Commons Sitting of 19 February 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company (Railways) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Water Bill,
Barton and Stretford Railway Bill,
Blackpool Improvement Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Bristol Water Bill,
To be read a second time upon Monday, 12th March.
Chepstow Water Bill,
Cheshire Lines Committee Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill, Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, Levinstein (Railways) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
London Corn Exchange Company Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Port of London Authority (Various Powers) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Seaham Harbour Dock Bill,
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Sheffield Corporation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Sheffield United Gaslight Company Bill,
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Sir Thomas F.smonde, Mr. George Faber, Mr. Fell,
950
Lord Claud Hamilton, Sir Charles Nicholson, Mr.O'Grady, Major Willam Redmond, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. John William Wilson nominated Member of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. —[Sir Charles Nicholson.]

DEMOBILISATION UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE WAR.
Petition from Leicester, for the preparation of schemes for the reabsorption of labour into industry; to lie upon the Table.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS (PROHIBITION DURING THE WAR AND PERIOD OF DEMOBILISATION).
Petitions for legislation, from Aberdeen (two) and Cowie; to lie upon the Table.
PRICES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copies presented of Second and Third Reports of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to investigate the principal causes which have led to the increase of prices of Commodities since the beginning of the War. Bread, Flour and Wheat Prices; Freight Charges; and Potato, Tea and Sugar Prices [by Command]]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1917–18).
Estimate presented for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1918, with Memorandum [by Commmand]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 26.]
IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.
Copy presented of Resolutions passed by the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy on the subject of Imperial Preference, together with Copy of Covering Letter to the Prime Minister [by Commmand]; to lie upon the Table.
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Abstract Accounts presented for the year ended 31st March, 1916, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table. [No. 27.]
NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
Annual Account presented for the period ended 20th November, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 28.]
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Eighty-second Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1915 –16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Copy ordered, "of accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions for each month of 19117."—[Sir Albert Stanley.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Brussels Sugar Convention is still in operation; whether, owing to enemy action, that Convention is no longer operative; and whether, in the event of the Convention being still in existence, he will now give the six months' notice of withdrawal?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): His Majesty's Government withdrew from the Brussels Sugar Convention on 1st September, 1913.

  CZECHO-SLOVACS
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Czecho-Slovacs referred to in the Allies' Note as being a people for whose independence they are fighting are two distinct nationalities, or, as suggested by the hyphen, are they Slovacs of Czecho origin?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Czechs and Slovacs are two branches of the same race.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to decide the territory to which independence would be granted, so that we might learn something of the people?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I ask whether the hon. Member is not incorrect in using the word "independence," no such word having appeared in the Allied Note?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Foreign Office a map which shows the territory occupied by the Czecho-Slovacs?
  Mr. BALFOUR: There are a certain number of maps at the Foreign Office, but whether they are all absolutely correct or not I cannot say.
  Mr. KING: Are the maps of the Balkan Peninsula those that were current before the last Balkan War?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  PEACE TERMS (IRELAND).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements whereby duly accredited representatives of Ireland may be allowed to offer an independent statement of the right of self-government for Ireland at the International Conference which will decide the terms of peace?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold, in the style of the Biglaw papers, that "Freedom is a kind of thing that does not agree with Irishmen?"

  CHINA.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of

  953
  German Consuls, post offices, telegraph offices, banks, and commercial firms located in British concessions in China; and how many British Consuls, post offices, telegraph offices, banks, and commercial firms are similarly located in German concessions in China?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The following German institutions are located in British concessions: One Consulate, two post offices, two banks and thirty-two commercial firms. In the German concessions there are no British Consulates, post offices, telegraph offices or banks, and only four commercial firms.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SUGAR.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an undertaking that sugar produced in enemy countries will be prevented from competing in this country on unfair terms with sugar produced within the British Empire on the conclusion of hostilities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE {Mr. G. Roberts): This is a matter which is clearly bound up with the general question of commercial policy after the War, on which I am not in a position at present to make a statement.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, beet sugar could be suitably grown in large quantities in this country; and whether, having regard to the position in which the country is now placed in being dependent for its sugar on foreign supplies, he will see his way to undertake to give a guarantee to British agriculturists that this new industry will be encouraged by a guarantee of interest for a period of years to manufacturers desirous of establishing sugar factories?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The uncertainty with regard to this problem is whether sugar beet can be commercially manufactured into sugar at a profit in normal times in this country. Until that is settled it is of no use to divert land from the cultivation of essential crops or to allow the establishment of factories for the making of
    954
    beet sugar. A State guarantee to growers cannot therefore be considered during the War.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this industry is to be encouraged in this country it must have at least a year's notice, and if we wait for the end of the War obviously that will be to allow the industry to be once more in the hands of the Germans?
    Sir R. WINFREY: All those considerations are taken into account.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, if he is aware that the employés of Messrs. Kearley and Tonge, Limited, have been able, by purchasing a half-pound of tea from the firm, to purchase six pounds of sugar, and, by purchasing four ounces of cocoa, to purchase three pounds of sugar; and will he have inquiry made into the matter with a view of securing a more equable distribution of sugar?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): I am informed by this firm that since October last their employés have been allowed to buy not more than three pounds of sugar a week. In one of the firm's factories conditions as to purchase of other articles were for a time imposed without the authority of the directors. Such conditions ceased entirely in December last.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether that means that the men who work in this particular factory are to get no more proportion than ordinary citizens?
    Captain BATHURST: I think that accurately states the facts.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Is it not possible to apply a more reasonable rule with regard to the distribution of sugar than now prevails, and why is it different standards of distribution prevail in different shops?
    Captain BATHURST: The whole question is supremely complicated and difficult. I can assure the hon. Member mat every effort is being made to solve this difficult problem.
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to make representations to seriously consider the question of only supplying sugar with tea, so that most people would be able to get a reasonable supply of sugar with tea when buying it?
    Captain BATHURST: I think I have already informed the hon. Member that the matter is being considered, and in every case in which the attention of the Food Controller or myself is drawn to the matter an investigation takes place.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he can now state whether any arrangements have been made for regulating the retail distribution of sugar by tickets or otherwise?
    Captain BATHURST: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 15th February to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on the subject.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that by taking action at once with regard to this single article he will gain an experience which will be invaluable if he has to put us on rations with regard to other articles?
    Captain BATHURST: Anything in the nature of compulsory rationing would involve the most elaborate machinery and would involve the employment of manpower in such numbers as to divert such power from more essential matters of importance.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In view of that answer, would it not be most valuable it the hon. Gentleman should gain the experience with regard to this article, in case he is compelled to put us on compulsory rations?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is argument which was conclusive with the old "wait and see" Government?

