the disposal of the military authorities for the use of the expedition. They are then lost to sight for all practical purposes, and lost to the country's needs, except in connection with that one expedition. They go off to these distant places, but as to looking after their dispatch, rapid unloading and rapid turning round and sending off on another voyage, I do not know whether the Shipping Controller is going to look after it or not. I asked the Leader of the House when the Bill for the creation of the office was first introduced, and I got a somewhat indefinite answer. I know of no result so far. I do not know what the dispatch is at Salonika, but I am told it is not very good. I do not know what it is in Egypt, but for

871
the last six months of 1916 the average delay of vessels at Basra was, in July, thirty days, and after six months it had improved to the extent that in December a ship was on average still twenty days in port. These vessels are not great Atlantic liners, but 3,000 tonners; and they do not go in and discharge cargo and load another afterwards. They take nothing out. This tonnage is urgently needed, but it is kept in ports by mismanagement and misuse. I do not know whether the Controller of Shipping is going to have any power in the matter or not. I am very much afraid he is not. It seems difficult that he should have in one way, because he has no representative out there; therefore, it is in the hands of the military who are in control of the expeditions. I hope it is no disservice to the Government to call attention to this matter so that they may be urged to do their best to improve the dispatch.
I should like to refer to the Shipping Controller, and one improvement which he has recently effected. There are delays, of course, not only where these expediditions go, but also in France and in this country. The delays in France have been abnormal and have been of very considerable length, and there has been a certain waste of our carrying capacity by that delay. I have no doubt that the matter has now received attention, and that what is possible is being done. I hope so. In England the dispatch is a good deal better, and the step I refer to, and on which I wish to congratulate the Department, is that they have appointed certain stevedores, men with experience of dispatching, discharging, and loading vessels, to advise and help them either in the Shipping Controller's office or in the Admiralty. Whenever there is a complaint of delay in dispatch it goes to the stevedore, who sees the people, goes if necessary to the spot, and tries to remedy the evil. It is a good move, and having often criticised the Transport Department of the Admiralty, I am glad to recognise it.
We speak of making the best use of our tonnage. Has full consideration been given to every way in which there might be a saving? We have great expeditions in Salonika, Egypt and Mesopotamia. Supplies of all sorts are required for those expeditions, and many of those supplies come from the United
872
States of America. What happens to-day? You buy, it may be, tinned meat in Oregon, or salmon from Alaska, or timber from the Pacific coast. This is sent across the Continent to New York which means great expense. Then it is shipped to Great Britain, and runs the risk of submarine attack. After it has come to Great Britain it is again shipped and again runs risk from submarines in going through the Channel, the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean in order to get to Mesopotamia or Salonika. Why could these supplies not be shipped in neutral ships from the Pacific coast direct to the place of destination. There are many neutral ships that would take that voyage which will not run the risk of crossing the Atlantic. Ships could be got under the American flag, or otherwise, to do that voyage, but the answer is, "We have not a whole cargo ready at one time." If that is the answer, all I can say is that the authorities might devise means of accumulating cargo. Moreover, there are many goods that you buy in the middle West which you could send to be shipped at San Francisco, Seattle or Vancouver, instead of sending them to New York to be brought to this country, and then reshipped to the place of destination, thereby running the risk of the submarine danger twice. By going the other way, they would escape the danger. If you were to take a step of that sort, and it proved practicable, then you have this advantage that you get neutral shipping to do part of your work and you have your British shipping available to do the dangerous work which is absolutely essential in bringing food for this country from New York. There is another suggestion which I should like to make. You bring a great many things—such as oats from Chile, nitrate from Chile, and other commodities from South America—and you have a certain amount of difficulty in getting ships which are not requisitioned, and are not British, to come here because of the danger. You could get large numbers of neutral ships which would willingly carry these commodities to some neutral port—it may be Panama, some of the West Indian islands, or it may be New York. In that way you could use some of these neutral ships for that part of the voyage which is not dangerous, and which they would willingly undertake, and save British ships for the dangerous part of the voyage. Of course,

873
that would be expensive. It does not improve goods to be twice handled, but if we are to be in a state of rations of food in this country, we have to do many things which are not commercially profitable.
Another way of combating this evil is to build more ships. Are the vacant slips in this country all occupied? I am afraid that none but those inside the circle can answer this question. But the Admiralty can. I would like to ask the Admiralty what they are doing about slips that are occupied with vessels on which they are not allowing work to be done? There are, I understand, slips on which there are passenger vessels half built and other special types of vessels, and these, unless you are putting down new slips, are so much deadweight. They are blocking the way and taking up slips that might be used in building the kind of vessels which we now want. I would like to know what control the Shipping Controller has over labour in the shipyards, in the rolling mills where sheets and other parts of the vessel are produced, and in the engine builders' works. If the Shipping Controller has no control there, it seems to me that lie is in a very weak position. I understand that there is more labour in the shipbuilding yards just now than there was some time ago, after the beginning of the War. Although there is this increase there is considerable difficulty in the works where they build the engines and in the steel works where they provide the plates. If the Shipping Controller is in the position that I rather fear he is in, it seems to me that it is going to be something like this—he has got a works to build engines, but that works is under the control of the Admiralty, and is also doing work for the Ministry of Munitions. Then comes along the Shipping Controller, and he has a demand to make. The reply may be, "Oh, it is only for a merchant ship; it is only for a cargo vessel," and the game of grab goes on. The Admiralty, which always seems to get the best of it, says, "Oh, you must stop that work; you must go on with our work." The Minister of Munitions says something of the same sort, and unless the Shipping Controller has much more power than I think he has, he is going to find himself the last of the three. This is a very vital question, because if the Shipping Controller is going to be the last of the three, and if there is not going to be co-
874
operation, equal terms, and equal rights in this matter, then the country is going to be left in a very bad position as regards the supply of merchant tonnage to replace those ships which are being rapidly sunk.
We have read in the papers a good deal about standard ships. It is a very good move that the Government should have taken in hand the building of ships to replace those which have been sunk, at any rate to some extent. Of course, the circumstances are abnormal. I do not think I should stand here to advocate the Government building cargo ships in time of peace, but in time of war, and in the circumstances in which we are placed, and knowing that a private individual has no chance of getting anything done quickly, it is a good thing that the Government should come forward and order these ships. But in deciding to build standard ships on hard and fast lines is the Government really doing the most economical thing? There are many shipbuilders who have been in the habit of building tramp ships. They have got a model already of some successful ship they have built; they have the templates for the different parts of the ship, and they have the engine builders with whom they deal, who have built suitable engines for that ship—of a suitable size and fit, as it were. Then comes along the Government to this shipbuilder and says, "Build us two standard ships. Here is the design. You have to follow this design. These are the dimensions. You have to make your own models, your own templates and your own engines suitable for this ship." The result is not only greater cost but delay, and delay in this matter is very important. I believe that this standard ship idea has gone so far in some cases that shipbuilders have had to alter their yards in order to build them—shipyards which are already adapted for building successful ships of another size. No one would recommend that people should be allowed to build ships of a type which are not immediately required by the country, such as passenger ships, but I think there might be some latitude given to the successful tramp-ship builders to build to the models which they have hitherto built upon, which they have got in stock, so to speak, and which would save time and labour. It is said, I do not know whether it is correct, that the Government have decided to build something like fifty of these standard ships, and that they are to

875
be of 8,000 tons cargo capacity each. That represents 400,000 tons of cargo capacity. If I take the four and a half voyages a year which I previously took, and which would be a safe figure to take, these standard ships will carry 1,800,000 tons of cargo per annum. How inadequate that seems when one considers that it is less than one month's destruction by submarines! Not only is it less than one month's destruction, but none of these standard ships can possibly be ready before the autumn. July, I understand, is the earliest date that any of them can be delivered, and they will not be in work, the bulk of them, before the autumn.
In this connection I would like to ask the Admiralty—because the Shipping Controller was not in existence at the time—why this building of cargo ships was not begun much sooner, when they knew that a great many more submarines were being built in Germany. It seems to me that it would have been one of the ordinary precautions that people of foresight would have taken, to build ships sooner, in order to replace the losses. Is it too late to suggest that instead of fifty ships they should increase the order to one hundred ships? Is it unreasonable to suggest that? Even that number will not be equal to the past six weeks' destruction by submarines. While it would seem an impossible task, or at any rate a very extraordinary task, to go on building and building, in order to be sunk and be sunk, at the same time we do hope that while it is necessary to build and build in order to replace some of the ships that are sunk, the number that are being sunk is going to be diminished by the efforts of the Admiralty. That these new ships will be wanted is as clear as daylight. It is not only our ships that are being lost, but the ships of all the neutrals are, being lost, and the shipbuilding yards of other countries are now being, at any rate, delayed—Norway, for instance. It is true that in the United States shipbuilding has taken a tremendous start, and a great deal is being done there which we never dreamt of five years ago. Nevertheless, the whole of these new ships, if one hundred were put down instead of fifty, will be wanted, and it would not be a bad business proposition for the Government to put down double the present number of ships for our national need. In any case it is not a question
876
whether it is commercially profitable or not: it is a question of whether, if they do not do it, we shall be able to hold out m this country for want of food.
There is one thing, further, that we can do, and that is to restrict imports. Nobody welcomes that, least of all those who are accustomed to importing and exporting as their daily trade. But we are living in very abnormal times, and it does seem to me, as a merchant, and I say it seriously, that in addition to destroying enemy submarines, in addition to building ships, in addition to economising those we have got, we have got to restrict the imports of this country very drastically. It is a very serious matter, and we ought to look upon it as a very serious matter. At the same time I do not think there is any reason for us to be too pessimistic or too despondent. We can be consoled in this country that we have had a wonderful exhibition of bravery on the part of the crews of our merchant ships, and the country ought to recognise it. I would suggest to the Government that they ought to recognise it, and that there ought to be special rewards designed, and given, not by the shipowner to his employés, but by the Government of this country to those men who are running the risks night and day of their ships being destroyed by submarines and themselves drowned. It has not been a very luxurious life for the sailor at any time, and, under present circumstances, they deserve of the country something quite exceptional as a meed of our gratitude and tribute to their bravery. I said that we need not be too despondent. I am one of those who have confidence in British resource. British courage, and British staying power. I believe that while we recognise the danger—and I think we ought to do so—while we do not seek to minimise it, as I fear was done in another place, at the same time we can keep up our courage, and keep our hearts still strong and steadfast, confident that we will diminish and overcome this menace, that we have some means of counteracting it, and that we shall come through at the end on the right side.
Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: I fully associate myself with the last remarks of my hon. Friend, who has made such an able contribution to this Debate. We can subdue the submarine menace if drastic, resolute action can be taken, but that the submarine menace to-day is a perilous one was exemplified by the Chancellor

877
of the Exchequer on Monday, when he remarked that we were obliged to send coal to Italy across France in order to avoid the dangers of the German submarines and to save tonnage. Of course, saving the tonnage must be a very minor matter. That seems to me the most striking statement in this House since this Session began. Picture the congestion of the French railways, and then think of the coal having to be taken overland through France and through the Mont Cenis tunnel into Italy! I should have thought that the trains would burn almost as much coal as they would have taken. There is no doubt in my mind that the Germans have long been preparing this submarine campaign, and that it is upon it that they really rest their hopes. I want to ask a question—I do not know whether to ask the representative of the Admiralty or the right hon. Gentleman who is a member of the War Cabinet. Who really is responsible for this recrudescence of the submarine activity? The Admiralty—the German Admiralty. But who is responsible for not taking means to check it? That is the main point I want to know.
The Admiralty has had warning that the submarine menace would be commenced about this time. Over and over again we have seen such threats that the Germans were devoting the whole of their energy to submarine activity. I do not know whether it would be possible for me to quote here some warning as to the German submarines which appeared in the Press. I have them here, from the "Daily Mail." On 9th January:
"a firm at Schaffhausen has delivered to Germany 300 motors for submarines."
Then, again, in another paper:
"Information received at Basle says that the German authorities have ordered the release from the front of all skilled mechanics, and they have been sent to ports where U-boats are being built feverishly."
These warnings, I presume, have reached the Admiralty, and I should imagine that they would have had far earlier information than is contained in newspaper reports. To-day we have this submarine menace grown to such an extent that undoubtedly there is danger that the supplies to these shores may be very seriously curtailed. I think that we have rather gone off on the wrong track, and been talking a great deal about large and small Cabinets. I do not care much whether the Cabinet consists of five or twenty-five so long as it has the best naval and military
878
advisers and follows them. Twelve months ago I suggested to the Government that it was a national disaster that they were not employing the man who, I thought in my humility, was the greatest sailor-strategist to-day—that is Admiral Lord Fisher—I make no secret of it. But that suggestion of mine was reinforced by the Member for Dundee, and this gave the late First Lord of the Admiralty such a first-rate opportunity for oratorical display that Lord Fisher's merits were entirely obliterated.
I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with regard to the distribution of our forces inflicting an enormous burden upon the shipping resources of the country. I remember saying last year that it was patent to everybody—and this was reinforced by others—that we were straining our shipping resources to far too great an extent by expeditions all over the world. There is no doubt about it to-day. What finer field for German submarine activities can there be than an Armada of transports going from this country all the way round Gibraltar down the Mediterranean to Salonika? I would like to ask—I do not know how much information can be given—what our troops are in Salonika for to-day? What are they doing? I do not want any information that would give away any military secret, but I was greatly interested some time ago in reading what the Germans think of Salonika. I may read a short quotation from the "Times" of 4th November, 1916, from the series of very remarkable articles by Mr. Curtin. He says:
"Austrian eyes have always been turned towards Salonika. Germans, however, are well satisfied with the Salonika position. They speak of it as the biggest internment camp, kept with no expense of feeding prisoners—the prisoners, of course, being the British, French, Italian and other troops there. They say that it is unhealthy like the Dardanelles, and they predict that it will eventually provide another Dardanelles catastrophe."
I understand, too, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that our supplies to Salonika are to be sent across France. If that be so, there would be still greater congestion on the French railways, and a still further weakening, may be, of our power in the decisive theatre on the Western front.
I do not want to refer to Mesopotamia, but the other day I observed that I was noticed to be cheering my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exquer, because he adverted to the costly

879
character of these overseas expeditions. I was cheering him, and I wish that he had come over to this side of the House twelve months ago, and had protested against these very wasteful expeditions, which have never proved to have had anything like the value which they have cost this country, both in life and treasure. I bring home to our own people the extent Trade to be a little more frank, and tell us what is the extent of the submarine peril. How many ships have been sunk? I have a return here, published by the Board of Trade, giving the total number and net tonnage of British merchant shipping reported to the Board of Trade as lost between 4th August, 1914, and 31st October, 1915. That was a Government return, which showed exactly what was our loss. Why cannot we have such a return as that to-day? Why cannot we know exactly what tonnage has been sunk by German submarines? I see no reason why not. We get from the Germans themselves most extravagant estimates, I am perfectly certain. The Germans say that they have sunk 4,000,000 tons of shipping, British and neutral, since the War began. Let the Admiralty tell us frankly what is the amount of shipping that has been sunk. It cannot do any harm as regards Germany. Germany claims far more than has been sunk, I feel perfectly certain, but it will bring home to our own people the extent of this submarine peril, and will aid the Government to show our people that it is absolutely essential to restrict consumption.
My right hon. Friend agrees with me, but why does not he tell us frankly what has been the loss? As my hon. Friend who has just sat down stated, there is no use in attempting to minimise this danger by optimistic speeches in another place by one of the leaders of the War Cabinet. Listening to Lord Curzon, as I did, one would think that losses by German submarines had been perfectly insignificant. My right hon. Friend has given the figures. Lord Curzon said that before the War we had 3,800 vessels of over 1,600 tons with a total carrying capacity of 16,850,000 tons, and on 31st January, 1917, that was only reduced to 3,540 ships with the carrying capacity of 16,000,000 tons, or a net loss of 5 or 6 per cent. Anyone knows that figures like that are not an accurate representation of the facts, so why. I ask does the Government, in
880
another place, through one of its most influential spokesmen, tell us things which put a gloss over this danger that is overhanging the country? Germany claims to have sunk 4,000,000 tons of shipping, and, according to Lord Curzon's figures, it is only 850,000 tons. That is the net loss, of course. I know something about presenting figures. I was once on an agricultural Commission with the late Sir Robert Giffen, and I was asking him how I should get a certain figure, and he asked me, "What do you want to prove?" It seems to me that Lord Curzon in the House of Lords was trying to prove that our net loss had been not of anything like a serious character.
7.0 p.m.
I ask again that the Admiralty shall tell us frankly and plainly what have been our losses. Up to now they have refused to do so. I said that they had a return made in October, 1915, and if this refusal that is made had been to screen their success I would be perfectly satisfied. But I am sorry to say I cannot help feeling that the refusal to publish these figures has been due rather to the failure on their part to hunt down the submarines. My hon. Friend opposite has talked about armed merchant ships. That, of course, is to the good. But it is a very big promise. Each merchant ship to be adequately protected against submarines must have two guns, and each gun has two gunners and something like fifty rounds of ammunition. According to the number of ships—3,500—the number of guns required would be 7,000, and the number of gunners 14,000, I and there would have to be 350,000 rounds of ammunition. But that would not protect a single neutral ship, upon which, after all, we depend for a large portion of our supplies. As to standardised ships, they would be all to the good, but, unless the submarines are destroyed, they would be merely more fodder for them. Then the question of labour comes in. My hon. Friend opposite dealt with it, but I only wish to mention it. We had the Secretary to the Shipping Controller, a few days ago, talking to us as to who had control of this labour. I would emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester, as to who is controlling the building of merchant ships. Is it the Admiralty, or is it the Shipping Control Department? If there is a dispute between the two, are the two to go to the War Cabinet to settle it? I presume