  SAUSAGE SKINS.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether only about 6½ per cent, of the hog and sheep casings used as sausage skins are produced in this country and that the prohibition of the import seriously restricts the supply of cheap food; whether cattle casings cannot be used as a substitute; whether sheep casings may be imported from New Zealand on condition that they are immediately transhipped and exported to America, a process which occupies more shipping space than if they were imported to this country; whether he has consulted any representatives of the trade in this country other than producers, whose interest it is to prevent the
  956
  import of casings and so keep up prices; and whether he has granted any licences to import?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The question of granting licences for the import of hog and sheep casings has been under consideration by the Board of Trade for some time, in consultation with other Departments concerned. Some licences have already been granted or promised and other applications are being dealt with. It is true of all goods on the prohibited list that their transhipment to British ports in transit to foreign or Colonial destinations is not affected by the prohibitions of import into the United Kingdom.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has consulted the Food Controller with regard to this matter?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I believe so, but I will make sure.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks what representatives of the trade he has consulted?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot say. I will make inquiry and let the hon. Member know.

  POTATOES.
  Captain DONELANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he can state the quantity of potatoes shipped from Ireland under licence from the date of the Order to the end of January, 1917; and if he can give the names of the persons or firms to whom licences have been granted; the conditions attached to the licence; the quantity of potatoes shipped by each person or firm; and the names of the ports from which they were shipped?
  Mr. WHITTYasked whether licences are being granted for the export of potatoes out of Ireland; and, if so, from what ports?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The quantities of potatoes exported from Ireland under the Potatoes (Ireland) Order, 1916, which came into operation on 21st December, 1916, up to 31st January last, was 5,500 tons, exclusive of (1) exports for military purposes, and (2) exports in small quantities by and to private persons. A statement giving the ports from which the potatoes were shipped, and the names of the traders who were granted export

  957
  licences, will be supplied to the hon. Members. No conditions were attached to any of these licences, save in regard to the quantity authorised in each case.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does that include the potatoes supplied to the Army?
  Mr. DUKE: I stated that it excludes all exports for military purposes and exports in small quantities for private parties.
  Captain DONELAN: In view of the danger of shortage of potatoes in Ireland before the next crop is fit for food, will steps be taken to cancel the issue of any further licences and to keep what potatoes remain in Ireland in that country for home consumption?
  Mr. DUKE: I can assure the hon Member that the utmost possible attention is being paid to this question from day to day.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Parlialiamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Order promised by him fixing definitely the price of seed potatoes to the consumer has yet been issued; and what are its terms?
  Captain BATHURST: The Order fixing the maximum price of seed potatoes to the consumer has not yet been issued, but the matter is receiving the immediate attention of the Departments concerned in view of the alteration made by the War Cabinet on Saturday in the terms of the Order affecting table potatoes. A conference between the representatives of the three Agricultural Departments will be held to-morrow to discuss the final form of the Order.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been directed to the enhanced charges being made in some instances by farmers for the cartage of potatoes sold by them, in order to circumvent the maximum price for the sale of potatoes; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the matter in the interests of the consumer?
  Captain BATHURST: The action taken by the War Cabinet on Saturday last will, it is believed, prevent the recurrence of attempts such as those referred to in the question.

  TILLAGE, IRELAND.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, when the rated
  958
  occupier fails to cultivate the prescribed 10 per cent, of Ms holding and the Department enters thereon, it will, in dealing with the land, consult the local authority as to its want in the interest of the labourers and landless men in the district?
  Mr. DUKE: I am assured that whenever the Department of Agriculture consider it necessary to enter upon the land of an occupier who fails to comply with the Defence of the Realm Regulations for Compulsory tillage, the circumstances of the locality will be duly taken into consideration.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked whether, under the tillage scheme, it will be possible for county and district councils to acquire and hire out motor ploughs to co-operative societies or small owners who have not the means to purchase them?
  Mr. DUKE: Loans in connection with the food production scheme for the purchase of farm implements (including motor tractors and ploughs) may be granted to agricultural associations and co-operative societies as well as to individuals. Accordingly no additional powers have been proposed for local authorities.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the increased allowance which it has been decided to make to dependants of officers and seamen taken prisoners from British merchant ships at sea will apply to the dependants of the captains and officers of British merchant ships who have been interned in Germany since the commencement of the War; and, if not, what increase is proposed to give the maximum allowance of £l per week hitherto paid?
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: The alteration already made in the scale of allowances does not apply to officers and seamen interned since the commencement of the War. Before considering any general alteration of this kind, I should be glad to have full particulars of any individual cases of hardship which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Statutory Committee have yet come to a decision to extend the scope of Regulation 13 (d), so that when a member of a family

  959
  in receipt of a separation allowance goes into hospital no deduction shall be made from the allowance?
  The PENSIONS MINISTER (Mr. Barnes): Regulation 13 (d) already provides for a grant by a local committee when there is a temporary cessation of the State separation allowance, but the grant is limited to a period of six weeks. A Regulation providing for an extension of this period is in course of preparation and I hope it will shortly be issued.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend say that there is now an existing Regulation and it is not yet printed?
  Mr. BARNES: There is an existing Regulation, and another one is in preparation and will shortly be issued extending the period.

  PETROL.
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of a possible shortage of fodder and the consequent premature and wasteful slaughter of live stock, he has considered the further demands on the available fodder if the withdrawal of facilities to obtain petrol make it necessary for private individuals to have recourse to horse-drawn traffic; and whether he will weigh this consideration in determining the tonnage allotted to imports of petrol?
  Lieut.-Colone Sir C. SEELY: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether he is aware that for every mile of horse-drawn traffic substituted for petrol from five to eight times the weight and bulk of forage, etc., will have to be imported as against the petrol saved?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir, I am quite aware of it, and I will take notice of the fact. All relevant considerations will be given their due weight in dealing with the petrol question.
  Major NEWMAN: I give notice that on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill to-morrow, I will endeavour to raise this question?

  RAILWAY FARES (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether
  960
  he can see his way to relieve parents living in rural districts, whose children go to school by rail daily or weekly, from the necessity of paying the increased fares, seeing that they are travelling by trains, which it has been decided to run and that their education is a national benefit?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The claims of school children for exemption from the recent increase of railway fares have been considered very carefully; but, as stated in reply to previous questions in this House, it has not been found practicable, in present circumstances, to embark on a policy of concessions to particular classes or individuals. I would observe, however, that no increase has been made in the rates charged for season-tickets, and that the issue of such tickets to day scholars at half-rates has not been discontinued.

  SMALL HOLDINGS (COLONIES) ACT.
  Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can say how many families of sailors and soldiers it will be possible to establish on the land under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Act; and when it is proposed to introduce legislation enlarging the scope of the Act?
  Sir R.WINFREY: The sites of only t woof the four colonies in England and Wales have as yet been decided upon, but it is estimated that the four will provide altogether for the establishment of about 240 families. I am not in a position at present to reply to the last part of the question.