881
they will, but, after all, the War Cabinet cannot know everything, yet they will have to settle this matter. The Admiralty has established a new Labour Department at Horrex's Hotel under Mr. Macassey. What is he doing, and who is controlling the labour for the mercantile marine? Are these two gentlemen working hand-in-hand, or how are they working? These are really very practical questions, and I want to get an answer to them.
The true objective is the destruction of the German submarines. There can be nothing; more discouraging to German submarine commanders who are at home than to learn that their comrades have gone from them never to return. It has been stated by sceptics that the submarine menace cannot be overcome. I would suggest that there was once during the period of this War when it was overcome, and the Government themselves said so. Lord Milner presented a Report to the Government, I think about 15th September, and he at that time asked for a guarantee to the farmer of 45s. a quarter for wheat, as compared with 80s. to 90s. a quarter, which are the prices ruling today. The Government would not give the guarantee at that time because, they said, they had the submarine menace well in hand. What was the reason for that? It was the reason which I ventured to put forward last year, and which I put forward again, and that was the vigorous measures taken by Lord Fisher when he was First Sea Lord of the Admiralty. That is the real reason. I cannot conceive why the Government to-day do not use the services more fully of the greatest naval strategist of to-day. We are told, of course, that Sir John Jellicoe is head of the Admiralty. No man has a higher admiration of Sir John Jellicoe than I have, or a higher admiration of Sir Henry Jackson; but to compare either of these two men to Lord Fisher is like comparing Bethmann-Hollweg with Bismarck. These are my sincere convictions. The man really able to deal with the submarine menace is the man who dealt with it in 1915. Lord Fisher to-day is simply chairman of a Board of Inventions of research of chemistry.
As I walk up Whitehall and see Nelson's statue, I think to myself that even Lord Nelson's blink eye would blink with astonishment if he could be here and see our leading naval strategist relegated to the chairmanship of a chemist shop in Cock-
882
spur Street. Lord Fisher came back to the Admiralty in October, 1915, and immediately after he returned his advent was signalised by the battle of the Falkland Isles. The Kaiser claimed victory at the battle of Jutland, but he never claimed it in connection with the battle of the Falkland Isles. That is decisive. We have been threatened with the publication of the Dardanelles Report. I hope it will come out; we want it out. I trust that on Monday the Leader of the House will be able to give us the reply that this Report will be issued, and then we shall see that if Lord Fisher's advice had been followed the Dardanelles disaster would never have occurred. I know it is said that he is an old man, but Lord Barham was seventy-nine when selected. It is said that Lord Fisher's methods were not liked in the Navy. Lord Fisher's methods are the methods of victory. I have been told, too, that he is not a gentleman. You no not want a gentleman to fight Germans. I know that he is not the favourite of fashionable Society; fashionable ladies have no power over him. Therefore, I do earnestly press upon the Government that they should take advantage of this distinguished man's services. They can get him now on their own terms. In three months' time, when the people may be tightening their belts and experiencing a definite scarcity in the land, you may perhaps have to take him on his own terms. I have made these remarks, and they are what I said last year; I repeat them here to-day, and I firmly believe that the man to deal with the greatest peril now before the country is the man who with his great genius foresaw what the submarine menace would be. If I were to tell the House all that he has written, how he foresaw exactly what the submarines would do, it would astonish you. I place my views before the Government now, and I do say that the one man to save the situation, the one man who has shown vigour in dealing with it, is Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher.
Mr. STEWART: I agree with the hon. Baronet who brought this subject before the notice of the House, in a good deal of what he said. As to what my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench said about Lord Fisher I do not propose to express any opinion. I think in some quarters a rather pessimistic view has been taken of the question of submarines. I see by the papers this morning that 125 ships arrived

883
in France in one day; and my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Captain Sir Owen Phillips) quoted a return given in July, 1916, showing that we began the War, 31st July, with something over 20,000,000 tons, and that we had still over 20,000,000 tons on 31st July, notwithstanding losses up to that date. Although we may be hard up for ships, it ought to be borne in mind that the Americans and the Japanese are building ships so that there is reasonable hope of a further supply of merchant vessels. The East African campaign, too, is nearing its close, which will naturally release a number of ships. I do not think that the Admiralty are altogether without blame, because of the uneconomic use they have made of ships under their control. Ships go to ports like Gibraltar, laden with coal, and there may be six, eight, or ten of these vessels in their berths to supply the war vessels. The men-of-war take a certain amount of coal out of each ship, but vessels are not unloaded in rotation, so that they might come away to take in fresh cargo, but they are only partially unloaded, and some of them may be remaining at their berths with only two or three hundred tons of coal in their holds, and they are kept there for an indefinite period. Another instance where the Admiralty, I think, are to blame is in sending ships to Archangel late in the autumn when anyone who knows anything about shipping knows that there is a great deal of difficulty in getting through the ice. I know the case of a ship which has been kept in the ice for five months, the vessel deteriorating every day, and what happened to that vessel happened to a great many more ships. As to the armament of the mercantile marine, I noticed the other day the statement made that various ship captains were not doing their best to avoid the submarine danger by zig-zagging their vessels. That brought an emphatic and earnest reply from the Secretary of the Mercantile Marine Service Association resenting the accusation, and I venture to submit that statements of that sort could perfectly well be prevented by the Censor from appearing. We all know what has been done by the Royal Naval Reserve, and they are deserving of generous treatment, and not the Admiralty's niggardly treatment of dismissal without compensation, at a week's notice, if overtaken by ill-health.
There is a point in connection with this submarine menace which I should
884
like to press home. We do not know, and the public does not know, how many ships have successfully repelled submarine attacks. The owners of the vessels, full of gratitude to the officers for their gallant services, meet together in a private place, watches are presented, and complimentary words are spoken, but the public know nothing about it, and this silence is partly forced on the owners because of the fate which befel Captain Fryatt. And then there is the question of arming the ships. That certainly is one of the most easy ways of saving our vessels from this peril, and I would add my appeal to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that the putting into effect of that method should not be delayed one day longer than is absolutely necessary.
Again, why should not the best possible use be made of all the deep-water ports and harbours on the Western coasts of Ireland and Scotland. At present our ships have to converge towards the channels to the north and south of Ireland to get to English ports. At the North of Ireland, where the Channel is only thirteen miles wide, it is easy for submarines to fill it up with mines, and we get unpleasant reminders of that as when a big steamer went down the other day. But we have, especially on the Irish coast, a number of very fine harbours, such as those of Galway and Sligo, and in Scotland you have Oban and other places, and although there may be some difficulties in the matter of transport by reason of the lack of sufficient railway accommodation, still much greater difficulties of this kind have been overcome during the present War. I do think the authorities might consider the desirability of making use of a greater number of these harbours for the dispatch and arrival of ships, because if the Germans found it necessary to watch every harbour from the Shetland Islands down to Finisterre they would discover that it was an almost overwhelming task.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman who will speak on behalf of the Admiralty to-night will give us some information as to the number of submarines we have put under. I think lie could make such a statement without giving any information of value to the Germans. We read such information in a Parisian paper, and we have it given in the House of Lords and elsewhere. Admiral Jellicoe only yesterday stated that there was no need for

885
him, as so many statements had been made outside, to make any statement on the subject, but I do think we should have one from the Admiralty. It would be an encouragement to our sea-going population to know that the sinkings are not all on one side, and it also would be an encouragement to the public, at a time when they are viewing the situation with very great anxiety.
Mr. HOLT: I want to say a few words regarding a question I put this afternoon upon the case of Captain Riepenhausen. I understand there is no dispute between the Admiralty and myself as to the facts. Captain Riepenhausen's mother was a Scotchwoman of purely British descent. His father was a Hanoverian who only missed by two months the privilege of being born a British subject. The father came to Scotland at the age of thirteen, and never had anything to do with Germany after that. The son is unable to speak, read, or write German. He has, as my right hon. Friend admits, an absolutely unblemished character. He is a man of very high professional attainment. He has been a very long time in the employment of my firm, and we have the greatest possible confidence in him. The right hon. Gentleman read the rule on the strength of which this captain may be required to give up his profession, for that is what, in effect, it amounts to.
I should like the House to realise how it is being done. The Admiralty, in order to enforce this, are using their War Risk Insurance scheme. I should explain that the Board of Trade established a scheme for insuring vessels against war risks, and, although in theory it is voluntary, in practice it is compulsory, because the Government will not insure a cargo unless the ship is insured, and if the captain has not the Board of Admiralty approval the ship cannot be insured under this scheme. The only plan the Admiralty have for enforcing the outrageous order quoted by the right hon. Gentleman is by using this Board of Trade scheme, drawn up, be it remembered, for the purposes of insurance, and by this means they put coercion on ship-owners. I think people should understand what is likely to happen when a Government is given extended powers in every conceivable walk of life. My right hon. Friend refused to tell me how many persons have been victimised by this rule.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I do not know.
Mr. HOLT: Obviously a good many have been. The rule was never drawn up simply to deal with one solitary case of a man of unblemished character. But what are going to be the consequences? So far as a large company like that with which I am associated is concerned, it does not matter very much. We may lose a certain number of good officers, but we can always get other people to replace them; on the terms we are enabled to offer, we can always get a good and sufficient staff. But people who are not in a position to offer as good terms to their servants must necessarily go short, because the scarcity of officers in the mercantile marine is now so great that vessels to-day, as a result of this rule, are sailing inefficiently manned. They are going through the submarine area with an inadequate number of officers, and are, as the result, being made easy victims of the Germans, simply because the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take care not to accept the services of a man whose father does not happen to have been born in the right place.
I know of another case—a Dane—a very good man, who has been driven out of the mercantile marine. Now this man's father was a captain in the British mercantile marine, and at one time he was contemplating being naturalised in this country. But in 1863 a war broke out between Denmark and Germany, and, being patriotic, he abandoned his project of becoming a naturalised Englishman, in order that he might return to his country and fight the Germans. Yet this man is to be disqualified from serving in the British mercantile marine because his father went to fight the Germans, and for no other reason! He has been driven out of the mercantile marine by this rule, and I think it is perfectly idiotic. Under the rule, as long as the man is a legitimate child it does not matter what his mother's antecedent history was, so long as she was a British subject at the time of the boy's birth. She may have had most horrible antecedents from the point of view, say, of being a German, but it is only the father whose birth really matters, and a person whose father's antecedents are unsatisfactory is the one who suffers under this rule.

887
Let me draw attention to some people whom this rule would exclude from public service if they came within its operation. In the first place, it would apply to two of the most successful generals in the British Army — Generals Botha and Smuts, neither of whom was born a British subject, and both of whom did their best to prevent themselves from becoming British subjects. I do not like to go into personalities, but there is an hon. Member of this House, the Member for Plymouth (Major Astor), whose father has just been made a Peer, and he certainly, if this rule applied to him, would be barred out from any sort of public service. There are hundreds of officers in the Army and Royal Navy who, I am sure, could not stand this test. I want to know how many members of the Government there are in the same position—a good many I should say. My right hon. Friend would not tell me whether this rule applies to the Royal Navy, but I venture to say that it does not; neither does it apply to the Army. And if persons with a certain form of ancestry may be trusted to sit on the Front Bench or to serve in the Navy or the Army, I certainly cannot understand why they should not be allowed to serve in the mercantile marine.
I say there is a motive behind this most ignoble campaign. I do not associate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty with it personally, but I say it is an ignoble anti-foreign Press campaign arising out of sheer jealousy of foreigners, and a desire to get their places. I want to protest against these attempts to prevent foreigners coining to this country and associating themselves with its life. Everybody knows dozens of men—largely Scandinavian—who have come to this country and assimilated themselves with its population and proved very great additions to our national strength. I remember a short time ago there was a Conservative Member in this House for the Borough of Stockton, Sir R. Ropner, a Scandinavian. He was highly respected by everybody, and, indeed, still is. That man, under this rule, would not be allowed to be employed in the mercantile marine, although his ships are requisitioned. The Admiralty would not allow him to be employed, but they would give his captains confidential instructions which they, as his servants, might disclose to him. The other day a very dis
888
tinguished painter was naturalised in this country. Does anyone suggest that this country has not benefited by bringing men of unblemished character into it? I say it is a monstrous attempt to deprive us at a time, when we want men to do our work—it is a monstrous attempt to prevent men of high character serving us as they would desire. I suppose, as the result of this rule, Captain Riepenhausen will be compelled to dig potatoes under our system of national service for a wage of 25s. a week.
I want next to refer shortly to the question which has been so admirably put before the House by preceding speakers. I am inclined to think that the submarine question has been allowed to assume a rather larger place in the whole shipping question than it, strictly speaking, deserves. Of course, it is a very serious matter, but it is only a serious matter because it comes on the top of a great many other things, and if it w ere a problem standing by itself it really would not be so serious a matter. In this connection I wish to express my appreciation of what my hon. Friend behind me has said with regard to the captains and crews of our merchant vessels. I know of no case of a person who has hesitated to face these very serious perils, and they deserve every form of praise, and I am sure they are receiving the gratitude of their fellow-countrymen. I think this peril has been somewhat magnified, and I think the Admiralty are largely responsible, no doubt inadvertently, for giving the public a wrong impression of what is going on. We have had published sometimes large batches of vessels that have been lost, and many vessels that have not been sunk by submarines are included in these lists. We are never told how many vessels have escaped. The public are never told, but as a matter of fact, at the worst of times, the total number destroyed by submarines has been very small compared with the total number that have got through safely. I think it is rather unfortunate that this peril should have been so much exaggerated in the public mind, because, although it is serious, we should get on much better with it if we did not make too much of it.
The two largest factors in the shipping difficulty are, first of all, the requirements of the naval and military authorities, and, secondly, the stoppage of shipbuilding, which has gone on now for two years, and I am going to take credit to

889
myself for having drawn the attention of the House to the serious results that would follow from the stoppage of shipbuilding just about two years ago. If you want ships, you have to think about them in a very practical way some time before you expect to get them. I hope the standard shipbuilding will be successful, and I have no doubt it will be a very good thing if the ships are in fact built, but we have heard a good deal about accelerating building, and I am sorry to say there has been very little more in it than talk. There has been very little acceleration actually accomplished, and I shall believe in the good work that is going to be done through the standard shipbuilding when I see a standard ship with steam up. I know of a ship that was launched last April that is not yet able to get steam up in her boilers, the reason being—it is a ship built on the East coast—that the Admiralty are taking off the engineers on the East Coast almost incessantly for the purpose of repairing warships. There is another very great difficulty about shipbuilding, and that is the supply of steel, which is very short indeed. I have had it in my power to get ships built out of this country in a British Colony, if we could have steel, but we are at once brought up by the fact that we cannot have the steel. The Munitions Department must be made to produce an adequate amount of steel for merchant shipbuilding, or you will get no results. In this connection, let me draw the attention of the Government to an aspect of this matter which I think will be more immediately productive even than shipbuilding, and that is the expediting of repairs. Anybody who knows the condition of our ports knows that it is almost impossible to get a ship repaired expeditiously, and it would be very much simpler to see that arrangements were made for expeditious repairs of all damaged ships, of which, in these days of submarines and mines, there are a great many. In that way I think we should get almost as much in the immediate future as we should get out of more expeditious shipbuilding.
I want to turn for a moment to the naval and military requirements, and to ask what is the position of the Shipping Controller in this matter? Is he in a position to say to the Admiralty, or to the War Office, "You cannot possibly have ships for this expedition "? Because if he is not, he will do no real good. What we
890
want is a person who can put a veto on military or naval expeditions being undertaken until he is satisfied that there is not going to be an undue strain put upon the other requirements of this country. I want to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said with regard to the expedition to Salonika. It has been that expedition which from start to finish has been the prime cause of the shortage of merchant shipping, and in this respect I regard the expedition to Salonika as the lineal descendant of that to Gallipoli. It began with the expedition to Gallipoli, and it will go on so long as the expedition to Salonika continues. I should very much like to know whether we are getting anything like value out of this expedition. We are spending an awful lot, and are we getting any adequate return from a military point of view? There is another question I would ask about the Mediterranean. I think we should be given some idea as to the character of the battle fleets that are being maintained there. It is a matter of common knowledge that the enemy has not and can have I no vessels against us there, except submarines and the small Austrian Navy. We have got in the Mediterranean the French Fleet, the Italian Fleet, and, as we know from casual records in the papers, a considerable number of important British ships. We have got a fleet of large ships in the Mediterranean that, judging from the papers, at any rate, ought to be three or four times stronger than any conceivable enemy fleet there. All these ships are eating up an enormous quantity of coal, oil, fuel, and supplies. If we have got in the Mediterranean a large excess over the strength necessary to hold the Austrian Fleet in check, then we are injuring ourselves because we are eating up our supplies uselessly.
Mr. G. LAMBERT: You must convoy your transports.
Mr. HOLT: What against? You do not want first-class battleships to convoy a transport. We must certainly have an adequate number of boats to deal with submarines, but have we got in the Mediterranean, with our Allies, a battle fleet which is vastly in excess of anything they can possibly be called upon to meet, because if we have there is a great loss going on there? We have suffered a very great loss of tonnage by reason of the fact that the Mediterranean has been for twelve months past practically closed to ordinary

891
commerce. The submarine danger in the Mediterranean has been allowed to get so acute that all shipping going to the East has been diverted round the Cape, causing a very great additional length of time to be spent on the voyage. If the Admiralty took some vigorous steps to make the Mediterranean reasonably and decently safe against submarines, that by itself would produce a very great alleviation of the tonnage position, because there would be a very great gain if we could send merchant ships through the Mediterranean instead of all round the Cape. By the bye, is the Cape route really safe? It is. I think, a matter of common knowledge that the Germans have laid mines round the Cape, and one ship I can say to my knowledge has been totally lost in consequence, and others damaged. And there may be more. Then again, why cannot the Admiralty give us some information about tins raider, this last raider that sank all those ships and has now apparently disappeared? Nobody has apparently heard anything about it for some time past. It would do much to restore public confidence if we could be told what the Admiralty know about that ship. Has she disappeared, has she got back to Germany, or has she been captured and sunk? It does not do anything to maintain public confidence if the public are prevented from knowing matters which are of considerable importance and if they I are to attempt to form a sound judgment on the state of affairs.
There is another matter that has been alluded to, and that is the question of labour at home. We are not getting our ships worked in our own docks as rapidly as we should because we have not got the labour to discharge them, and still more because we have not got railway trucks, or carts, or men necessary to take the goods away from the place where they are discharged. I have had letters from the Munitions Department begging us to bring more and more of certain products into this country at the very time that the products they want are lying in the sheds incapable of being moved on account of the lack of railway trucks. What is the last move that has taken place? The last move has been practically to stop the whole export trade of this country and demand that every ship shall be employed on the North Atlantic. That is a step which seems to me, from the exchange point of view, to be very serious indeed.
892
It is one that can only be explained on one of two grounds, either that the position of this country is much more serious than most of us believe it to be and that any of us can hope it to be, or that the grand War Cabinet have got into a funk and thoroughly lost their heads, and the latter I suspect and believe is the real and true explanation. We were talking just now about wool. What is the first result, as far as shipping is concerned, of the Government wool scheme? Every ship in Australia was held up for about a month while the Government examined the value of the wool. The wool was ready, but it was not allowed to be brought to this country till they had had a nice look at it to see what it was worth, and there has been a serious waste of tonnage due to that fact.
We have got to be economical if we are going to win this War, hut we have got to have economy practised in naval and military requirements. The War as well as other things has got to be conducted with frugality. Even the people who conduct the War cannot possibly have everything they want. They will have to decide not whether services are in themselves good, but whether they are the best services to which our resources can be put. If we are going to enter upon every enterprise that comes into the head of any person, which we are apparently doing, without regard to whether it is the very best use to which our resources can be put, we shall not be successful. The War is a trial of endurance. We are all of us, I think, ready to do our best and do our share to make a success of the War, but some of us are not quite so sure whether the Gentlemen responsible for the navigation of the ship of State have got the necessary skill and seamanship to get us through our troubles.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Before I come to the general debate, may I deal with the case upon which my hon. Friend feels obviously so strongly, the case of Captain Riepenhausen. My hon. Friend says our conduct in regard to that case has been perfectly idiotic, and that it is the result of an ignoble anti-foreign press campaign. I can assure him he is quite wrong. He absolved me of any participation in that, and I am quite sure he would absolve the First Lord, but we are, after all, responsible. These are the facts, and I can only rehearse them: Some time ago the Admiralty decided to restrict the issue of their confidential in-

893
structions to masters of merchant ships who were British subjects and were the sons of parents who, at the time of their birth, were themselves British subjects by birth or naturalisation. That is the rule adopted by the Board of Trade for the period of the War in the case of candidates for a master's certificate of proficiency. At Question Time, I said, and I now repeat, that the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend has referred does not meet these requirements. I do not dispute the claim repeated on his behalf of integrity and trustworthiness, but the only question is as to whether the principle which my right hon. Friend feels confident the House will recognise as sound and necessary should be set aside to meet the case of an individual case, however deserving. I am afraid I cannot add any comment whatever to that.
Mr. HOLT: Will you explain what is the reason for the change?
Dr. MACNAMARA: In the public interest. I do not suppose that my assertion on the facts of the case will give any satisfaction to my hon. Friend, but what I have stated before quite clearly I can only repeat now.
Mr. PRINGLE: Why should not that rule apply to the War Office?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am dealing with a rule applicable to the masters of British merchant ships.
Mr. PRINGLE: Yes; but I do not understand why the Judge Advocate-General should not have the same rule applied to him.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am only responsible for this particular application of the rule.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does it apply to naval officers?
Dr. MACNAMARA: It does not apply, but it applies in its terms practically, substantially, to the Royal Naval Air Service, though it does not apply to other naval officers. Except as regards entries since the war, it does not apply either in precise terms to the Civil officers of the Admiralty. The man's parents must have been English born or naturalised at the time of the candidate's entry.
As regards the general Debate, the First Lord, as I said at Question Time, has official business out of London, and I am sure no one will be more sorry than he to have missed this very interesting
894
Debate. But, as has been stated, a date has already been announced when the token Estimates for 1917–18 will be taken, next Wednesday, on the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." There are on the Order Paper also Motions for that Debate dealing with this very question of the merchant tonnage. Therefore I may assure hon. Members that those who wish points to be covered which have been raised to-night will have an early opportunity of seeing their wishes realised. Earlier, however, this week, on Tuesday, in another place, statements were made, and reference has been made to the fact, that Lord Lytton, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, and Lord Curzon replied to questions put by Lord Beresford. As regards Lord Curzon's figures, I think they have been misquoted. What Lord Curzon said was that "in thirty months of war the net loss from all causes in the British mercantile marine amounted to only 5 or 6 per cent, of the gross tonnage." My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. Lambert) may say that that is not the best way to state the case. He may say you ought to state the gross loss from war and submarine risks.
Mr. G. LAMBERT: I want a fair statement, that is all.
Dr. MACNAMARA: This is a correct statement, but the figures have been challenged in this Debate.
HON. MEMBERS: No!
Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, they have been challenged by my hon. Friend behind me.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I did not challenge the correctness of the figures. I said they were not a correct index of the state of affairs at the present time.
Mr. LAMBERT: They are misleading!
Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot do better than bring into the examination of these divergent views the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Shipping who has all these figures in hand and of whom I know no one better able to deal with the question. As regards the questions put to me as to the Admiralty measures taken in various fields to deal with the situation with which we are now confronted, I do not think I can possibly do better—and I make no apology for it—than to quote the remarks of the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty, when he spoke on behalf of

895
the Board of Admiralty. I could not hope to put the facts of the case, in view of the public interest, more clearly:
"The Germans would be glad to have full and detailed answers to the questions the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) placed on the Paper. We intend that the Germans shall learn the answers in due time, but they will learn them by experience on the sea, and not by speeches that may be made in Parliament. I will give the Noble Lord as much information as it is possible to give. It is only right that the people should look to Parliament for enlightenment on these matters at a time when they feel so much and know so little. I can assure the Noble Lord that all the expedients which he suggested, and a great many others which are known to no one but the authorities concerned, are being employed at this moment for the purpose of preserving the seas as a highway for the merchant traffic of the world. But there is no one sovereign remedy for dealing with the subject, no one panacea which can be used to clear the seas of these pests. The danger is one which can only be met by the successful combination of a very great number of measures, and by the co-operation of all branches of the Service, and of the public themselves."
In the speech of the hon. Gentleman behind me, to which I listened with much pleasure, complaint was made of the delay in the examination of suggestions and expedients for dealing with the submarine menace of which the Admiralty, or whoever is responsible for these matters, was guilty. It was said that these matters were not attended to for a long space of time.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I did not say "a long space of time." I said "some time." I shall be very pleased to give instances to my right hon. Friend.
Dr. MACNAMARA: No time more than absolutely necessary ought to be lost in examining any proposal for dealing with this matter, and I shall be very much obliged if my hon. Friend will give me the names of persons who have submitted suggestions and expedients which they thought useful for the purpose we have in view, and which have not been dealt with without unnecessary delay. I think I should also like to ask my right hon.
896
Friend the Member for Hexham for the details of ships waiting about for wool to which he referred to, and the matter shall be gone into.
With regard to the arming of merchant ships, the matter is certainly being proceeded with with as much expedition as is humanly possible. And we must bear in mind, as said, that guns needed trained gunners. Then there was the question of the misuse of tonnage. It has been suggested that much tonnage has been taken in connection with expeditions which ought never to be undertaken. That appears to be the view of two hon. Members.
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I expressed no opinion about that aspect of the case.
Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot argue whether or not the expeditions ought to have been undertaken. All I can do, and all the Admiralty Transport Department can do, is to answer the criticisms of those who say that in carrying out the work resolved upon by higher authority we have been wasteful and uneconomical and have not done things as we ought to have done them. I would remind the House that I have on more than one occasion done my best to explain how infinitesimally small were the pre-war operations of the Transport Department compared with those which immediately confronted it at the outbreak of the War. As a matter of fact, in July, 1914, the Transport Department had centrally and locally in the ports fifty-five persons, a figure which has now reached the region of 1,000 persons. Many of these are working very long hours indeed. I would like to add this in relation to this particular criticism of uneconomical use of tonnage: that; it has been a great advantage to the Transport Department to have placed at its disposal, which it has had for a very long time past, the advice and assistance of Gentlemen like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and other shipowners, and I am very grateful to them for their work and for the benefit of their experience and great knowledge. On the Motion for the Vote of Credit this criticism on the wasteful use of tonnage was, I think, made. There is no doubt that it is inevitable that in warlike operations there should be a sharp contrast with the ordinary, calm and orderly proceedings of peace undertakings and commercial transactions. We have got to conduct our operations promptly.

897
We have got to make provision for ever-shifting naval and military requirements. It is quite impossible to forecast for any length of time ahead what the requirements may be. You have even to make provisions for contingencies which may never arise, and often do not. All that should be borne in mind. I do not deny that at the outbreak of the War the Transport Department may have made mistakes. Of course it did. But it is a very remarkable fact that in all these Debates and throughout the many criticisms we have never been charged with having left the Army or the Navy either wanting or waiting. No one has ever said that the demands of the naval or military authorities have not been met both thoroughly, promptly, and sufficiently.
Sir W. BYLES: And thriftily?
Dr. MACNAMARA: At the beginning of the War it was necessary, and it is still necessary, to keep in mind the fact that to an island population like ourselves it is essential that mercantile tonnage should be taken away as little as possible from its ordinary avocation. That is a consideration which has all along been of paramount importance. It was never more vital than it is to-day. In reply to the criticisms as to why we did not earlier take in hand the acceleration of merchant shipping, I may say that so far back as this time last year we put a Clause, as my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade will remember, into the amended Munitions Acts declaring that merchant shipping should come within the definition of munitions work; that merchant shipping should be treated as war work. Acceleration has been here achieved. I admit at once that much more must be accomplished. The matter is now in the hands of the Shipping Controller to help on acceleration of the tonnage to replace that which is sunk. I observe my hon. Friend thinks that twice as many standardised ships should be laid down?
Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Yes.
8.0.p.m.
Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a point to put to the Shipping Controller. It is felt that there might be greater elasticity in this matter, and perhaps that is true. As to the submarine menace generally. Now we stand confronted with the latest declaration of unrestricted savagery. I was very glad to hear once more the tributes that
898
have been paid in this Debate to the dauntless conduct during this War of the officers and men of the mercantile marine. There has been nothing finer in this War —a war crowded with deeds of heroism and gallantry on the part of the Army and Navy—than the quiet, unconcerned way in which the officers and men of the merchant service have gone about their ordinary avocation entirely undeterred by the hidden menace of the mine and the submarine. They will continue, despite the German threat, to go forth and to pursue their duty in the same way as they have in the past. We can never hope to repay them sufficiently for their dauntless valour and their intrepid conduct. "The sea hath its pearls"; none so priceless as the dauntless courage of the merchant seaman. There is no sacrifice that we can make, no matter how big it is, which is in any way commensurate with the sacrifice that these men are making. So far as we are concerned, our reply to the latest German declaration is that we shall redouble our efforts in every direction—quietly, calmly and with full determination—redouble the effort in every shipyard to accelerate new construction and repair; redouble the effort to secure the maximum output on the part of every employer and every man employed. To that end, re-doubled effort wherever at all possible in the direction of the better organisation of the shipyard and the greater mobility of shipyard labour so that we see to it that no skilled man at this moment is other than fully occupied; to that end more dilution and the absolute setting aside of all demarcation rules and of everything that in any way whatever contributes to keep output less than the possible maximum. Of course, it is of enormous advantage to us to have the benefit of the great knowledge of the Shipping Controller. As regards the Transport Department, the Director of Transport— this is a War Cabinet decision, of course, and perhaps I am not the authorised person to state it, but that does not matter in these times—will still receive the demands of the naval and military authorities with regard to transport, and instead of carrying them out direct he will carry them through the Shipping Controller. He will be, in a sense, if you like, under dual authority, but I say that good sense, common sense, and good will will set all theoretical difficulties aside.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the Shipping Controller to sanction the requisition of any vessels the Admiralty ask for?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not asking critically: I am asking for information.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. I imagine that if, under extreme provocation, he thought it was a requisition which ought not to be made, it would be taken to the War Cabinet, which is sitting continuously, I understand, and we need not anticipate difficulties in that matter. Do not let us prevent ourselves from going forward because of hypothetical difficulties. I think good sense will settle this, and although transport may appear theoretically to be under dual authority, I am convinced that all that can be solved. We have now entirely at our disposal the services of Mr. Macassey. He will, of course, work in the closest co-operation and goodwill with and the desire to assist the Shipping Controller. Already Mr. Macassey has done very valuable work in getting agreements with the workmen, and he is now in a position to do far more. With the cordial assistance and help of the naval representatives at the centre, and the naval authorities elsewhere, they can do a lot in the direction of making perfect the organisation in the way of increasing mobility, extending dilution, and generally increasing output.
Mr. KEATING: Will they have authority to deal with the supply of badges to workmen in the shipyards?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not sure about that, but the hon. Member can put a question down, and we will see. What I feel is that each of us, riveter, caulker, driller, plater, shipwright, engineer, Labour leader, shipyard manager, Shipping Controller, or member of the Board of Admiralty will search his heart and conscience and see whether there is anything which he has not been doing which he might do—if all the contributory elements will pull together on the hope for all they are worth—a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull together—then I say we face the new situation with confidence.
Mr. G. LAMBERT: Before my right hon. Friend finishes, may I ask him to deal with the question of marine shipping casualties? Will he tell us whether the Admiralty will publish figures giving the loss of merchant ships requisitioned by the Admiralty, and merchant ships engaged
900
in ordinary commerce and also neutral commerce? Will he give that in continuation of a Return given by the Board of Trade on the 11th January, 1916?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put the point to my advisers.
Mr. G. STEWART: May I ask ii there is any chance of Royal Naval Reserve officers, compulsorily retired, receiving consideration?
Dr. MACNAMARA: The Royal Naval Reserve, or merchant officers who are engaged by us on transport work, are under a contract which is terminable at a week's notice. My hon. Friend's point is, I think, that they get the week's notice and the week's pay and we say, "We do not want you any more," and if ill they have no redress. It is a point under consideration, and if my hon. Friend will consult me shortly about it, I will tell him exactly what decision has been arrived at.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I wish to direct the attention of the House for a very short time to a subject of which I have given notice to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. During the last week the matter connected with the raid that took place a short time ago upon a newspaper office has been the subject of a good many questions in this House, some put by myself and some put by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. This afternoon, when a statement was made by the Under-Secretary, he gave us the terms of reference to a Court of Inquiry he is about to set up, and he ended his short statement by saying that, as the matter is now sub judice, he would be unable to make any further comments on it. I do not think I can altogether leave the matter there. I hope my hon. Friend will not think I am treating him with any discourtesy, or attacking him in any improper way, if I ask him to listen to any remarks of mine; and, of course, it must rest with him whether he will say anything on the subject or not. I hope not to encroach on the ground which will necessarily be the subject of inquiry, but there are one or two matters preliminary to that inquiry to which I think the attention of my hon. Friend ought to be directed.
Now what is the event which gave rise to the questions in this House, which in their turn have given rise to this inquiry? They were rather a startling event—a raid