  HAY PRICES.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state for what reason dealers in hay are allowed to charge £7 10s. per ton for the hay they sell, whilst the maximum price that farmers, who have all the risk and trouble of production, are allowed to-charge is only £5 10s. to any purchaser; and, in view of the unfairness of this Regulation, can he take steps to have it altered?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 10th July last to the hon. Member for Somerset East.
  Major HUNT: Is it the fact that farmers cannot sell at £5 10s. to the ordinary purchaser, but is obliged to sell to the dealer?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not quite follow the Member's question. If the farmer sells direct to the consumer and does his own baling and trussing, carriage and so forth he is able to charge £7 10s. The maximum of £.5 10s. applies to those cases in which the military authorities do the work to which I have just referred.
  Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why lower prices were fixed for purchases in Scotland?
  Mr. FORSTER: That is another question.

  MUNITIONS.

    BUILDING LICENCES.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Minister of Munitions what is the policy of the Government regarding building licences in Great Britain?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The Order in Council of 14th July, 1916, requires the issue of a licence for all building work of the value of £500 or over, and for any work involving the use of constructional steel. In administering the Order the Ministry of Munitions aims as conserving constructional labour and material by refusing licences unless they are satisfied that the work is of national importance. I am sorry to have to add that I am obliged to consider for the future a further limitation of licences, and it will be of great assistance if applications even for small amounts are limited to those required either for urgent repairs or for work of national importance.

  EAST LONDON EXPLOSION.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether any inquiry is being conducted into the cause of the recent explosion in East London; and whether any and what steps are being taken in the way of compensation for the relatives of the victims?
  Dr. ADDISON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part of the question is that, without admitting liability, the Ministry of Munitions are prepared to pay all reasonable claims for damage t>r injury arising out of the explo-
  962
  sion. Immediately after the disaster an office was opened in the locality to receive claims. The claims which have been received are now being investigated and dealt with as rapidly as possible with a view to settlement.
  Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentlemen think it is time for the Government to obtain powers making it obligatory upon them to recognise all these claims in regard to munitions explosions, and is he not aware that there is a large number of munitions factories adjacent to houses?
  Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member must have overlooked a Bill that was introduced at the end of last Session referring to claims for compensation arising out of explosions. I will send him a copy of it.
  Mr. THORNE: Then how is that you say "without admitting any liability" in connection with recent explosions?
  Dr. ADDISON: We cannot admit absolute liability in every case. It must depend upon the circumstances.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report of this inquiry will be published?
  Dr. ADDISON: I understand the Report will be received very soon. I cannot say anything about publication at the present moment.

  WORK CONDITIONS.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the London Munitions Tribunal seven young women were fined 15s. each for refusing to undertake C.E. work; whether some more satisfactory method of securing regular attendance at this kind of work will be adopted instead of the infliction of heavy fines; and whether he is aware that the unwillingness to work at places where explosives are manufactured is to a large extent due to the lax manner in which the Regulations are enforced?
  Dr. ADDISON: My attention has been drawn to this case. Under a rule of the factory in question every worker must undertake work in any part of the factory when directed to do so. This rule is brought to the notice of all employés when entering the factory. The Court found that the order was a lawful and a reasonable one. I do not consider that the procedure before the munitions tribunal is an

  963
  unsatisfactory method of enforcing discipline. As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware of any laxity in the enforcement of regulations at these factories or of any general unwillingness to work at them.

  LAARKSHIRE (NEW HOUSES).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions the number of new houses erected in Lanarkshire since the beginning of the War for munition workers under schemes arranged with the local authorities?
  Mr. ADDISON: The number of houses constructed, or now under construction, in Lanarkshire is 200. Arrangements are in hand for further construction to the extent of 350 houses.

  JUVENILE CRIME.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering the increase in juvenile crime, and that there is now said to be no place of detention to which young criminals can be sent owing to all such places being full, he will take into consideration the opinions expressed by county magistrates and the chairmen of county education committees regarding the necessity for the application of the birch rod and issue instructions accordingly?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): Arrangements have of late been made for considerable additions to the number of children and young persons who can be received in reformatory and industrial schools, and there are now vacancies in many schools. If magistrates or local authorities find any difficulty in providing for the reception of a case they should apply to the Chief Inspector at the Home Office, who will be able in most cases to give particulars of schools with vacancies. I do not think it necessary to introduce legislation to amend the law as to corporal punishment or to issue any recommendations on the subject.

  COAL MINES (REPORTS OF INSPECTORS).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the Reports of the Inspectors of Coal Mines for 1915 and 1916 have yet been received; and when will the same be published?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Reports of the Divisional Inspectors for 1915 will be found in Part I. of the Chief Inspector's General Report for 1915, which was published last autumn. The Reports for 1916 have not yet been received, and I cannot at present fix the date of publication. In ordinary circumstances they would be issued in the summer.

  HUNTING PACKS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether he is aware that there are 203 packs of foxhounds in Great Britain and Ireland, 131 packs of harriers, 67 packs of beagles, and 23 packs of stag-hounds, and that these dogs consume annually many tons of oatmeal; that if these packs were dispersed and the hounds kept individually by those who would undertake to look after them they would be maintained on bones and other house refuse which in many cases is wasted, and that in any case their consumption of oatmeal would be reduced; and, seeing that the price of oatmeal before the War in East London was l ½d. per lb. and is now 4 ½d., and that it provides valuable food, whether he will address a circular to masters of foxhounds, masters of hounds, and other hunting masters urging upon them the prompt dispersal of their packs in the national interest?
  Captain BATHURST: As I stated in the House on 8th February, the masters of foxhounds have voluntarily decided to reduce their packs very substantially. They are also prepared, I understand, not to-purchase any more oatmeal for hounds during the continuance of the War. The question of the necessity of taking further measures will not be lost sight of.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether these foxhounds do not require reduced rations the same as many of us?
  Captain BATHURST: That matter will be sympathetically considered.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the question of the autonomy of Ireland will be submitted to the Conference to which representatives of the Dominions have been invited; and, if so, whether the Government will be

  965
  guided by the advice of the Conference in the event of their agreeing that Ireland should have as complete a form of self-government as prevails in the Dominions?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The subjects to be discussed at the Conference will not be finally settled till after the arrival of the representatives of the Overseas Dominions, but the decision of a question which concerns the administration of the United Kingdom can obviously only be taken by the Imperial Parliament.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ireland is determined to have self-government, and that the time has now passed for Prussianising that country?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is not this to be a War Conference, and will not the representative Dominions be discussing the question of autonomy for the Czechs and Slovaks, and why should not the question of autonomy for Ireland properly be discussed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that either of those questions arises.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: They are what we are fighting for.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The subjects to be discussed obviously will not be settled until the representatives arrive. Their views will be taken into consideration. I think we may assume, on the one hand, that the Government will not interfere with the discussion of anything they wish to discuss, and, on the other hand, that they will not wish to discuss anything which will add to the difficulties of the conduct of the War.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the representatives of the Dominions who come to the Conference be asked whether in any of those Dominions there is one-quarter of the population which prefers legislative union with the Mother Country, and as there is in Ireland?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE.