901
by the police on several premises. One of them was on a private room in the offices of the "Field" newspaper occupied by the editor, another on the premises of a, well-known firm of solicitors in London, and another on premises occupied by a private gentleman, I think in St. James's Street. In time of war that in itself might not be very surprising if followed up by some explanation. We heard of no charge. No one was brought before the magistrate or Police Court. There was no charge made against anybody. One of the gentlemen involved, the editor of the "Field" newspaper, immediately wrote a letter to the "Times," and he claimed that inquiry should be held, or that some charge should be made. That is a month ago, and up till the meeting of the House, and until the War Office were pressed by questions from both sides of the House, we never beard the slightest suggestion that there was going to be an inquiry, and no charge of any sort or kind was made, and I should have thought that in the absence of a charge, and a month having gone by and apparently no charge put forward by the authorities, at all events, we should have had some apology. If you raid a man's rooms, as I think you are entitled to do if you have the slightest suspicion that any improper work is going on, or that any compromising documents may be found, or to get evidence to assist a charge, you have a right to raid his rooms. But one of two things must follow. Either you get incriminating evidence, in which case a charge ought immediately to be made, or if nothing is found there, an apology ought to be made. In this case neither one nor the other thing took place. It is a little difficult for me to avoid altogether the matters which must necessarily be the subject of inquiry, although I am very anxious to do so. So far as I am aware, these raids were carried out at the instance of two officers in the War Office. Their names have already appeared in questions on the Order Paper which have not been answered. My hon. Friend has practically dealt with all the questions wholesale by saying on different occasions he was going to make a statement.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I answered two out of three yesterday, and my statement to-day was an answer to the third.
Mr. McNEILL: On Monday or Tuesday there were six or seven questions on the Paper on this subject.
Mr. PETO: My question received no answer at all.
Mr. R. McNEILL: The only thing I want to mention now does not touch upon matters sub judice, but these raids were carried out by these two officers, Captain Stomm and Lieut. Somerset. I only mention those two officers because obviously they occupy positions of very great responsibility at the War Office, and as far as I can discover they had very wide powers indeed. Therefore, I think their conduct ought to be part of the inquiry.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg of my hon. Friend not to discuss that matter now.
Mr. McNEILL: Surely I am entitled to comment on the hon. Gentleman's answer, and I want to call attention to those answers. I asked whether the conduct of those two gentlemen would come within the scope of the inquiry. What I want to make sure of is—and it is a matter of great public interest—that these gentlemen occupying this extraordinary position and power are thoroughly competent to discharge their responsibilities. I hope that matter will be thoroughly gone into. When I asked my question the hon. Gentleman said that that would form part of the terms of reference, but he also stated:
"That their conduct is not by any means the most important part of the inquiry."
I call attention to those words because, taken in conjunction with another answer which the hon. Gentleman gave when I asked whether the inventor of the explosive in question would be allowed to return to Paris for reasons I will mention in a moment, my hon. Friend said:
"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 lie will return to this country to attend the inquiry and any further proceedings that may follow it."— [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 14th February, 1917, col. 617, Vol. XC.]
I think it is quite fair for me to point out that these two answers taken together, one asserting that the conduct of these two officers is not the most important part of the inquiry, and the other that Mr. Blanch should be allowed to go to Paris on giving substantial security for his return, not merely for this inquiry, but for any proceedings that may follow it. I think that was a reflection on Mr. Blanch—
Mr. MACPHERSON: No!
Mr. McNEILL: I think it was, and that is the only meaning to read into those words, that it cast discredit on Mr.

903
Blanch. Now Mr. Blanch was the person who first asked for the inquiry, and now by the terms in which my right Friend has answered these questions, he attempts to give the idea that these gentlemen are in some sense to be put upon their trial, and that there is some fear of them fleeing from justice, for he says they can only be allowed to go on giving substantial security that they will come back and answer criminal proceedings. I am not going to say that there may not be some ground for that, and I say openly that I know very little about Mr. Blanch. What I do say, however, is that if the War Office have now or had at any time any knowledge or evidence that Mr. Blanch is amenable to criminal proceedings—supposing they did bring out that he was a criminal in some form or a traitor—what was their duty? It was the duty of those officers who apparently knew the facts or thought they did, without the loss of an hour, to go to Sir Theodore Cook—a patriotic gentleman whom the Government have been actually employing, and whose name appeared in the List of Honours of the late Government—and they ought to have said to him, "Do you know with whom you are associating? May we put at your disposal our knowledge of this scoundrel Blanch?" They ought to have done that if they had any knowledge whatever that he was not to be trusted. If they had no such knowledge, if there is no evidence in the archives of the War Office showing Blanch to be a criminal, why is this public answer given on the eve of an inquiry, which is to silence everybody on this question for some months to come?
Why is this reflection put into the question? I press the point that this gentleman has a perfect right to go to France on his own business until this inquiry takes place and to come back to this country. I know that the answer of my hon. Friend, if he answers at all, may be that these gentlemen have been guilty of a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I think they have, but there are breaches and breaches. There are serious and there are trivial breaches, and I challenge my hon. Friend to give any reasons why this gentleman—let him have his substantial security if he likes—should not go to France, conduct his own business, and come back to answer this inquiry. I do not blame my hon. Friend in this particular, for I do not suppose he knows anything about the facts, and probably he
904
has not been taken into the confidence of Captain Stomm and Lieutenant Somerset. When Mr. Blanch come over here from Paris in January last he came over bearing a permit from the French War Office, of which he was careful enough to take a copy, knowing the procedure of the officers of the War Office, and I have that copy in my hand—
"Mr. Blanch has authority to come to London to take to the War Office certain articles mentioned. The moment his mission is terminated he must return to Paris in the early days of January."
Now that is signed by the French Minister for War. Mr. Blanch went to Bedford Square to get this viséd by the French authorities, but he was stopped by the representative of our Intelligence Department. Mr. Blanch replied:
"I do not think yon would act in that way if yon knew the letters I carry."
He showed them the original of this letter which I hold, and he has never seen it since. But for having taken this copy, probably it would have been denied that this document had any existence. I say this gentleman should be allowed, after that, even if there is no other request from the French War Office requiring him to report himself in Paris, to go without a moment's delay. He has been kept here day after day and week after week by Captain Stomm and Lieutenant Somerset, and it is time that he was allowed to go back without any further request from the French Government. I do not know-whether my hon. Friend can even now give me any information about the mysterious movements of the gentleman who left Paris three days ago bearing a letter from the French Prime Minister upon this case, and so far as the people in this country are concerned he has never been heard of since. We do not know what has become of him—whether he was stripped by our authorities at one of the ports, as Mr. Blanch was on one occasion when he was travelling with the private secretary of a distinguished French Deputy, or whatever other indignities this emissary of the French Prime Minister may have been subjected to. At all events I hope my hon. Friend will make inquiries, and, as he is anxious for a request to come from the French Government, that he will give facilities for this purpose instead of making difficulties.
There is one other thing which is very essential to the fairness of this inquiry. A large amount of the evidence which these gentlemen would wish to put before any impartial inquiry is in Paris. After the

905
treatment which they have received they know better than to bring those important documents to this country unless they have a free conduct for them, and I want to have an assurance, if Mr. Blanch goes to Paris and brings back documents which are essential for the fairness and fulness of this inquiry, that they will not be taken from him. It may possibly be right enough that they should be examined, but no papers should be taken away from his possession. He should be allowed not only to present them to the inquiry, but also to retain possession of them afterwards. At this raid they took away a number of documents more or less bearing on the case. I asked the other day whether any incriminating documents had ever been found, and the hon. Gentleman never answered. I think I am entitled, therefore, to assume that there were none. If there had been, he would surely have mentioned it. There are, however, a great number of documents bearing upon this case, and it is right that these gentlemen should have these documents returned to them in order to submit them to their lawyers who are preparing their case.
My hon. Friend told me this afternoon that the constitution of this Court would be such that it would not be possible, or he thought it would not be possible, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. I am not prepared at the present moment to say that any great injustice would be done by a Court so constituted—I have not sufficient knowledge—but generally in all these cases I think those powers should reside in the Court. You never can tell when some particular fact or allegation may crop up, or when a witness may be unwilling to come without being subpœned. It may be the judge may hear of some document bearing on the case in the possession of somebody who will not bring it without a subpœna. Therefore, although I am not going to make any definite complaint on the part of any party interested, I do suggest that the Court should have all the powers which ordinarily reside in a judge trying a case of this sort, in order that there may be no heartburnings afterwards or any feeling that something which might have a bearing on the case was kept out of Court.
Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I desire to draw the attention of the House and of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to the treatment of sick and wounded sol-
906
diers. We have been at war for nearly two and a half years, and by this time we ought to have arrived at absolute perfection in our system as regards the treatment of disabled soldiers. We ought now to have a complete system for the outpatient treatment of discharged soldiers, and we ought to have such a perfect hospital system that soldiers get everything that medical and surgical science can do for them. I want to make it plain that I do not wish to appear as a critic of the work of the Director-General of Medical Services. Nobody has got a greater admiration for him than I have, and it would be ungenerous on my part to adopt the attitude of a critic when I have been one of the patients who has passed through the hands of his staff. If there is a weak point in our system, it lies in the fact that there is a division of authority. Directly the soldier is discharged he is handed over to the Statutory Committee, and there is therefore great danger of the disabled soldier falling between two stools. That danger is all the greater from the fact that the Army authorities have complete control over all the doctors and the nurses, and the Statutory Committee have very small resources at their disposal.
I want to get a declaration from my hon. Friend that the Army authorities are prepared to do their very utmost in the perfection of their duties. Take, for instance, out-patient treatment. There is urgent necessity for a very good system of out-patient treatment for discharged soldiers. That necessity will continue for some two or three years after the War is over. Men who have suffered from dysentry, fever, malaria, and all the ills that this War has given rise to will need constant attendance afterwards, and there ought to be a complete system whereby every soldier, whether insured or not, is able to go not only to an ordinary practitioner, but, if necessary, to a specialist. That necessity will also arise with regard to soldiers who will need surgical treatment. The, Insurance Commissioners, I believe, were quite ready to undertake this kind of treatment, but the late Secretary of State for War said that the Army authorities were going to do everything that was necessary as regards not only the soldier be fore he was discharged, but after he was discharged. One hears rumours that they are going to allow every discharged soldier if he needs medical or surgical treatment to go to hospital. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that is

907
true or not? It is very important that those who are engaged in this work should know where they stand in the matter.
Again, with regard to hospitals, the country expects that everything that medical and surgical science can do for the soldier, shall be done. What I want to know is are the Army authorities ready and willing to undertake that obligation. As far as I have followed the question the late Minister of War was anxious that that should be done, and that the soldiers should be kept longer in hospital, and that they should not be discharged until they were really sound and fit to go and resume their ordinary avocations. But I understand that there has been some drawing back from that attitude, and so far as I can gather, all that the War Office is prepared to do now is to keep the soldier about three weeks longer in hospital, and that is coupled with the proviso if circumstances permit. What does that mean? That means that if there is a rush, the men who are in the hospital and who are by no means cured, will be discharged at the earliest possible moment. That, to my mind, is a very unsatisfactory state of things. I know that the Army authorities do have to make provision for great rushes of wounded men, and that they have to take every precaution to see that there is room for the freshly wounded, but my point is that it should not be beyond their resources to provide adequate accommodation both for the freshly wounded and for those recently convalescent, in order that they may get perfectly cured, although we are told that there is a great shortage of doctors. There is no doubt a great demand for medical practitioners and surgical men, too, but I am told by people who are in a position to know about this question, that there is not by any means a perfect distribution of the medical men at their disposal. One hears rumours, well authenticated rumours, that there are a great many square pegs in round holes, and of specialists taken away from the work they doing merely to perform routine duties. While there is a great shortage of doctors in this country for the military, it is said that for the last three or four months there have been doctors in France kicking their heels about with very little to do. I cannot see why a sort of flying corps of doctors is not organised to move about wherever they are most needed.
Here I should like to refer to what I cannot help regarding as a retrograde
908
and reactionary step which the War Office have taken. They have issued an Army Council Instruction abolishing all the trade schools and classes in our hospitals and auxiliary hospitals, and they have gone so far as to forbid people in charge of hospitals keeping poultry. If there is one thing of more value than another, it is technical training for the cure both of wounds and mental trouble. People used to rely on medico-therapy, but it is now being found that you can restore people very much better by technical training than by mechanical appliances. It has also been discovered that there is no better way to restore a man suffering from shell-shock and nervous disorders to health than to give him some useful occupation. Besides that, as everybody knows, men who are kept in hospital week after week find life not only tedious and irksome, but there is as well great danger of mental deterioration setting in. I cannot imagine any more enlightened idea than an attempt to give these men, something to do, and I think it is deplorable to find the Army authorities coining down and abolishing that altogether. If the Statutory Committee were able to organise a perfect system of training, there might be something to be said for this course, but nothing has yet been organised of that sort, and I think that the action of the Army authorities is very regrettable. I should like to say a word as to the treatment of those unfortunate men who are suffering from partial paralysis. Those men are mostly treated in what is known as King George's Hospital. Before it was turned into a hospital it was a great warehouse of the Stationery Department. I have no doubt it is an excellent hospital, but for long treatment of men who are bedridden, I cannot but think that it is a most unfortunate selection. There are no windows out of which the men can look, and there is no means of taking these unfortunate bedridden patients out to a garden to get the air and the sun. I think that on the whole they are very miserable, and though there is provision for bringing those men out to suitable places, nobody knows whose duty it is to take them away. I hope that my hon. Friend will represent to the War Office the necessity of taking those men away to a more suitable spot. They are not at all happy there and would much rather be in any other place. They ought to be in hospitals