    SICKNESS BENEFITS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether approved societies are paying benefits for sickness to men in receipt of partial disablement pensions; or, if not, what are they doing?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): Benefits are being paid by approved societies to men in receipt of partial disablement pensions who are incapable of work through sickness. My hon. Friend, I think, knows that the view is taken that the financial burden imposed by the payment of claims arising from war service should not ultimately fall upon approved societies, and arrangements are under consideration for recouping societies in respect of such payments.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say how a man who is incapable of working and partially disabled is not totally disabled?

  DISCHARGED SOLDIEES.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he can state definitely that all soldiers on discharge are receiving Leaflet 29a?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: The arrangements for the distribution of Leaflet 29a are such as to secure that every discharged man receives a copy of the leaflet. The Army Council have instructed the regimental authorities to issue a copy of the leaflet to every man on his discharge. Supplies of the leaflet have also been sent to military hospitals in order that men in hospitals may be given copies on their discharge. Local war pensions committees have also been asked to hand a copy, where necessary, to every man with whom they are brought into contact.
  Mr. HOGGE: In view of these adequate arrangements, can my hon. Friend say how it is they do not get them?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: If my hon. Friend can make any suggestions as to how they can receive them, I shall be glad to consider them.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is not that your work?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Yes.

  TUBERCULOSIS TREATMENT (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, how many discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis have been found beds in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, by the various Commissions?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Under special arrangements made by the various Insurance Commissions with the Admiralty and the War Office, beds have been provided for nearly 5,000 discharged sailors and soldiers suffering from tuberculosis. Insurance committees have, in addition, provided beds under the ordinary arrangements for a considerable number of discharged men, but I have no information as to the exact number.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say how many of these 5,000 discharged soldiers suffering from tuberculosis have any pension?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: No, Sir, I have no information on that at the moment.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the committees have not sufficient funds in hand to deal with the civilian population; and is lie aware that this admission of soldiers is increasing the waiting list of civilians?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right.

  MEDICAL SERVICE INQUIRIES.
  Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Derbyshire Insurance Committee propose to charge the practitioners concerned with the estimated cost of medical service subcommittee inquiries; and whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent the Derbyshire or any other insurance committee from taking such action, which is giving rise in the medical profession to dissatisfaction with the administration of medical benefit?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: My attention had not been drawn to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, but in the event of any dispute arising between insurance committees and the practitioners, the latter have the right of appeal to the Commissioners who would, thereupon, deal with the question.

  DOCTORS' REMUNERATION (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has
  968
  been drawn to the dissatisfaction which exists amongst medical practitioners in Monmouthshire at the payments in advance of remuneration for last year being reduced by 30 per cent, of the amount due as shown by the insured persons on the doctors' lists; and whether any steps can be taken to make a further payment on account forthwith?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I have made inquiries, and am informed that the Monmouthshire Insurance Committee have reserved a small margin, not exceeding 5 ½ per cent., from the advance payments suggested by the Commissioners. I am, however, in communication with the insurance committee with a view to such further sums being advanced as the local conditions will justify.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    DISCHARGED NAVAL RATING.
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that Fireman Arthur Young was given a naval certificate of discharge from His Majesty's Ship "Victory," dated 6th October, 1916, stating that he was rejected after naval medical examination; that a few days later this man received his calling-up papers for the Army; that on these instructions he went with his naval certificate of discharge to the military recruiting officer at Newport on 19th December; that he was passed as fit for home service and was sent direct to Portsmouth and placed in the Devon's Labour Battalion; and whether, seeing that since joining the Army he has received his invalid's badge from the Admiralty for services rendered and has produced the same to his superior officers, the Admiralty will take steps to have the man reexamined with a view to being returned to the Navy, which he is desirous of doing?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Inquiry is being made. I will communicate the result to my hon. and gallant Friend.

  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would be possible to give a list of the names of all men of military age in the superior grades of the Civil Government

  969
  Departments and in non-combatant employment in the Admiralty and War Office?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that such a Return is necessary. The Director of National Service is continuing the policy of the Man-Power Board, and is taking steps to secure that all men of military age employed in Government Departments who can possibly be spared should be made available for military service.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to give some authority outside the walls of these special offices power of reviewing decisions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The power is in the hands of the Director of National Service.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a list applicable to the present Government?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether these men in Government Departments are subject to re-examination like engineering draughts-men and people doing Government work?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Every Department has been subjected to the most thorough examination with a view to getting every possible man.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education has sanctioned the calling up of a teacher named D. F. Griffiths, of Llanelly, passed as C 3, in defiance of the Board of Education Circular 952; and, if so, why?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The case of Mr. D. F. Griffiths, who is a conscientious objector, has, I understand, been dealt with under the Military Service Acts by the Central Tribunal, who granted his exemption from military service on condition that he undertook work of national importance to be approved by them. They were not prepared to approve the work of teaching in a school for that purpose. Circular 952 describes what is merely an administrative arrangement under which the decision on any particular case is reserved to the Army Council. The Board have no authority to use it in such a way as to override the decision of a statutory tribunal under the Military Service Acts.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that national education is not regarded as work of national importance? Cannot the Department do something to impress upon such a tribunal the importance of teaching as a work of national importance?
  Mr. FISHER: I did not imply that the view of the Board of Education coincided with the view of the tribunal.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that a man who has these antecedents and who holds these opinions would be strongly resented by the great bulk of parents and that his work in that capacity would not be to the national advantage?

  MINIMUM AGE FOR RECRUITS.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Attorney-General whether he will state the minimum age at which recruits may be taken for the Army; and whether any difference exists between the age in Ireland and the age in England?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): There is no legal minimum age in cases of voluntary enlistment. The earliest date at which recruits can be required to report for Service under the Military Service Acts is the 30th day after attainment of the age of eighteen. For special employment in particular branches youths under that age are accepted for direct enlistment if they otter themselves voluntarily. In respect to the minimum age of enlistment there is no difference between Ireland and England. A limited number of boys are enlisted as such for training as bandsmen, tailors and artificers, etc. Boys selected for enlistment as such must be fourteen years of age and under sixteen years, and possess certain educational qualifications.
  Mr. LYNCH: Has the War Office the legal right to keep a boy in the Army in spite of the protests and requests of his parents?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no legal minimum age in the case of voluntary enlistment. It actually does happen that a boy under eighteen years of ago, but probably over sixteen years, from highly patriotic motives comes forward, and enlists, and is passed by the doctor.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a pledge was given in this

  971
  House that no boy under seventeen years of age should be retained in the Army? Is it not a fact that the War Office undertook six months ago to release on application every boy who proved to be under seventeen years of age?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member is quite right. My right hon. Friend did give such a promise, but that promise applied to existing conditions. Since then we have issued new Regulations.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the new Regulations only reduces it by six months, and in spite of that the War Office allow these things to go on?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The new Regulations say that none of these boys will be discharged. If a boy is under seventeen years of age he will not be discharged, but will be placed on the Reserve.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will a boy be kept in the Army if documentary evidence can be given that he is only fifteen?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The only promise I can definitely make according to the Regulations is that no boy will be sent abroad until he is nineteen years of age.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY:If a boy under seventeen years of age be in delicate health and if his father apply for his discharge will it be granted?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised a particular question like that. We are always prepared to discuss and investigate a particular case on its merits. If a case such as my hon. Friend brings to my notice is brought to the notice of the Director of Recruiting I feel sure that the boy would be able to be discharged.