909
near their own homes. They have not got very long to live, and the rest of their lives should be made as happy as possible.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I for one realise that the interest which my Noble Friend takes in all these questions concerning the disabled soldier and the wounded soldier is a very real and very lively interest, and if I cannot follow him and give him a satisfactory answer on all the points he raised to-night I feel sure that he will pardon me, With regard to the last point which he has raised as to the case of those men in King George's Hospital, I may say that their case is one which has caused a great deal of consideration in the minds of the authorities of the War Office. One cannot help having a great deal of sympathy for them. They are men, as my Noble Friend has said, who may not have long to live. He was rather unfair when he told us that we were using one hospital—a dull and dingy hospital—for the care of these men. As a matter of fact, King George's Hospital was before the War a large emporium. It may not have at the present moment any of the qualifications which a good hospital now has in wartime, but I must ask him to remember that this hospital is, so I am informed, used merely as a collecting hospital. Men come there from the front and wait there only so long—
Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: They have been there a very long time.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know about that. I am only speaking from the information which I obtained to-day after my Noble Friend gave me notice of his intention to raise this point. I am told that they are kept there only during the time while another place is being found for them.
Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The difficulty is that there are no means of getting them away anywhere else. There is no place to which to send them.
Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be so or not. In any case, if my information is wrong, I shall certainly bring before the Director-General of Army Medical Services the observations my Noble Friend has made. As he himself confesses, the Director-General has deep sympathy with all means which are brought forward for the amelioration of the lot of the wounded soldier. His penultimate point was the point he raised at Question Time this afternoon. He feels aggrieved that the
910
instructions which have been issued, making the hospitals practically technical schools, have been altered to such an extent that except in very special hospitals no trade is taught to the wounded soldier who is about to be discharged. As I pointed out this afternoon, the question of hospital accommodation is a very difficult one. My Noble Friend knows that. I think I am right in saying that the view which the War Office is now taking of the problem is that we have never limited the number of hospitals, the number of doctors and nurses, and, in view of these facts, I think the primary object of a good hospital ought to be maintained—that is, to use every means to cure and to restore to health a man who is wounded, so that he may be discharged in order that room may be provided for the incoming patients who may at any time come in from the various theatres of war. My Noble Friend must remember that if we have not proceeded as far as he would like with that technical training, we have gone a great deal further than anybody at the beginning of this War ever thought we should go in our method of curative treatment. He knows very well that we have been enabled in some of these special hospitals to introduce this peculiar curative treatment with extraordinarily good effect. If the special hospitals can proceed with this curative treatment, we shall have gone a long way. It seems to me a problem altogether outside the Army Medical Service to deal with the technical training of a man fit to be discharged from hospital. It is there that the State should come in through another Department and take charge of that man. I cannot tell my Noble Friend as much as I should like of the definite programme before the Government at the present moment, but I can assure him that every possible consideration that humanity can suggest, and State welfare can devise, is being given to the problem which he has brought before the House to-night.
I now turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. E. McNeill). He has assured me that he meant no personal discourtesy when he raised this question in Debate to-night, after the observations which I made in the course of answers to questions this afternoon. I should have preferred that my hon. Friend had not dealt, as he has done, at such length with questions which will soon become the topics for judicial inquiry. I accept my hon.

911
Friend's assurance that he meant no discourtesy. At the same time I must express my personal regret, in the interests of the inquiry, in the interests of the facts which will be raised in the inquiry and of the persons concerned in the inquiry, that to-night he dealt at such length with questions which will have to come up for consideration before a judicial inquiry. I must say I was rather surprised to hear from him that he knows of a certain gentleman who was the accredited messenger from the French Prime Minister.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I did not say I knew that.
Mr. MACPHERSON: He said he knew of the case, and the implication was that by some means or other the War Office authorities got rid of this man and that he has not yet been able to appear in London. That is the insinuation made. I ask my hon. Friend to be reasonable. Does he really mean to say that at the present time the War Office would spirit away the accredited messenger of the Prime Minister of our esteemed Ally, in order that he might not be able to come to London, because he had in his possession a document which related in some obscure way or other to a certain gentleman named Blanch in London?
Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice. I did not suggest that he was spirited away. All I said was that, so far as information was available to me, if it were correct, it was that this gentleman left Paris three days ago and he has not arrived yet.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member was dealing with an assertion he himself made that documents had been taken away from Mr. Blanch and other men, and he then went on to say that this messenger of the French Ambassador had left Paris, and the imputation—I leave myself in the hands and recollection of the House—the implication clearly, to my mind, was that the War Office, for some obscure reason or other, had spirited away that State messenger.
Mr. McNEILL: It was no such thing!
Mr. MACPHERSON: If I am wrong I am perfectly ready to apologise. The hon. Member was very bitter because the War Office has kept back Mr. Blanch from visiting Paris. I may say here that the War Office have very
912
good reasons for keeping him from going to Paris. I gave my hon. Friend an assurance, in answer to a question yesterday, that if the French Embassy in any authentic way asked us to allow Mr. Blanch to visit Paris we should allow him to do so. I gave that because my hon. Friend had put down a question suggesting that the French Government were most anxious that Mr. Blanch should visit Paris.
Mr. McNEILL: I quoted to the hon. Member the permit requiring him to go back, which was taken away from him by the War Office.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I gave that answer in perfect good faith on the understanding that the statement which my hon. Friend put in his question, namely, that the French Government wished Mr. Blanch to go to Paris, was correct. I thought I was perfectly safe in giving him that answer.
Mr. McNEILL: I do not complain of that.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I accepted the statement in the question coming from him as a fact, that the French Government were anxious to receive Mr. Blanch. Surely, if that is so, Mr. Blanch will not have any difficulty in going to Paris?
Mr. McNEILL: My point is that our Government, or at any rate the authorities at the Intelligence Department, have already evidence in their possession that the French Government wanted him, and, indeed, required him to go back. They take the document away and say, "Produce other ones."
Mr. MACPHERSON: I assure the hon. Member that the answer I gave him in reply to his question yesterday, namely, that we have had no request of any sort from the French Government for the return of Mr. Blanch is true. I can tell him that again. It is true information.
Mr. McNEILL: I think the document I read amounts to a request.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I know nothing about that. The hon. Member will not say he is a French subject.
Mr. McNEILL: He is not. He is an American subject.
Mr. MACPHERSON: Quite so. Let us see how it works out. An alien subject leaves France. He goes to an Allied country. For some reason or other, I will not say the police authorities, but the War

913
Office authorities, think that an alien subject should not go back. Then it is said that a request given by the French Government to that end is valid. Does my hon. Friend really suggest that?
Mr. MCNEILL: Yes, certainly!
Mr. MACPHERSON: All I can say is that it is a most extraordinary proposition. The hon. Member is very anxious that the documents which Mr. Blanch may have if he goes to Paris may be respected. I can assure him those documents will be respected no more and no less than the documents of anyone concerned in this Inquiry—even the documents of a Member of Parliament. It would be quite impossible for me to give any further guarantee. With regard to the smaller point which the hon. Member raised, if I understood him aright, his friend for whom he is putting certain points to-night may be concerned in this inquiry. I do not think he would require any compulsion to attend. Has the hon. Member any ground at all that his friends, who ho knows are concerned in this inquiry—
Mr. MCNEILL: As the hon. Gentleman puts it in that way, my only friend in the matter is Sir Theodore Cook. I know very little about Mr. Blanch. My only connection in the matter is with Sir Theodore Cook. He is an old friend of mine for whom I have the greatest possible respect, and I know he is above suspicion. I have no doubt he will come before the inquiry and produce any evidence he can, but I do not know what evidence material to his case may possibly be at the War Office which will not be produced without a subpoena.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. MACPHERSON: Sir Theodore Cook and his friends have asked for this inquiry. I am entitled to assume that Sir Theodore Cook will not need any compulsion to attend the inquiry. I can give the hon. Member the assurance in return that every document and every person in any Government Department concerned with this inquiry will be present at the inquiry.
Mr. PETO: Will the documents taken in these various raids be restored to Sir Theodore Cook and his associates, so that they may go through them and prepare their case before the inquiry and not merely be produced at the inquiry?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not, of course, considered that, but the request
914
appears to me to be a reasonable one. I think I can venture to say that the Government will see that that is done.
Mr. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentle man say if there was any incriminating evidence found in these documents?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure the hon. Member that I have not seen them and I do not know what is in them. Parliament has been sitting and I have had more than enough to do and I have not been able to see the documents. Consequently, I have only been able to obtain secondhand information, and I can assure him if I did know anything about the nature of the documents I would acquaint him with it, but I do not. I hope the hon. Member and everyone else interested in the inquiry will now pledge himself to obey the request which I made at the end of my statement to-day, that during the time these very difficult and personal points are sub judice no question will be asked about them in the House.
Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman say when this inquiry is likely to commence? If it is very protracted and is not going to sit for a very long while, all real interest in the practical national point of view, apart from the personal one, will have disappeared.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I have been in close consultation with the War Office authorities, and they are most anxious that the inquiry should begin at once. I think I am right in saying that the Minister of Munitions, who is also concerned, is most anxious that no time should be lost. As far as the Government is concerned there can be no reason why the inquiry should not take place at once.

NATIONAL SERVICE.
Mr. ANDERSON: The matter I wish to raise is the scheme of National Service which has been launched by the Director of National Service, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. It is in some ways remarkable that this scheme, which will commit us, perhaps, to an expenditure of public money which may have very far-reaching industrial consequences, has not so far been discussed or been submitted to examination in the House of Commons. It was launched at a very big meeting in the Central Hall, Westminster, and I believe

915
meetings are being held in many parts of the country in support of it now. Forms have also been issued at the various post offices, and in view of this I think it is important that we should examine some of the points and try to get the fullest possible information as to what is really involved in this new scheme. I understand that a Bill is going to be introduced next week, and in view of that fact I will defer reference to some of the wider issues until that time. But there are many matters of immediate practical interest and importance as to which some information should be given, and I hope it will be possible to obtain that information from the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), who represents the Director of National Service in this House. If some of the points are not quite settled, perhaps it will be possible to get a fuller statement when he introduces the Bill next week. At any rate, at the present time a great deal is left vague by the speeches that have been so far made, and I want to examine some of the business aspects rather than to deal with the matter from the standpoint which will be taken outside largely by platform eloquence. There is a journal like the "World," which is not hostile to the Government, and which can have no possible ulterior motives in this matter, and yet in a leading article last week, in dealing with the scheme as outlined by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the "World" said:
"The details of the scheme tire open to unlimited hostile criticism."
The article went on to speak as strongly as this:
"No doubt Mr. Chamberlain is, sincere in this scheme but we are convinced that he will manage to wreck voluntaryism, and that is perhaps what some of his friends want. As it stands the scheme ought not to succeed, but those who go out to extol its virtues in such unmeasured terms cannot possibly know what they are doing."
That is a strong statement coming from that particular quarter. One of the criticisms, so far as this journal is concerned, is that the scheme cannot possibly appeal to the middle-class people, and is not intended to apply to the middle-class people, but that it is a class measure, intended purely for the manual workers, and leaving other sections out of account altogether. The first point I wish to raise is that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the exact terms and conditions of this new scheme of National Service. I read a letter the other day in the "Manchester Guardian."
916
It was a letter from a trade union secretary, the Secretary of the Hatters' Union. This gentleman was present at the meeting at which the details of the scheme were discussed, and this is what he writes:
"It was my privilege to hear Mr. Neville Chamberlain's statement on Tuesday on this subject, which I understood him to illustrate as follows—it a workman earning £2 per week ordinarily, registered for National Service, and was consequently transferred to a job where the district rate was 30s. per week, he would be paid £2, and if transferred from a 30s. rate district tie would be paid £2, always receiving the higher rate of the two. The twenty-five shillings minimum he applied to men such as agricultural labourers, who might be earning sixteen shillings a week, but who would not be paid less than twenty-five shillings."
I have read Mr. Chamberlain's speech, and I have read the circulars that are being issued and the conditions which applicants are signing, and I am bound to say that neither in the speech nor in the form of the application can I make out that any such terms are involved. I believe that at a time like this every hon. Member will agree that the less luxury work there is the better, and the less employment in luxurious employments the better. That is part of the penalty—we cannot get rid of it in a day, even if the country is at war—of a bad industrial system, which gives us far too much riches on the one hand and far too much poverty on the other. At any time, whether in time of war or in time of peace, the country has got to pay for that, and the country is paying for it now. Everybody will agree that it is wrong that men should be employed on, and that money should be spent upon pearls, jewellery of various kinds, golf courses, and so on. I saw an advertisement in a high-class journal the other day offering strings of pearls at from £4,000 to £10,000, and that after two-and-a-half years of war. I am quite sure that nobody would object to the very strongest possible steps being taken to deal with that particular matter. The question that will arise is whether the immediate dislocation of many of these trades would be in itself a cure. What is wanted is that there should be a transference of labour from less essential to more essential work, and that that might be done from the standpoint of gaining strength both in a military and an economic sense. The scheme of national service had no sooner been launched and its details outlined than it was strongly attacked in certain quarters because of the absence of immediate compulsory powers. It is quite clear that nothing will satisfy some people except a complete scheme of industrial compulsion is brought about.

917
The reason why I am raising this matter is not because in the ordinary way I should have much to say about the scheme as such, but because the failure of this scheme involves something else, if we are to judge by the hints given by the Prime Minister in this House, and that is that if this scheme that Mr. Neville Chamberlain has inaugurated fails—and I do not know what is the test of failure—we are promised a very large measure of industrial compulsion—so far, at any rate, as the working people are concerned. In view of that, I think it is absolutely essential that we should examine the details of the scheme and see whether they contain within themselves the elements of failure or the elements of success. I gather that everyone, from eighteen to sixty is eligible to enrol, and, having enrolled, is placed at the disposal of the Ministry of National Service to go anywhere and do anything, according as they are asked. I am quite sure that Mr. Chamberlain, as a shrewd, level-headed business man, is not unaware of the difficulties of his scheme. I am quite sure he must be aware that a mere policy of hustle does not always of itself work out well, and does not always bring additional strength to the country. I understand that 3,000,000 forms of application have been issued. The first point I would like information upon is as to how many applications will have to come in before the scheme is considered a success. I think we ought to have some information as to that, because if failure is going to involve complete industrial conscription, we ought to know when the Government will say that the voluntary appeal has succeeded. I do not think that is an unfair or unreasonable request. I understand that a general appeal is going to be made to everybody, whatever he is doing at the present moment. Everybody is going to be invited to volunteer, whatever his occupation. All the miners, all the railwaymen, all the transport workers, all the munitions workers, are to be invited. Is that really necessary in a matter of this kind? It is quite clear that you might get millions of applications from people who cannot possibly be spared from the work they are now doing. That is going to involve enormous clerical labour either locally by means of the Labour Exchanges or centrally in the Ministry of National Service.
918
On this point the opinion I expressed is backed up by an article in the "Spectator" of last week. The "Spectator" is not the kind of organ that would place any unnecessary difficulties in the path of the Government. It says:
"Looking at the scheme as a whole, we cannot help feeling anxious as to whether it has been sufficiently thought out. Two matters should hare been defined at the outset. First, the precise class of work that is required for national service. Second, the class of work that is non-essential to the nation. With these two categories clearly defined it would have been relatively easy to take action. At present not only is the whole scheme vague, but it involves as drawn up an enormous amount of labour which will admittedly be useless. Why, for example, should people already engaged in national work be put to the trouble of registering themselves, thus creating this great amount of additional clerical work, on the off-chance that they may have to be moved to some other place than the place in which they are now working"
I think that that extract helps to drive home that particular point. I believe that in the case of the war munitions workers very large numbers were enrolled. I rather think that the right hon. Gentleman knows far better than I. Round about 96,000 war munitions volunteers were enrolled, but when the figures came to be examined it was found that very large numbers of them were already engaged in work of national importance from which they could not possibly be shifted, and consequently the numbers in the end had to be boiled down very much. If that was true in regard to quite a small radius of trades, how much more would it be true, in a general appeal made to everybody from eighteen to sixty? You are bound to have, a great amount of waste work. This scheme is not going to apply to any extent to younger men between eighteen and forty, because if there is any shifting under this scheme they will go into the Army rather than be sent to any fresh employment. Therefore, in so far as the scheme applies to groups of workers, it would be the men between forty and sixty who would be affected.
I ask in all seriousness as a business proposition, and, apart from the eloquence of the platform, how many men between forty and sixty, family men with family responsibilities who are doing something that they know all about at any rate, are expected to enrol themselves for work about which they know nothing at all, and in respect of which they may be sent to a job at 25s. a week minimum? One very important point arises. In the case of these older men you get a man who is about fifty who has been in a certain employment all his life. You ask him in the