  ROYAL NAVY (PAY AND PROMOTION).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether men who have joined the Navy for the duration of hostilities have the same rights as to progressive pay and promotion as regular sailors?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir.

  LOSS OF SHIPS.
  Mr. HOLTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether all the following ships, the loss of which has been reported, were sunk by submarines, namely, "Cilicia," 3,750 tons; "Ferga," 791 tons; "Margarita," 375 tons; "Ashwold," 129 tons; "Ireland," 152 tons; and "King Alfred"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not the policy to announce how ships are sunk, or where. Both these facts are of use to the enemy. As my hon. Friend is aware, information that a vessel is sunk or damaged is communicated confidentially to the shipowners concerned and to Lloyd's.
  Mr. HOLT: Having regard to the great importance of not giving the public an exaggerated notion of the victims of the German submarine campaign, will the right hon. Gentleman, through the Press Bureau, prevent the Press from definitely ascribing the loss of ships to submarines, as the Press can have no knowledge that a submarine was either directly or indirectly the cause of the loss?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that we make no announcements as to how ships are sunk, therefore if any statements have appeared that ships have been sunk by submarines that cannot be in consequence of official information from us. I will make a note of the suggestion of my hon. Friend that some steps should be taken in regard to the matter.

  DARDANELLES COMMISSION.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Dardanelles Commission has been received by the Government; and, if so, when the Report will be accessible to Members?
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the Interim Report and any Minority Report of the Dardanelles Commission and as to the publication of such Report, with or without the evidence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report will be published and will. I hope, be in the hands of Members in a few days.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the evidence be published?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Minority Report will be published but not the evidence, as at present advised.

  MINISTERS' SALARIES.
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Prime Minister if he will state the present number of Ministers of the Crown, and the total amount of the salaries paid to these Ministers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is thirty-four, and to the second part £133,500.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman only include Members who, in ordinary circumstances, should be Cabinet Ministers or does he include Under-Secretaries? Does not the whole company, with Secretaries and Under-Secretaries, who are not Ministers of the Cabinet, amount to eighty-two—two full quorums of the House of Commons?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This answer includes those who in ordinary times are designated Ministers. It does not include Under-Secretaries.
  Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the number of additional Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries appointed since the present Government took office, and what is the total yearly sum to be paid to them; (2) what is the number of Departments created since the Government took office, and the number and total pay of the officials appointed thereto; and what number of buildings have been requisitioned or erected to house these Departments and officials?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The new Departments created by the present Government in addition to the Labour and Pensions Ministries are those under the food Controller, the Shipping Controller, and the Director of National Service. The names of the Ministers and of the Parliamentary Secretaries have been already announced as well as the salaries, with the exception of that of the Director of National Service, whose salary will be fixed at £2,000 a year. The Ministries are housed as follows:—

  1. Labour in Montagu House.

  2. Pensions: The Headquarters in Great George Street, with branches at Tate Gallery, Duke of York's School, Chelsea; Baker Street, Marylebone Town Hall.

  3. Food: Controller in Grosvenor House, with branches at 18 and 29, Upper Grosvener Street and 35, Park Street.

  974

  4. Shipping: Controller in the Transport Department of the Admiralty, with a branch in the Lake Buildings, St. James's Park.

  5. National Service in St. Ermin's Hotel: Details of the staff would necessarily be accurate only for the actual date on which they were prepared, and to give them would involve an amount of work on the part of officials, which, in view of the high pressure in all Departments, it would not, in my opinion, be right to ask them to undertake.

  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question as to the number of additional Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries appointed since the present Government took office?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered that.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman gave the total number?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope my right hon. Friend is not unwilling to look up the previous statement himself.

  DUKES OF CUMBERLAND AND ALBANY.
  Mr. S. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister on what grounds are the Dukes of Cumberland and Albany, now in arms against the Sovereign and people of this country, who so far back as the 13th May, 1915, have been struck off the roll of the Knights of the Garter, still permitted to retain the rank, style, and dignity of Royal Highness Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in the case of the Duke of Albany, G. C.V.O., of which they can be deprived by the exercise of the prerogative on the advice of a responsible Minister of the Crown; whether he is aware of the sinister construction placed on the retention of these traitorous personages in possession of the highest honours in the gift of the Crown when contrasted with the severity with which treason has been visited in the case of traitors in humbler walks of life; and whether he will immediately advise the exercise of the Royal prerogative for the divesting of these persons of honours whose retention by them is a standing insult to the Sovereign

  975
  and people of these countries and calculated to create a belief in the lack of moral earnestness in the prosecution of the War and the issues involved therein?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Bill in which the hon. Member is interested is now ready and will be introduced in another place next week. I think, therefore, the whole subject had better be postponed until the Bill has been discussed.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that a Bill can have no force whatever in depriving these people of the title of Royal Highness and Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which, like the Order of the Bath, is a simple act of the prerogative, and why has the Prime Minister not stated, as is his imperative duty, that these people would be struck off the Rolls?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am not aware of that, and my legal advisers tell me some of the cases have to be dealt with by Bill.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a contrast is being drawn between the treatment accorded to these highly-placed Royal personages and that accorded to Captain Riepenhausen, who has been persecuted for being a Hanoverian, as George I. and George II. Were?

  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH'S COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee, on the subjects referred to it, will be published.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A copy has been laid upon the Table of the House.

  STATE CONTROL OF MINES.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Prime Minister what financial and other arrangements have been made for the transfer of the coal mines in the United Kingdom to the State and for their control by the new Controller of Mines; and what changes, if any, will be made in the position of the miners and in their present rates of pay under the new scheme?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The Prime Minster has asked me to answer this question. I am
  976
  not yet in a position to make any statement on the arrangements which the Controller of Coal Mines will propose.
  Mr. MILLAR: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to make a statement on this very important matter, and is it not desirable that a statement should be made in the House of Commons at as early a date as possible, seeing that an announcement has already been made to the Press?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I recognise the desirability of an early statement being made, but having regard to the recent appointment of the Controller. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for further consideration.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  Mr. D. MASONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can inform the House what measures, if any, His Majesty's Government intend to propose for the financial improvement of school teachers?
  Mr. FISHER: The matter is receiving my most careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. MASON: When?
  Mr. FISHER: I am afraid I can give no date.
  Mr. DENNISSasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the numbers of the boys and of the girls, respectively, who are known to the Board of Education as preparing to qualify for the position of teachers in public elementary schools?
  Mr. FISHER: The total number of boys and girls (including in each case students in training colleges for elementary school teachers) known to the Board at the beginning of the year 1916–17 to be preparing to become teachers in public elementary schools was 22,858, namely, 2,914 boys and 19,944 girls. This number includes boys and girls in all stages of their preparation. I am sending the detailed figures to the hon. Member.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough): Does not this scale show a serious decline compared with previous years?
  Mr. FISHER: I am not in a position To say.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Education whether any steps are being taken to increase the salaries of certificated teachers in public elementary schools during the war?
  Mr. FISHER: As the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware, teachers in public elementary schools are applying in many areas to the local education authorities for improvement of their salaries. Many authorities have granted increases of salary, usually by way of war bonus. The problem of securing a permanent improvement in the remuneration of the teaching profession is one which I need hardly say is regarded by me as of the first importance.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a fair position that while in some localities teachers should get an increase of salary, in others it should be denied to them, though they are all suffering?
  Mr. FISHER: That, I take it, is part of the price we pay for having our system of education managed partly by central authority and partly by local authority.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Assuming that local authorities are anxious and willing to increase the salaries of the teachers, will the Board of Education make them a larger grant?
  Mr. FISHER: The Board of Education is considering very seriously the question of teachers' salaries, and I need hardly say, considering it in a spirit of sympathy.

  WAR LOAN.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total amount subscribed to the War Loan and the number of subscribers in the different classes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The number of applications received on the last day of the Loan has been so large that although the officials have been working every day and night there are still 200,000 or 300,000 applications which have not been dealt with. More applications are coining in from all over the country, which will not reach the banks perhaps for a day or two. In these circumstances it will be impossible to give
    978
    details of the figures until the beginning of next week. I am glad to say, however, that I am already in a position to state that the Loan has succeeded to a greater extent, not only than I expected, but than I hoped. I trust, however, that what I have just said will not encourage exaggerated and indeed impossible estimates, which may create the danger that, what I consider the amazing financial effort of this country, will be minimised when the actual figures are known. To keep a sense of proportion it will be well to bear in mind what was expected when the Loan was issued. I met the financial representatives, of the City and I was asked what amount of new money, including Treasury Bills— which for this purpose are new money—I should consider necessary to make the Loan a success, and in my reply I stated a figure which was much higher than my anticipations, though not higher than my hopes. That figure was £600,000,000. I am glad to be able to say to the House now that that amount, without any direct contributions from the banks, which obviously must be avoided if possible, has been already exceeded, and though it is impossible to estimate the excess by twenty millions, or perhaps even by fifty millions, I am glad to say that the excess will certainly amount to one hundred millions.

  SEIZURE AND SALE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what Statute the Government claim the right to seize private property and sell it?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The question asked by my right hon. Friend is somewhat general in its terms, and it is not known to what property he particularly refers. The right in question is conferred upon the Crown by a variety of Statutes dealing with a variety of classes of property. Without attempting an exhaustive enumeration reference may be made to the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1875, the Military Lands Acts, 1891 to 1900, the Naval Prize Acts, 1864, the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915, and the Customs Acts. In addition to the powers conferred by the above Statutes and the Regulations made in pursuance thereof the Crown in times of grave public danger,

  979
  such as the present, possesses prerogative powers, never precisely defined, but extremely wide, for dealing with the property of subjects where the exercise of such powers is necessary, in relation to the immediate danger, for securing the public safely and defence of the Realm.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform me under what Statute is derived the right to take wool and sell it abroad in order to maintain exchange?
  Sir F. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of any specific case. I think he will find a warrant in the Regulations ot the Defence of the Realm Act.

  INCOME TAX (BELGIAN WORKMEN).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any abatement may be claimed in the quarterly payment of Income Tax by Belgian workmen who are helping to maintain a home in this country during the War and are remitting regularly to support their wives and families in Belgium; and, if so, can he state the extent of such allowance?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Weekly wage earners of whatever nationality who are chargeable to Income Tax by quarterly assessment are allowed the statutory deduction of £25 for each child under the age of sixteen years. Also, wherever, owing to exceptional conditions mainly arising out of the War, a wage earner is employed away from home, a deduction is allowed in respect of the additional cost of living away from home—up to a maximum of 2s. 6d. per day—provided that he does not receive any additional payment beyond his taxable earnings in respect of such additional cost. Apart from the allowance for children the law does not permit any deduction for Income Tax purposes to any taxpayer in respect of payments for the support of dependent relatives.

  FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Leicester, Harborough)asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he will
  980
  issue as a White Paper the statistics on franchise and redistribution presented to the Speaker's Conference?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I understand that the only official statistics which were circulated to the Speaker's Conference were figures taken from the Parliamentary Returns 1908, No. 364, and 1915, No. 120, or from the Census Returns of 1911. I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by issuing them in the form suggested.

  WORKHOUSE RATIONS.
  Mr. FELLasked if a revised scale of rations for the workhouses of the country has been sanctioned to bring them within the scale laid down by the Food Controller; and if the amount of 8 lbs. of bread per week is still allowed for each inmate, compared with the 4 lbs. allowed to other persons?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My Noble Friend is in communication with the Food Controller with regard to workhouse dietaries, and revised instructions will be issued at an early date.
  Mr. FELL: As a great amount of interest is taken in this question by a large number of people, I hope that there will be no delay.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: We are awaiting the decision of the Food Controller, who unfortunately is ill.

  NATIONAL SERVICE (DENTISTS).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the Ministry of National Service, if dentistry is regarded as work of national importance; and, if so, will he take action in the case of Ernest Longton, of 95, Bradshaw Gate, Bolton, a dental practitioner, who attends an average of thirty patients daily, and who has been ordered by the tribunal to leave this work and secure alternative service; and if the Director of National Service will take steps to put an end to such waste of national service as is caused by such cases as this, where men are taken from work of public necessity to work which they are not accustomed, and at which they are therefore inefficient?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am informed that the case is now before the Appeal Tribunal, and therefore I must refrain from any comment on it. I may observe, however, that the hon. Member does not give any indication in his question of the fact that the application for exemption in this case was made on conscientious grounds.

  OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the late hour at which the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the previous day's House of Commons proceedings are now issued to hon. Members and are available in the Vote Office; whether the printer's contract provides for these Reports being available at any fixed hour each morning; if so, at what hour the Reports should be delivered; whether, in case this condition is not carried out, the printers are liable to fine or deduction; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): The delay in distributing the daily Reports is due solely to shortage of labour at the printers. Steps are being taken by His Majesty's Stationery Office, with the aid of the Director of Recruiting, to obtain the necessary men to enable the Reports to be circulated up to time.
  Mr. KING: Cannot we have some information about the fine which is payable in case of delay?

  PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division), whether the Dutch Minister at Berlin has received permission to inspect British prisoners' camps, both civilian and military?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): There is no reason to suppose that the permission granted to the United States Embassy at Berlin to inspect camps, which was based on the principle of reciprocity, will not automatically be extended to the Netherland Legation at Berlin.
  Mr. BUXTONasked whether any further Reports furnished by the American Ambassador to Berlin, before his departure from Germany, on the condition of British prisoners at Ruhleben remain to be published?
  Mr. HOPE: The last Report on Ruhleben furnished by the American Ambassador was dated August, 1916. No such Reports can be published without the consent of the United States Government.
  Mr. NIELDasked whether the enemy prisoners of war receive parcels of food from Germany or Austria; if so, what is the weekly average of such parcels and are the contents of such parcels taken into account to the relief of rations served out to such prisoners at the expense of the public funds of this country; are parcels of similar character received by interned alien enemies; and are the same rules applied to them as to prisoners of war?
  Mr. HOPE: Prisoners of war, combatant and civilian, in this country are permitted to receive parcels containing food from Germany and Austria. I regret that it is not possible, without lengthy inquiry, to state the weekly average of such parcels. It is not the practice in this country, nor, so far as I am informed, in any belligerent country, to take into account the supplies so received in calculating the ration issued to such prisoners.
  Mr. NIELDasked when the Committee, consisting of all the Departments interested in the feeding of enemy prisoners of war and interned alien enemies, met, and when may they be expected to arrive at a decision concerning the new scale of rationing; and what is the need for prolonged consideration of the question unless the proposed new scale is to be less than that prescribed by the Food Controller for voluntary acceptance by the public in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HOPE: The Committee in question has concluded its inquiry, and the result will be published in the course of the next few days as an Army Council Instruction. The fixing of the scale has involved elaborate calculations of supplies, prices, and calories, and has caused unavoidable discussion between the Departments concerned.

  PART-WORN CLOTHING (ARMY).
  Major HENRY TERRELL(by Private, notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether last month an Order was issued to officers commanding battalions in France in the following terms:—
  "26. Issue of part-worn clothing service dress: The following extract from Army

  983
  Council Instruction No. 1321 of 1916 is published for information and guidance."
  "Utilisation of part-worn service dress clothing: This is an emergency measure to meet existing conditions, and though the standard of the renovated part-worn clothing may be much below that of ordinary peace issue it must be accepted without question and continued in wear to the utmost possible extent. So long as wearable no objection to its reissue can be entertained," and whether such Order was issued in consequence of complaints and protests, etc., to the quality of the part-worn clothing issued?
  Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries have been made of the Commander-in-Chief in France, and I am informed that no general routine Order or Army Order of the kind mentioned has been issued. If my hon. Friend will let me know where and to whom the order in question was issued it will save a great deal of trouble and assist investigation.
  Major TERRELL: The answer is so unsatisfactory and the matter so urgent that I shall bring it up again. I did not mention a routine Order, I did not mention a general Army Order, but it was from an Army Corps Order, and I have an extract from the Order in my hand?
  Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend had given me the Order, as I asked him to do when he spoke about this question before, it would have saved the military authorities both in this country and in France a great deal of trouble.
  Major TERRELL: The hon. Gentleman did not ask me for a copy of the Order. He asked me for the name of the unit from which I got my information. I offered to give the name on an undertaking that the officer commanding that unit should not suffer for giving me that information, and I was told that the general officer, director of supplies, could not give any such undertaking?
  Mr. FORSTER: And I told my hon. Friend that no British officer who looks after the interests of his men properly will get into trouble.

  Persia.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Swedish
  984
  gendarmerie in Persia is to be reorganised under fresh Swedish instructors, as recently reported?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The answer is in the-negative.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what Orders will be taken to-day and to-morrow, and can we now be told on what day we shall have the statement by the Prime Minister as to restrictions of imports?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have decided on very drastic restrictions of imports. In order to protect both our Allies and the Dominions, it has been necessary to consult them, and we had hoped that communications would have been finished in time for the Prime Minister to make his statement to-day, but we have had delay. The statement will, however, be made on Thursday.
  To-day we propose to take the remaining Supplementary Estimates, and we hope the Grand Juries Bill and the Second Reading of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  To-morrow we will take the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and we hope that the House will also allow the Second Reading of the Bill setting up National Service.
  Mr. KING: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill is a larger measure. It was only circulated this morning. There is a very great deal of interest in it, and it also raises such subjects that if there was some private conversation about them at first it would facilitate matters. May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to take the Second Reading to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite recognise what the hon. Member has said, but for the reasons which I have stated I hope the House, as a whole, will be ready to consider the Second Reading; but should there be any objection to this, I shall not press it.

SALARIES OF MEMBERS.
Major NEWMAN(by Private Notice): I "beg to ask whether, when a Member, elected to this House, finds himself unable or neglects to take the Oath of Allegiance, he is entitled to draw such salary as may be paid from public funds to Members of the House of Commons for the time being?
Mr. SPEAKER: A difficulty has arisen with regard to this matter, because it appears to me that on the strict construction of the Vote which has been passed in previous Sessions for Members' salaries it will be possible for a Member to qualify to obtain his salary and yet put himself in such a position that he would not be qualified to sit and vote—that is to say, the Member would be paid his salary, yet would be unable to perform any of his duties. I do not think that is a position, which the House intended that any Member should occupy. But there are certain difficult questions arising with regard to it, and I am taking time to consider how they can best be dealt with. Perhaps, if the hon. and gallant Member will renew his question on another day, within a few days, then I may be able to give him a more definite reply.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.
SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL GRANTS).—Class VII.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
Mr. BOOTH: I regret to have to move the reduction of the Vote by £100, but I do so in order to call attention to one of the most cruel-hearted swindles ever perpetrated by Government officials upon the citizens of the country. I think that hon. Members, in passing the Insurance Act, were in agreement as to the treatment of tuberculosis, but I regret to say