919
interests of national service to throw up his job and enlist himself for something quite undefined. One matter which will come to the minds of many such men is this: "Suppose the War comes to an end six months from now, where shall I be? Then they will not want me in my new job, because I know very little about it, and is it certain that a man of my age is going to get back to his old job?" Therefore, the man is going to fall in all likelihood between two stools. He will not be wanted in the new job, and will have the utmost difficulty in getting back to his old job in competition with the millions of men coming back from the War at that particular time. What security is offered to men between forty and sixty who are going to be enrolled under this new scheme? If you are convinced that we have still a large number of non-essential trades in this country why do you not publish a list of these trades? It would be a great guidance to men to know whether the work they are doing is essential or nonessential.
If that is so, the first step in my opinion which the Director of National Service ought to have taken was to have told us what the non-essential trades are. If he had done that every workman in both trades would have felt in all likelihood that it was his duty to enrol. Do you want those trades wiped out, or closed down? Already, so far as the less essential trades are concerned, they have been very much depleted by labour enlistment, and by the operations of the Military Service Act, and I believe personally that any further interference with them—I do not say that it is a wrong thing—would mean closing them down. I believe you will have to look at that from the standpoint certainly of the financial credit of the country, and where a trade of that kind is closed down, is there to be any compensation at all to an employer or to a workman who is not suitable for another occupation? I am quite sure that you can have a great deal of fuss and upset without adding very much more strength so far as the economic position is concerned. Take that he can perform a certain thing and offers to undertake certain work, and that man is tried and then it is found that lie cannot do the job. What is going to happen in that case? I understand, according to the promise now made, that if it were actually to happen, a man would be enttiled to receive 3s. 6d.
920
a day for a period of four weeks. The important matter arises—who is to decide what a workman is fit for? What Committee can decide what a man can do, seeing that he has never done it before, and indeed if one might take the case of what is actually now happening, you are going to have a repetition of hundreds and hundreds of cases similar to that, a report of which I now hold in my hand, where a tribunal anticipating this new scheme of national service has acted in the following way at Grange-on-Sands, the Vicar of Grange, as the chairman of the tribunal, where they have told a widower who only lost his wife a few weeks ago, and who was left with nine children, one child, I think, only a few weeks old, and many of the children quite young, that he must either find other work of some sort or else must be eligible for enlistment in the Army.
I am going to read a short extract from the Grange paper dealing with the case:—
"Grange is…. respectable and patriotic. It is not easily agitated. It has however, this week been at least mildly scandalised by a decision of the local tribunal. The case was that of a widower aged 40 who had just lost his wife, and is left with nine children whose ages range between five weeks and fifteen years. He could not plead that his business as a curio dealer is work of national importance, but he asked for consideration on the ground of his extraordinary domestic responsibility, the care for and supervision of nine young children, without a mother's help."
By some tribunals that might have been regarded as a work of national importance, for a man of forty, but to take a man and enrol him under such conditions, I hope the time is past when that sort of thing is possible in this country. Are we going to have as the great determining factor of what a man is going to be, and where he is going to be sent, the Labour Exchanges and the Labour officials? If so, I wish to draw attention to what the Minister of Labour has recently been saying about those particular officials to whom you are now going to entrust the destinies of the people. The Minister of Labour has been making many speeches recently in this country, and covering a wide variety of topics. One does not quite see what the steel industry and the work of the steel worker has to do with the immediate matters now before the country. There is invoked at the present time something in the nature of a political truce between parties represented on the Front Ministerial Bench. Apparently that truce does not appeal much to the Minister of Labour; indeed, the questions he has been talking about

921
were so irrelevant from matters now before the country that one is reminded of nothing so much as a verse from "Alice in Wonderland":
"The time has come, the Walrus said.
To talk of many things,
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings."
I believe the Minister of Labour must be rather a political walrus. He said in regard to these officials, first of all, that these men or officials are from a "refrigerating chamber," then he said these officials in Labour Exchanges "were wooden images," and then he said, again, they were walking round "like Lord Tom Noddies." Are these the people who are going to decide what a barrister is going to do, or what a banker is going to do, or what anybody is going to do; or are they to be sent to work they are not fit for? I want to know what is the real position. I am not accepting the Minister of Labour's description of these officials; I think it is wrong on the part of a Minister to make a public comment of that kind on people under him, and who are not able to reply to him. To come to a question of wages, what is going to happen in the case of men who enrol under this scheme, and are sent from one district where the standard wage for the work is 40s. to a district where the standard wage for the same work is 30s.? Mr. Neville Chamberlain said, speaking on the 7th February:
"The War Munition volunteer gets either his own rate or the rate of the job to which he goes, whichever is higher. He is in a different position from the National volunteer. The War Munition volunteer does not change his trade, and there is no change in the rate if there is a small difference between the two districts and between the two trades. The National volunteer is going to change history, and might easily have to work side by aide with the shopkeeper, a labourer, a miner, or various others, and it will be quite impossible for them to have their own rates of pay. There is only one rate they can expect, and that is the rate of the job they go to. It may be higher or it may be lower than the one to which we are accustomed."
Another part of the same speech Mr. Neville Chamberlain states that a man belonging to a trade may be sent to a different part of the country. He said:
"There will lie many men among our volunteers who are already engaged in work of national importance, and I want to make it clear, that our only reason for asking them to enrol is that we may want them to do the same or similar work in some other part of the country."
That is a clear contradiction of what he said in another part. The question of what a man is going to be paid, for the same work in another district, seems to be settled by the terms and conditions of service:
"The rate of charges which I shall receive whilst I am in such employment shall be the rate current for the job on which I am to be employed."
922
If that be true, it means that you are sending workmen from a 40s. district to a district where the employer is paying 30s.—perhaps a sweated wage—and, in order to enforce national service upon the workman, you are giving the employer a man 10s. cheaper than the amount he got for the job he had left. If that is not the case, is the alternative that he could get 40s., which is the higher rate, when he is going to work alongside a man who is getting 30s.? Is that going to be done in a large number of cases, and if it is done in a large number of cases, do you hope to promote industrial harmony by that means? The war munition volunteers are comparatively few in number, and probably no great complication would arise in their case; but if there is going to be any big movement of men, you will have to face the matter by levelling up the rate of wages and compelling the employers to do that. I come to the question of agriculture. I understand that the pay is going to be 25s. per week for agricultural work, and that is going to be paid to men who have never been employed on the land before and know little or nothing about agricultural work. I would point out that the wage of 25s. in times of present prices is not worth more than 15s., and I think that those who are concerned in national service, members of the Government, who are getting £80 or £100 a week for doing national service, will have some hesitation in asking them to work for a wage worth about 15s. a week. The wages of many agricultural labourers are less than 25s., and in some districts are 18s. or 19s. a week. Are you going to allow these men to enrol and go to the next county where they get 25s., or are you going to have agricultural labourers who get 18s. a week to superintend men who have never seen the land before and are to get 25s. a week? Do you believe that to be a possible working arrangement, or, indeed, a fair one? I do not believe that work on these lines is going to be good from the standpoint of national economy. Is a complete novice who has never seen work before going to be paid the full wages of the district for doing work he has never previously undertaken? Are these men who are sent in this way and who may in some cases be asked to give up a great deal—you may have men not engaged in essential work getting incomes of from £200 to £500 a

923
year which they are sacrificing in order to undertake this job—are they only to get the guaranteed minimum of 25s.? And if people do make a sacrifice like that, are we going to allow the private fanner or employer to reap a profit out of their sacrifice? That is a matter of very great consequence indeed. We hear a good deal about sacrifice, and if you speak to some men about it they only look at it from the point of view of somebody else's sacrifice. When Sidney Smith was told by his doctor that he ought to take a walk every morning on an empty stomach he replied, "Yes, but whose empty stomach?" Very often, indeed, it is rather in the direction of somebody else than ourselves that the plea is made in regard to sacrifice. The pledge which a man is asked to undertake is in the following terms:
"I hereby agree, by my signature, to attend when summoned for an interview at a national service office near my home, and, it' required, to receive seven days' notice to undertake whole-time work of national importance in the employment of any Government Department or other employment named by the Director-General of National Service, and to remain in such employment during the War, or for such shorter period as may be required of me, in accordance with the foregoing conditions."
Two questions arise out of that. The first is, if a workman is dissatisfied can he leave his work, having signed that undertaking? And if the answer is "No," then I ask if the employer is dissatisfied with the man he gets, can he get rid of him? I venture to think the answer to the first question is "No," and to the second "Yes." And if that is the case then there is something wrong about the matter, and it ought to be inquired into. There are a great many questions in regard to substitution. The idea that any man can do any other man's job seems to me a most extraordinary fallacy, because many of these jobs, especially agricultural work, are absolutely skilled occupations, and it is only people who have been long years on the land, for instance, who really know it. I am sure it will be generally agreed that the Army scheme of substitution up to the present time has not been a brilliant success. No one would claim that it has. And that has largely been due to the fact that you have tried to put a square peg into a round hole. We are driven from one step to another until we are on the brink of complete industrial conscription, and the reason is, that the Government have always failed to take an all-round view of its obligations and requirements, and have never been able to
924
reconcile the conflicting claims of agriculture, shipping, food supply, and Army and Navy requirements. We have been stampeded first by one newspaper and then by another, first in one direction, and then when we have found we are on the wrong path, we have had to retrace our steps. The position of the Government in this matter reminds me of Luther's drunken peasant, who was only saved from falling on one side by tumbling down on the other.
I should like to inquire also whether women are going to come inside this scheme. The impression created by Mr. Chamberlain's first speech was that they are not wanted, and we had the usual flaunting bills all over London: "Women not wanted under new scheme." They have been offering themselves readily for various sorts of work. Two million women applied to the Labour Exchanges last year; not more than 800,000 found jobs, so that there was a very large margin left unemployed. I am told that in many cases farmers are not very enthusiastic about securing women workers. I saw the other day that the Army had applied for about 1,000 women cooks. I am told that 50,000 women are required for various forms of Army service, cooking and so on in France. I think personally it is an excellent thing for women to act as cooks. I believe that whereas there is very often plenty of food in the Army, it is served in a very un-appetising form, and if it were properly cooked it would then be of real benefit to the Army. But if you are going to undertake a large scheme of this kind, if you are going to send 50,000 women to France as cooks, there ought to be adequate arrangements made for their comfort and protection, and I assume that this will be done.
In regard to women in agriculture, are they to have the same minimum as is paid to the men? Apparently they arc. My view is, generally speaking, that women should be paid sixpence an hour for at any rate a minimum number of hours in view of the liability to broken time. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, in discussing this matter with the Director of National Service and others, to see to it that the Government do not yield to mere newspaper clamour. There has been a great deal of dislocation of home life in this country already. I am sure nobody would be in favour of any further needless dislocation of home life which might be involved by pressing this matter forward.

925
I would not have raised this matter at all but for the fact that the failure of this scheme, we are told, is going to involve a general scheme in the nature of forced labour. We believed we had adequate safeguards and protection against schemes of industrial conscription. I remember a meeting addressed by the late Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman was trying, not without success, to induce the Labour leaders of this country to agree to military compulsion. A fear was then expressed that military compulsion would be the first stepping-stone towards industrial compulsion, and the late Prime Minister said:
"I am not in favour of compulsion in regard to industrial work. I see no reason for it, and I shall absolutely resist it to the last."
Yes, but we had a speech made the other day by the new Prime Minister in this House, and this is what he said in regard to industrial compulsion:
"We shall begin by inviting the enrolment of volunteers, but if it is found impossible to get the numbers we require by that means—I hope it may be possible—we shall not hesitate to come to Parliament to ask Parliament to release us from pledges given in other circumstances to obtain the necessary power for rendering our plans fully effective."
So that a pledge is not a pledge when it was given in other circumstances, and if that is true, then I would not attach much importance to all the other trade union pledges that have been given during the War, because they were all given in other circumstances. But, indeed, the change in the circumstances has been brought about by the Government itself, and the Government then proceeds to say that the change releases them from all obligations in regard to their promises. This is an extract from the "Saturday Review" as to whether the scheme is voluntaryism or compulsion:
"The scheme is not confessedly voluntaryism in the simple and obvious sense of the word, for voluntaryism means 'I am willing,' 'I wish,' and implies no threat whatever. It is voluntaryism in a kind of adjusted sense. 'We ask you,' says the State, 'to come in of your own free will, but mind, if you do not come in, we will fetch you.' That is the idea. It is a sort of voluntary compulsion or compulsory voluntaryism. It lies on the penumbral zone which is between voluntaryism and compulsion, or one might style it a No Man's Land in the battle front of principles."
I am not going to enter now into that wider question beyond saying that I do not believe you will ever get good service out of unwilling and compelled workpeople, and by that I stand very firmly indeed. If you want to go forward, give good conditions. Why should you send industrial conscripts on to the land and not compel farmers to pay just wages to their
926
labourers? Farmers are well able at the present time to pay just wages, and they were never better able to attract free labour than they are now. I believe, also, if you wish to get rid of luxuries as you ought to you should get rid of the pearl trade, and the expensive lace trade, and the jewellery trade, and the like; but I believe that you can best do it by imposing such a substantial taxation upon the people of this country that they will have nothing left for these luxuries. If equality of sacrifice means anything, I contend that it means something in the nature of equality of income, and I would urge very strongly upon the Government not to pursue merely a rake's progress toward wider and wider measures of compulsion, but to take the whole circumstances into the case and appeal far more than they have done to the voluntary spirit of the people.
Mr. HOGGE: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield has taken this opportunity of raising this whole question of what is now known as "National Service." I have again to protest as a Member of this House against the practice which is now almost becoming a regular practice of Ministers, not only announcing but adumbrating their whole policy outside the walls of this Chamber. I do not think that it leads at all to that co-operation which we are so frequently asked to give and which in general we have never refused, to have those schemes which affect all our constituents, not only the working men but the business men in our constituencies, before we, the Members of the House of Commons, have had any opportunity at all of expressing our views on what is proposed. I do not know whether it is the exigencies of the situation or any other reason that suggests this method to Ministers, but it is the practice, and as I have said it is now becoming the regular practice, to announce these policies outside the House of Commons. The arrangement that obtains now, for instance, in the House of Commons, by which we have a Leader of the House who keeps the Prime Minister imprisoned somewhere outside the House and stands as a barrier between the Prime Minister and the Members of the House, is a bad practice. I have been cudgelling my own brains to know, for instance, what question a private Member of this House can now put down to the Prime Minister and get an answer to from the Prime Minister. Not that I do not

927
think the Leader of the House can give as good an answer—I think sometimes he gives a much more direct and plain answer than the Prime Minister can give, but it is a fact that a private Member of this House cannot get at the Prime Minister unless he throttles the sentry, and the life of my right hon. Friend is much too valuable to try that experiment upon, at this stage at all events.
Having made that protest, which I renew on every occasion on which this is done—and I do it because the Leader of the House taught me to do it when he sat on that bench opposite at the beginning of the War, and protested so frequently on the same lines—I am concerned to know where all this policy is leading us. We began by the voluntary enlistment of soldiers and sailors for the purposes of this War. That drifted very quickly into compulsion, and we have now reached the stage when, as a national policy, we have conscripted life. This policy, which I will examine in a moment, seems to me to be taking us towards the conscription of labour, and while we have conscripted life, and while we are likely to conscript labour, we are to-day guaranteeing a 5 per cent, interest on capital, which is the other constituent that makes up the wealth of the nation. You have life, labour, and capital. The Government has taken life, the Government, proposes to take labour, and yet the Government guarantees by a series of methods that the money which is lent to the country for carrying on the War shall, at any rate, be sufficiently and adequately protected. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite that there is no such thing in this War as equality of sacrifice. There never has been, and I am certain that it would be difficult to get equality of sacrifice, and I do not make, therefore, too much of that point; but there has been a great deal of cant talked about equality of sacrifice, and a great deal of cant talked about doing our bit this way and another way. The only people who are left out of the advantages of the present Loan are the people who invested in the first Loan. The people who came to the rescue of the State in the first Loan get no advantages at all in regard to the present Loan; and if they do not subscribe to this Loan they do not get their names in the papers, and they do not have it said that so much is converted and so much is new money; and they do
928
not get that kind of distinction which seems to come from being able to lend the State money at a better and higher rate of interest and more secure than you can get it in any other way. That is why I think we are entitled to know now, before we proceed further with the business of this Session, what is the real intention of the Government in regard to this matter. Let me put this point while I am on the question of the consent of the House of Commons. When his scheme was originally set up we were told that there was to be two sides to it. There was to be a civilian side and there was to be a military side. The civilian side of the work, the whole organisation of which is controlled at the moment by General Geddes at the War Office, was to be transferred to the Directorship of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. I should like to know how far that has been abandoned? I saw in the newspapers, which are the only source of information one has now on these questions, that while that was the original intention it has since been abandoned and that the conscripting of life was still in the hands of General Geddes. I should like to know how the matter stands. May I remind the House that the one reason we are discussing this subject tonight is really, first of all, because we have never settled yet, even up to this period of the continuance of the War, what is our policy! We have lived from hand to mouth. We have never known with any certainty what the next day was going to bring forth except on one point. We knew every day of the week would bring forth a, new controller of one kind or another. Beyond that there is nothing certain in the political world in regard to the War.
10 P.M.
I am not going to repeat arguments which have been used this afternoon in regard to other subjects, but I must mention them in order to show what I mean by this point of policy. One may say what one likes or hold what opinion one likes about our operations in the East, but whatever our opinions may be the certain fact is that they have taken away from other parts of our fighting line men, materials, and ships which could have been used in other ways. That point has been argued at great length, and I only state now that it has resulted in a certain stringency of food supplies. That matter has been argued this afternoon at great length. One of the reasons why it has been brought forward is, if possible, to make certain that a food supply will

929
be available in this country. It is a vicious circle—the result of a policy which has not been thought out. I do not blame this Government any more than I blame the previous Government for this lack of policy. Each Government had and has its good and bad qualities, though I think in both of them the bad qualities predominate. That, however, is only a personal opinion which may not be shared by others. At any rate, that policy has resulted in the fact that we are face to face with the necessity of the moment in regard to food. Let me go on to what seems to me to be a question which is more urgent than these rearrangements of men between the ages of forty-one and upwards. It is this: Has the Government yet really taken in hand the combing out of the Army of men who are in the Army and who have no right to be there? Mark you, the House of Commons has never come to any decision upon it. We have not even had the Bill introduced which is going to set up the machinery which we are supposed to be paying for now. We will pass that Vote of Credit, and the money that is going to finance this experiment, this office of director and staff, without the House of Commons ever having been asked to say whether or not it is desirable. When the House of Commons has the knowledge that inside the Army there are men who are no use to the Army and who would be of great use to industry if they could be got out of the Army, why are these men kept in the Army? Everyone of us knows some of these men personally. I do not reed to give any statistics. I will quote one example. I am very friendly with a man who is now in the Army. That man has been on parade five days during the period he has been in the Army. The rest of the time, covering a period of many months, he has either been in hospital or on light duty. He ought never to have been passed by any medical board for admission to the Army. He is a married man. His wife knows how to take care of him by arranging his food, and mothering him, so to speak, and so keep him at the industrial work in which he was engaged as an ordinary citizen. The Army took that man, and in the last letter I had from him—he is a personal friend of my own—he told me he was engaged in picking up waste paper in the camp of the unit to which he belonged. That man could be earning a good wage in the city of Edinburgh, and be doing useful work;
930
but I cannot get him out of the Army. I am told that depends upon a medical board. We are feeding, clothing, and housing that man in the Army. He will never fight the Germans, he could not possibly physically do it. But he could be filling a post now in which he would be useful to the nation. Another friend of mine at the moment has been put into category C2, I think. He is a professional man who might be engaged in useful civilian work, being an expert ledger clerk. He is cleaning out stables in a Cavalry depot, not five miles from Edinburgh. He cannot clean out stables. It is work which is breaking down ids constitution; he has suggested that he could do useful work outside the Army. But the Army prefers that this man should muck out stables. That is what is known as scientific organisation. That is what we are asked to bow down and worship.
I do not blame the medical boards who have been responsible in many respects for this. Some of these medical boards have acted under the duress of the War Office. Some of these medical men are personal friends of mine, men with whom I was at the University, and whose attainments I know, men who would not have passed these other men into the Army had there not been instructions from the War Office that there were too many exemptions in certain Commands, and that these exemptions must stop. That is why you have to get men out of industry and out of civilian life into the Army, where they are useless, not only to the nation, but where they are a hindrance to the training of the men who have got to do the fighting. They ought to have been retained in civil life, carrying on very well work which is now going to be interfered with artificially by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, with the support, as I suppose, of the Cabinet, and as I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, with the support of the Labour party in the Cabinet. I know the answer we shall get. The platitude answer that is given us in all these discussions—we are at war!—as if we did not know that by this time. Everything is covered by that excuse. If the Government want the time of the House for any subject they want it because we are at war! If they want us to agree to a course which is against ordinary constitutional practice we have got to agree

931
to it—because we are at war' Everything is to be done because of that platitude.
Why do not the Government sometimes appeal to their own common sense? Why do not they test this by their own knowledge of the conditions? I defy any man on the Front Bench to stand up and say that he is absolutely ignorant of the fact that there are friends of his own in the Army to-day who would have been doing better work outside, and who ought not to have been in the Army. That is a fair test out of a dozen representative men. I do urge, before you enter upon this scheme, that you clean out your own stables. I do not like to say it, because it may be regarded as personal, but there are men in this present Administration who ought to be in the Army—men of military age, men who have been trained to the Army and are officers, but who are here in the House of Commons filling one of those three benches. It does not lie in the mouth of the Government which contains those men to say these things about other people. I think that ought to be plainly stated when the lives of the working people of this country are at stake, and other people are being combed out of essential industries. Why, we have had talk of combing men out of the shipyards of this country, combing men out of the industries of this country in such a way that, if it be carried out, you would put an obstacle in the way of the successful issue of the War!
Somebody inside the Government ought to take control of this continual demand for men. I believe three, if not four, of the big Departments of the Government to-day are quarrelling amongst themselves with regard to the supply of men. The Ministry of Munitions is at loggerheads with the War Office, The War Office and the Ministry of Munitions are at loggerheads with the Admiralty. Mr. Neville Chamberlain is at loggerheads with the three combined with regard to the supply of labour. The Ministry of Munitions would tell you, if their representative cared to stand up from that bench, that they cannot spare the skilled men for the Army that the Army wants. The Army would tell the Munitions Ministry that they should give these men, irrespective of other considerations. There is a type of mind in this country which does not seem to co-relate the whole effort that it is known ought to be
932
put forth to win this War, and then on the top of that you get this outside, artificial scheme which is going to interfere with other people. Do not the Government appreciate the fact that nine-tenths of the businesses of this country have already given every possible man they can give to the national efforts that is being made if they are to carry on their business at all? The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that many men are even now holding back with regard to subscriptions to the War Loan until they know what is going to be done with the men they have got left. I know business men in Scotland who could contribute to the War Loan, and who want to do so, but who have surrendered every possible man they can if they are to maintain their business, and are not prepared to make their contribution until they know what Mr. Neville Chamberlain and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) are going to do with the rest of the labour that they have.
Surely we must know that the success, after all, of our strength in this fight is the industrial strength that is left to us to maintain our financial position. And, therefore, I say that the Government, first of all, ought to walk warily before they introduce a scheme outside this House of Commons which interferes with every part of our national life, which, as sure as we are debating this question tonight, is on the road not to a voluntary national service, but to a compulsory national service. We have conscripted life. This, if Ministers would tell the honest truth, means compulsory labour service by the people of this country. If they are going to do it let us do the thing properly. Let us conscript life, let us conscript labour, but let us also conscript wealth.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: We have listened to two speeches, and I hope that both the hon. Members who have spoken will pardon me if I say—and I say it in spite of the suggestion made by the last speaker, with regard to having the repetition of a parrot cry—that neither of them seem to me quite to have realised that we are in a war. I am a little at a loss to know whether it is that they are more anxious to make it necessary for us to bring in the compulsion, in referring to which they have both taken up a good part of their speeches, than to do anything to assist the success of this scheme outlined

933
by the Director-General of National Service, I do not propose, however, to follow them in the statements that have been made and the questions that they have submitted, especially with regard to many of the details of that scheme. Earlier this afternoon I introduced a Bill, and the Leader of the House intimated that the Second Reading of that Bill would be taken on Tuesday next. I hope to have then what I believe will be a much more favourable opportunity of going into the details of the measure, and answering many of the objections that have been raised. I want to thank the hon. Member for Attercliffe for bringing to my notice some of the details of the scheme, and some points which I shall be able to show are no part of the scheme.
I want to-night to reply more to the general observations that fell from both of the speakers. Both the hon. Member for Attercliffe and the hon. Member for Edinburgh complained that the scheme had been adumbrated outside the House. I think all of us who have been Members of this House for any length of time are most anxious under ordinary circumstances, at any rate, to have any part of the Government policy first of all explained and expounded to the Members of this House. But I do appeal to my hon. Friends to try to realise that there may be occasions when to wait until you get a Parliamentary opportunity may mean running unnecessary risks. I want to remind the House that we have had five Parliamentary days. The first two, I see, were occupied with the Address. Then we had what everybody, I think, will admit, a very important—in fact a gigantic—Vote of Credit. Those necessarily have to be disposed of in the early days of the new Session. All that there is included so far in the scheme of the Director of National Service is a plan for enrolling volunteers, and as I listened to the speeches delivered it seemed that both the speakers had come to the conclusion that the scheme involved a great measure of compulsion. I hope to be able to show, when I bring in the Bill next week, that that is an entirely mistaken idea. In view of the fact that we wanted volunteers, and that we wanted them as speedily as possible, surely to announce a scheme of that description to a great public meeting consisting of representatives of both employers and workmen's associations—I hope that will not be questioned, because employers were invited from all over the country,
934
and it was a great meeting of the representatives of employers and trade union associations, and workmen were represented from all parts of the country—to bring such a scheme before them under the Parliamentary circumstances that exist, the urgency, the magnitude, and the need, I think was entirely justifiable on the part of the Government. Many references have been made to the question of compulsion, and also to the pledges of Ministers. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), and I think the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), both reminded us of those pledges—
Mr. HOGGE: I did not.
Mr. HENDERSON: At any rate, we had a quotation made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe from a speech of the old Prime Minister and another from the present Prime Minister.
Mr. PRINGLE: The indispensable one.
Mr. HENDERSON: It appears that because those pledges were made under a certain set of circumstances they are, before any attempt has been made to break them, to be hurled across the floor of the House without regard to the new factors in the case. I myself was one of those who made some pledges. [An HON. MEMBER: "Plenty of them!"] I am reminded that I made plenty of pledges, and I am prepared to say to the House—that when the time comes, if ever it does come, when the needs of the nation, in my view, necessitate my breaking a pledge, or at any rate doing everything in my power to get release from any pledge I have given on this subject, I am quite prepared to take every means at my disposal to secure that release. If we are going to be bound by pledges made under circumstances entirely different, and if we are going to be so bound that we must totally ignore new factors in the case in a great national and international crisis, then it seems to me that our position becomes absolutely impossible.
Mr. HOLT: Then you do not object to the German invasion of Belgium?
Mr. HENDERSON: I notice to-night that a certain section of the House has been pursuing a line all in support of a policy entirely contrary, in my judgment, to the interests of this nation. Their interruptions and their interjections have all gone in that direction. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) can see no difference between what

935
I did and what I said I would do, and that what Germany did, because Germany did not resort to the proper means to get release from her pledges—she overrode her pledges, whereas what I said I would do,—and surely my hon. Friend will give me credit for speaking sincerely—was that I would take every means open to me to get release from my pledges, and if I made my pledges, first of all, to the representatives of the great Labour movement with which I have been so long connected I will go to them; if I made my pledges to my constituents I will go to my Constituency and ask them for release—if my hon. Friend can see no difference in the line of what I conceive to be honourable conduct and the dishonourable conduct of the German nation in violating its pledges with regard to helpless Belgium, then I cannot understand his outlook. Are there no new factors in the situation? And is the policy of this country always dictated either by ourselves or our Allies? Surely hon. Members are prepared to recognise that the running, as we sometimes say, is made not by us, but by our enemies. The challenge is thrown down. Are we to take it up? I do not mind saying in passing, after some of the interjections which I have heard to-night: that if those hon. Members had been half as enthusiastic in assisting us to take up Germany's challenge it is just possible that we should have been through with this War now. I repeat: The running is not made by us; it is made by them. The challenge is thrown down, and we must take it up. It appears to me that if ever there were a time when every section of the community, and certainly all sections of this House, should unite it is now, in spite of the mistakes that have been made. We all admit that there have been mistakes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh in the closing part of his speech referred to some of the mistakes that have been made. He gave one or two isolated instances of men picking up paper in the Army.
Mr. HOGGE: Not isolated.
Mr. HENDERSON: I say that they are isolated cases, having regard to the millions of men that have been enlisted under the most exceptional circumstances in which any Government was ever placed.
Mr. HOGGE: There are thousands of them.
Mr. HENDERSON: I repeat that they are exceptional; but supposing there are thousands, is it to be wondered at, having regard to the circumstances under which that vast New Army was enlisted during the closing months of 1914 and nearly the whole of 1915? It is a well-known fact that many men were admitted into the Army who ought never to have been admitted at all. The medical boards or the medical officers at the time of their enlistment, either through overwork or some other reason, passed these men into the Army, we admit, and we know there have been mistakes made, but is that any reason for our not adopting some voluntary scheme for securing men from nonessential for essential industries at an almost fatal moment in the history of the nation, or why we should have the time of the House taken up and the Government criticised with no stronger argument than that a man is going about picking up paper who ought never to have been in the Army? I will venture to say that such criticism and such arguments as have been advanced against this scheme to-night will not merit the approval of the majority of the constituents of either of the Members who have offered those criticisms.
I said a moment or two ago that, having regard to the fact that I will introduce a Bill dealing with the subject, that I was not going into detailed criticisms on questions that have been submitted, but there is one particular point that I must answer, because I think the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) attaches very great importance to it, and that is a question of wages. He seemed to think that the result of the operation of this scheme was going to have a prejudicial effect on wages, and he invited the Government, if they wanted labour, to offer inducements. He put to me the question as to whether a skilled man, I understood him to say, who might be working in a district at 40s. per week, was transferred to another district where the rate was 30s. per week, would that skilled man be employed at 30s. and not at 40s.? I want to make it perfectly clear, and I shall have to return to this subject in connection with the Bill, that the Director-General of National Service is working under two schemes, both of them run on voluntary lines. There has been in existence for many months now what is known as the War Munitions Volunteer Scheme. I had something to do with setting it up, and, so far as I know, it has been a very great

937
satisfaction with the skilled workmen that have been enrolled and have been transferred under that scheme. The principle of that scheme was that if a man moved from a high-paid district to a lower-paid district, he carried his rate with him, and if he moved from a lower-paid district to a higher-paid district, he received the higher rate in the new district. Surely that is not a bad scheme under which to transfer a volunteer workman; but, as well as obtaining the higher rate if he was taken away from his family and had to maintain what we sometimes call "a second home" and to go into lodgings, in those cases, in addition to obtaining the higher rate, he receives what we call a subsistence allowance of 2s. 6d. per day, or 17s. 6d. per week. Though I have been Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on output during the whole time that this scheme has been in operation, I must say on the whole very, very few criticisms have been offered by the workmen, and, in fact, I think the scheme has worked generally with great satisfaction. That scheme is going to continue to operate, and, as I will show on the Second Reading of the Bill, it is going to continue to operate exactly in the same way and, if needs be, the list of the classes of trades under it can be given to the House, and the list of trades is larger to-day, considerably larger to-day, than it was when the scheme was first set up. In fact, there are very few, if any, skilled trades engaged in essential war work that are not covered by this scheme. Therefore the advantages of it, to which I have just referred, will apply to any workmen in those classes who enrol under the appeal of the Director-General of National Service.
Then there is his own scheme, a scheme he is just putting into operation. The House ought to recognise—I hope both my hon. Friends will recognise this—that it is one thing to set up a scheme for your skilled men, most of whom are working in kindred trades, where there is not such a great difference between the highest trade union rate and the lowest trade union rate. When you come to deal with all the miscellaneous and multifarious classes of trades that must be included necessarily—I should say trades and no trades—in a universal scheme, then the problem presents very serious difficulties of an entirely different character. I need not take up the time of the House in reciting a number
938
of the classes of what might be called nonessential trades or non-essential classes of employment in a great war. The jewellery trade has been thrown over the floor of the House by more than one interjection. There are such classes of workmen as gardeners and butlers. I believe there is a considerable number of employés, both men and women, in connection with what is called the entertainment trade—theatres, music halls, and cinemas—a vast number of people from one end of the country to the other providing entertainment night after night that cannot be considered essential in a crisis like this. I am not saying that we are dealing with those trades; I am merely giving the House one or two instances. There is a vast number of agents of one kind or another who, I believe, would be only too glad to be transferred to a more satisfactory form of employment—I mean more satisfactory in the sense that they are now working on commission, and in many cases working on commission to-day, when the expenses, especially travelling expenses, are exceedingly high, and I believe many of them would be quite prepared to respond to the appeal of the Director-General and to take from him some form of new employment.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe dwelt a good deal on the 25s. minimum wage that is suggested in the Director-General's new scheme. I am quite prepared to recognise that in these days of high prices 25s. might be what he described as a sweating wage. Even to-day, in spite of the advances in wages that have been given and the higher wages that obtain in certain well-organised trades', I am inclined to think that in this country there is still a very large number of men whose wages do not yet reach 25s. In agriculture, although there has been a great improvement, I am happy to say, in the rates of wages for agricultural labourers during the past twelve months, it may be said that there are still many who are working under rather than over the 25s. margin. If that is the case, take the position of the agricultural labourer. I am not sure that there is going to be much opening for transfer of the agricultural labourer, but if he is to be transferred at 25s., and, if he is taken away from his home, he receives an additional weekly allowance of 17s. 6d., whatever may be said of the economic position of a man with 25s., and my Friends know how for a good number of years I have been struggling to

939
improve the economic position of all classes of workmen, it seems to me that, in spite of the high prices many agricultural labourers, if they have to move at all, will feel that they are certainly in no worse position in responding to the nation's need. But is is only a minimum. Supposing there are agricultural labourers to-day getting 30s. a week, as I hope there are—I believe in London some labourers in connection with local authorities get something like 30s. a week—and if one of these men leave his employment and goes into the Army and a man is brought in to take his place from a lower-paid district he does not get 25s. a week, but 30s. He never can get less than 25s., and I believe in the majority of cases which are removed the movement will be upward rather than downward. I am quite prepared to admit that if you are going to have professional men offering themselves under this scheme for two or three months, in their case there is going to be a tremendous sacrifice. I believe some of them—I will not say many, but some—are prepared to make the sacrifice. I believe some of them realise the national need to be so great and the supply of men for the Army, munitions factories, shipyards, and other places so limited that they would be prepared, could they be satisfied there was no other way whereby the need could be met, to make the greatest possible sacrifice and even to go on the minimum rate of 25s. to get a mere existence out of it, if he could assist in successfully to prosecute the War.
There is only one other point I want to refer to. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) I thought was a little hard upon the Government. I was not surprised. I have been sufficiently long in the House with the hon. Member to know that when I find him praising the Government, the Government is in a very treacherous and dangerous position. Therefore if he had spoken well of the Government I should have thought it had begun its life exposed to very serious danger. He asked whether the Government have any settled policy in regard to the War. I think I can tell him that the policy of the Government is to do everything which in its wisdom it believes will assist in the successful prosecution of the War. I do not know that I can put it on any clearer ground than that, and I think we may appeal for assistance from quarters from which we do not get it. I think we might especially appeal at this
940
juncture. I have had the responsibility of being in the Government for something like 20 months, and I do not know—I say it in all sincerity, and I think the Leader of the House has already tried to impress the House with the same view—that there has ever been during the whole of those 20 months a period more critical in the interests of the nation and in the interests of the Allied cause than the present period. We have seen the application of the submarine policy to an extent that exceeds anything we have experienced since the War began. We have seen that during the last few days, and the Government was called upon to face that new factor, or, at any rate, an aggravation of the submarine policy to a greater extent than ever before. We were compelled from the very earliest days of the Government to face that situation, and the facing of that situation has a very important bearing upon the policy of national service. I can assure the House that the need for men in essential industries has not become less during the last few weeks. It has considerably increased. We have had to take into consideration the question of shipping, a considerable increase in the mercantile marine, and we have not been able to ignore the requirements of the Navy. We have had to take into consideration that which is absolutely essential for coping with the submarine policy as we now know it. We cannot have these new factors in the situation without making more urgent the call for men in industry, and I do hope that hon. Members will assist us during the next few weeks, even if they are dissatisfied with the Government from some standpoint, to get such an enrolment as will enable us to secure, not only the men we need for our essential industries, but also the men that are as necessary to keep our Armies in the field. I can promise both speakers and other hon. Members that there is no member of the Government, and I do not think there was any member of the old Government, who desires, or desired, to take a single step for compulsion in connection with industry if either the old Government or the present Government could be satisfied that we could meet the national need on voluntary lines. I shall try to show on the Second Beading of the Bill that there are advantages in our proceeding on the voluntary lines on which we are now travelling, and I think I have a

941
right to say that though both the hon. Members who have spoken are opposed, probably more strongly than even the members of the Government or myself, to the application of the principle of compulsion, there is imposed upon them and upon all of us the obligation, if we are opposed to compulsion, to do everything we possibly can to make the voluntary scheme of the Director-General of National Service such a success that there will be no need to resort to powers of compulsion. But for myself, I make it absolutely plain that unless it can be so secured, I shall take the course I indicate by appealing to all those to whom I am responsible to release me from my pledges, in order that we may get the men by the second method rather than by the first, believing it to be essential that we should do so in order to win the War.
Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I feel quite sure that the vast majority of Members of this House, and the public at large outside, will respond with the utmost cordiality to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, and if in the course of events—I trust it may not be the case—he may find it necessary to come to this House, and to go to his friends outside the House and ask to be released from certain undertakings, I have no doubt that at this crisis in the fate of our country he will find that relief which he is entitled to seek. After all, as he said in his concluding remarks, it lies very much with us in this House who have got influence on the platform in the country to see that compulsion in regard to industrial employment does not become necessary. We in this country are a body of talking men, whose chief value—I speak in regard to those of us who are not performing military duties—to the State is that we command certain influence in the country, and I say that it is up to us, it lies with us very largely to see that it is not necessary for my right hon. Friend to resort to compulsion in the matter of industrial employment. He knows—who knows better in this House than he?—how excessively difficult compulsion would be in regard to industrial employment, not as difficult as compulsion in regard to military service, but ten times more difficult.
I really feel that, in regard to some of the new Departments, it is our duty in this House to show them as much sympathy and indulgence as we can. Here is
942
Mr. Neville Chamberlain, a man of brilliant attainments, charged with what I venture to say is the most difficult position in the Government, difficult if only for this reason, that it is an entirely new Government position, without any charts, or plans to guide him in his course. Our business is to help him if we can, and I think myself that, having regard to the immensely difficult task that confronts, him, he has made an admirable start. There is one branch of his work in regard to which I may claim to have some exceptional knowledge—that is the women's, part of the scheme. I have been engaged on Committees appointed by my right hon. Friends who sat with me on this bench a year and a half ago to consider the whole question of women's employment. In that respect, if in no other, the late Government cannot be accused of having been too late, for in regard to the question of women employment the late Government was at least a year or more in advance of any sort of public opinion. Mr. Neville Chamberlain has made an admirable movement in that respect. He has appointed as directors of women's employment during the week the two most able ladies in this country engaged in public work—Mrs. Tennant and Miss Violet Mark-ham. I know these two ladies and the excellent work they have done, and, although I may not be sufficiently competent to criticise the greater part of Mr. Neville Chamberlain's scheme, if it is only done as well as that part of it which relates to women workers, we may hope that neither he nor the leaders of his Government will have any risk of compulsion during this War. I very much hope that you will not have to resort to compulsion, for I see infinite difficulties in its path, but if it be found necessary to resort to it, I, at least, as a humble Member of this House, will heartily support it.
11 P.M.
Mr. PRINGLE: I think the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat unfortunate in the view he took of the motives of the hon. Gentleman who instituted the discussion, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman began by immediately imputing to those Members the motive of desiring to force compulsion rather than assist in the promotion of the voluntary scheme. I think his defence of the scheme would have been better without the opening imputation. He failed, however, in his speech to deal with practically any of the points made

943
by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh took exception, and I think justifiably, to the method of announcing the scheme at a large public meeting outside. The right hon. Gentleman said they could not delay the question until Parliament met, and that the matter was far too urgent and important to admit of such delay as would have been involved in laying it before Parliament. There was the delay of only a single day. If they had wanted a single day it would have been possible to have taken the counsel of Parliament on this matter. We only sat for half a day on the first day we met, and that half day might very well have been occupied in the consideration of this scheme; and the Government might have obtained assistance from the wisdom of the House of Commons. The real question is whether this scheme of Mr. Neville Chamberlain is designed and calculated to prevent forced labour in this country. That is the question to which the right hon. Gentleman was asked to address his mind, and it was the one question he evaded throughout. He never attempted to enter into details, and he said he would do that on the Second Reading of the Bill, which it is doubtful would be in order on that occasion. We have the best ground for doubting whether this is really intended to avoid compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman made professions which we have often heard before from that bench, about the reluctance of any Member, either of this Government or the late Government, to adopt compulsion. In view of the declarations of his own colleagues the right hon. Gentleman might have saved himself the effrontery of making that statement to-night. Does he not remember a very famous speech of the late Prime-Minister on the 3rd June, 1915, at Manchester, in which he said he desired compulsion—not for military service, but for Labour. And now at this time of day, twenty months afterwards, twenty months in which he has been a colleague of and has collaborated in the schemes of the Prime Minister, he asks this House to believe that not one of his colleagues in this or in the late Government desires compulsion. It is preposterous and absurd. We know it was difficulties in regard to this that led to the fall of the late Government—the fall of the Government of the indispensable Prime Minister the right hon. Gentle-
944
man the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). We should not have had a Ministerial crisis, and we should not have had this voluntary scheme had it not been deemed necessary to secure certain people who, in co-operation with the Government, were regarded as essential. For that reason we are told there is no immediate intention to resort to compulsion. That is why we have this pseudo-scheme. We have had this experience before. We had the Derby scheme and the pledges in regard to it. It was not compulsion. We were still to have a purely voluntary system of military service even then. But everybody knows, looking back at the history of that scheme, that that was really the first step to compulsion. And when we look back at this scheme in the light of that experience, it is almost an insult to our intelligence to expect us to believe that the new scheme can have any other result. No; the less we hear about pledges the better. Pledges stink in our nostrils. We have had the pledges to the widow's son, we have had the pledges to the man who is the single head of a business, we have had the pledges to the medically rejected, we have had the pledges to the men discharged from the Army, we have had pledges innumerable, and everyone of them broken without the slightest compunction. The right hon. Gentleman is going to those whose votes he obtained in the past by means of these pledges to ask them for a release from them on the ground that the circumstances have changed. Circumstances, of course, are always changing. He made some remarks as to the relations of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) with their constituents. He was perfectly sure my hon. Friend would not dare to submit his speech to his constituents. My hon. Friend will look after his own constituency, and if the right hon. Gentleman will go to Edinburgh to-morrow and meet him in the biggest hall in the city he will soon see who will come out on top. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in a complete misrepresentation of my hon. Friend's speech. He represented it as an attack not on the whole scheme, but on certain isolated instances of mistaken methods in the Army. But everybody knows that these are not isolated instances. I have a relation in a battalion on the East Coast who a few weeks ago informed me that in that battalion there were 150 men who could

945
not go on a route inarch and were never likely to. These are all men who, before they were called up and passed by these so-called medical boards, were doing useful work for the country, were producing, were doing, many of them, work of considerable national importance. There were 150 in one battalion, and if you multiplied the battalions by that amount you would have a sufficient reinforcement to dispense with this paltry and rotten scheme altogether. Let me take another example. Fifty thousand men who were accepted as medically fit have been discharged without pensions. What does that mean? I think it is a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I am not dealing with isolated instances because he had some acquaintance with the working of the Pensions Department, and he knows that these 50,000 were discharged without pensions although every one of them was taken into the Army as medically fit. Yet he has the effrontery to accuse my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) of quoting these as isolated examples. In fact, we know that at the present time he is a member of a Government Committee which is dealing with a Royal Warrant which is to make special provision for these cases. I hope that we shall now hear no more of "isolated cases." In fact, when we find a scheme of this kind that has to be bolstered up by arguments so thin and so futile, then we have very good ground for regarding it as a mockery and a sham. I believe it is so. I do not criticise my hon. Friend opposite for wishing it well, and taking the view that he will accept compulsion if it should be compulsion. Personally, I believe it is bound to be. It is an ill-digested and ill-thought-out scheme, launched forth before they have an organisation to dealt with it. We were told that the Labour Exchanges were to have nothing to do with it. And what happens? This is the method of concealing the fact that the Labour Exchanges have anything to do. The people who sign the agreements have to sign them "O.H.M.S.," addressed to the Director-General of National Service, St. Ermin's Hotel, Westminster, S.W. Then they are all packed in sacks, bundled into vans, and carted away to the office of the Labour Exchanges at Kew. That is scientific organisation. In these days, when you cannot get horses and vans to take coal to the poor people, these necessary vehicles are used to cart loads of these
946
agreements from the St. Ermin's Hotel to the Labour Exchanges at Kew. Anything more ridiculous it is hardly possible to conceive.
An HON. MEMBER: War economy!
Mr. PRINGLE: Then the right hon. Gentleman said that this is simply an extension of the scheme of munition volunteers. He said it was a very valuable scheme, but so far as I can gather it has not been working much of late. I quoted yesterday in this House a letter which I received from a man whom, one would have thought, would be regarded as desirable from that point of view. He was a skilled engineer, and a man who for years had worked on the Clyde. He is at this moment an engineer in a non-essential industry, that of an ice factory. He went to one of the Labour Exchanges to offer his services as a marine engineer. The superintendent of the Labour Exchange said, "We do not want men like you; we are training them for that job now." He was sent away. He then applied to the Ministry of Munitions, and they wrote regretting that there was no vacancy. I do not know whether this was the first step in the extension of the munitions volunteers' scheme in connection with this new scheme of national service. The one thing which was most depressing about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the conclusion. I am not referring to his remark about the critical situation in which we are placed—remarks, by the way, which contrast very strangely with those recorded in the interview with Sir Douglas Haig, published in to-day's papers. He told us for the first time that we are face to face with a new menace and with new conditions with regard to the submarine. He has been in the Government for twenty months and yet he talks of a new situation! If that is the wisdom, foresight, and knowledge of the War Cabinet, God help the country! If the right hon. Gentleman had even paid attention to the Debates in this House he would have learnt something. Why, twelve months ago the whole situation in regard to submarines were forecasted with the most complete accuracy, and the Government shut its eyes to it. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty made a speech earlier in the day very like that which the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-night. He told us that war is war! That was all the answer that we got. The speeches of a year ago to which

947
I referred were censored in the Press. Not only would the Government not give any answer in this House, but they prevented the publication of the facts by which they might have been brought to book. That went on for months. They knew all about it. It is true that the submarine then was not apparently a serious thing. But in view of the way our shipping was being wasted and in other ways, it was calculated to be a serious thing. The Government were told all this, and now the right hon. Gentleman, after twelve months' discussion of it, comes forward to-night and says, "We are face to face with a new situation." If that is the wisdom by which we are governed, if that is what we are to expect from the new War Cabinet, I think it will be well if they adopt the counsel which is now commonly attributed to them, and that is to have a General Election. They may win the General Election; they will never win the War!
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of salaries and remuneration under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Ministry of National Service and for purposes incidental thereto (King' s Recommendation signified) upon Monday next.—[Mr. Arthur Henderson,]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKEB, 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 Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February.
Mr. Speaker has, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, nominated—

The Right Hon. Charles Fenwick,

The Right Hon. John William Wilson,

The Right Hon. Willoughby Hyett Dickinson,

Mr. Thomas Power O'Connor, and

Mr. John Frederick Peel Rawlinson

to act during this Session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

PETITION PRESENTED.
The following Petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
MONDAY.
Manufacture and Sale of Intoxicating Liquors during the War.—Petition from Aberdeen, for prohibition.