1017
that the interpretation of their intentions, at any rate by the late Government and officials, in administering the tuberculosis branch of insurance, have not fulfilled those intentions. The argument is used by Government Departments that all these persons who have paid their premiums for years under a definite contract are, legally, entitled to no benefit at all. If there happens to be a little money to spare, an applicant can have a bed in a sanatorium. It is monstrous that the approved societies should be held to their bargain to pay sickness benefit and disability benefit, if the State, whether it is doing well or badly, whether the funds are mounting or decreasing, docs not, itself, in retaining the right to administer sanatorium benefit, perform its contract. It is well known that all approved societies are responsible to the insured persons, and the Insurance Commissioners themselves are the first to take up the case of any insured person and to compel the approved society to honour its contract. What do we find now? We have here a paltry sum of £27,000 in the Supplementary Estimate, though it is well-known that all over the country there has been a lamentable deficiency, notwithstanding that there has been no reluctance on the part of this House to vote the necessary money. I do not know any quarter of the House where there, has been any reluctance on the part of any group or party to fulfil the intentions of the House in this matter of the treatment of tuberculosis. I ventured, when the late Government was in office, to point out that there was great dissatisfaction in the country in regard to this subject. I am not a London Member, but I went on to the London Insurance Committee dealing with sanatorium benefit. I thought it was a convenient method of finding out at first hand about poor persons suffering from this dreadful disease, and who were waiting in vain to obtain sanatorium treatment. I brought the matter before the Government time after time, but it was minimised, and the House were given misleading statements. I can give an instance of the kind of statement the Government was making upon this question. In the autumn of 1915, and again in the autumn of 1916, I put a question just to test this manufacture of evasive answers. They stated to the House that the numbers on the waiting list were diminishing, and that
1018
the problem was lessening, though they knew quite well, these officials who supplied the hon. Member for Lincoln with this statement, to mislead the House——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member is in order in raising the question on this Supplementary Vote, for if he looks at the details of the Estimate he will see that the £27,000 is to be allocated to the Local Government Board for Scotland, owing to the expenditure of local authorities being greater than that anticipated.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: On the point of Order, Sir. I would point out that the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) has already accused me of being party to a swindle under the Act, and I wish to have the opportunity to reply, for I should be very glad indeed of the chance to meet him, either on this or on any other occasion. I repeat that the hon. Member has made an accusation to which I should like the chance to reply.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. BOOTH: May I submit that if I can prove that the deficiency in England is even more insistent and more terrible than the deficiency in Scotland, then I have a right to ask on this Vote for £27,000 that it should not be granted to put Scotland right without something being done for England in the same direction. That is my argument. I am moving a reduction of £100, and my contention is that this House ought not to make up an admitted deficiency in relation to Scotland without dealing with the still greater deficiency in this country.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Vote deals with the Scottish case and no other, and the hon. Member must confine himself to that. I did not quite catch the remarks of the hon. Member for Ponte-fract with reference to the hon. Member for Lincoln, but the hon. Member for Lincoln, I understand, emphatically denies the allegation, whatever it was. We cannot go into that here, however, because this Vote applies to Scotland only.
Mr. BOOTH: But the hon. Member cannot deny it.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Lincoln did deny what the hon. Member stated.
Mr. ROBERTS: I have it, and I do so again.
Mr. BOOTH: I venture to submit that this money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the whole of the United Kingdom. It has been admitted by the hon. Member's successors that the estimate was hopelessly wrong, and that the deficiency is much larger.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Vote, which applies to Scotland only.
Mr. BOOTH: I propose to deal with the question from the Scottish point of view; I will give it a Scottish colouring.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to facts in regard to the Scottish case.
Mr. BOOTH: I have taken pains to make myself acquainted with the position in Scotland. I have been on a tour of examination with the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie), and we had sittings both in Glasgow and in Edinburgh in order to find out the position in regard to tuberculosis, and I would like to deal with some of the evidence we had in Scotland on this point. The City of Glasgow authorities claimed to be dealing with the tuberculosis problem, and the clerk of the committee (Mr. Jones) gave evidence before us. We were obliged to admit that they were dealing with the subject in a complete way. But I am bound to point this out: It was simply because the Glasgow City Council was doing its duty. The Insurance Commissioners themselves could not possibly cope with tuberculosis. Here we have a contribution—it is nothing more than that—of £27,000. It is a mere Grant-in-Aid, and the fact is that the City Corporation of Glasgow, which has the rates at its back, has itself taken up this question of tuberculosis and made provision for dealing with it. Although I am not allowed to mention English cases, I have no doubt hon. Members will draw the inference as to what might be done in this country in a similar direction. I pointed out to Mr. Jones in one of my questions that he was proving that the insured persons were being compelled to pay twice over. There are one or two places in this country, among them Bolton and Brighton, where the authorities are acting in a way similar to that at Glasgow. They are attempting thus to solve the problem, but I submit it is a great hardship to the insured persons, because they are taxpayers and ratepayers, and at the same this House, with an iron
1020
hand, has compulsorily deprived them of part of their weekly wages, telling them it can spend the money better than they can. That was a very strong step on the part of this House, and it was objected to by two or three hon. Members, as well as by myself, very strongly; still, apart from them, the House unanimously voted for compulsion. Rates and taxes are taken by compulsion. The weekly contribution is taken from the insured worker by compulsion in order that tuberculosis may be dealt with. I would ask the hon. Member who is to reply on behalf of the Government, whose services on the London County Council we all acknowledge, how he can justify an insured person being compelled to pay twice for sanatorium treatment, whereas the non-insured persons pays only once?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not now dealing with the Scottish case.
Mr. BOOTH: Yes, I am dealing with the case of Glasgow now.
Mr. BOOTH: Yes, I am dealing with the case of Glasgow now. There are other counties and towns in Scotland where, instead of conferring the boon on the insured worker, they are really being taxed and are getting no benefit. I want to ask why, when an enlightened community like Glasgow, deals with this problem and meets the expenses out of the rates, this House does not fulfil its promise in the matter? Why should we go on with these grants unless the Government recognises its obligations? Why should not the city of Glasgow do more and save this country this £27,000? If you are going to push the burden on the ratepayers, why not let them shoulder it altogether? How is it possible to defend the position that, in an enlightened community only, the insured person pays twice, while in the backward community he only pays once? I do not know what excuse will be given by the Government for this small Supplementary Vote. It will not meet the ease. There will still be numbers of insured persons in Scotland who will consider that they have been swindled in the same way as scores of thousands of people in England feel. I admit they have not the same waiting list in Scotland as here. It is a matter of considerable regret to mc that I am compelled to confine my observations solely to the Scottish aspect. I wish we could deal with England as well as

1021
with Scotland. I could submit some really terrible cases, but under your ruling I am not entitled to do so; cases in regard to which I was going to suggest that the bon. Member for Lincoln and the Government officials would have some difficulty in escaping from a moral charge of manslaughter.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member 13 again going beyond the Vote, and I must ask him to confine his observations to it.
Mr. BOOTH: I regret your ruling, because the subject is uppermost in my mind at the moment, and I feel it very keenly. I have been bombarded with letters from men at the point of death——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, whether deliberately or not, I will not say, is transgressing my ruling.
Mr. BOOTH: Then I will give notice that whenever I get an opportunity I will take it in order to state the real facts of this case.
Mr. PRINGLE: I understand that this is a Supplementary Vote. The original Estimate, according to the Paper, was £455,000. I assumed that that sum was voted for the purpose of the tuberculosis benefit for the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope the hon. Member who is to speak for the Department will tell us what proportion of the original Estimate was designed for Scotland, and then we can see to what extent the original Estimate has been exceeded so far as Scotland is concerned. The Vote as it stands looks as if it were intended to mislead the reader, because it is only at the bottom of the page we find, in extremely small type, a statement to the effect that the amount allocated to the Local Government Board for Scotland proved to be insufficient owing to the expenditure of the local authorities being greater than was anticipated. We therefore want to know how much of the original Estimate was intended to apply to Scotland. I also think that the Committee is entitled to something more than a bold statement. We ought to be told clearly the reasons why the Estimate was exceeded.
Mr. CURRIE: As the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has stated, I was engaged with him in making investigations in Scotland into this matter. I did not know anything in the nature of a general discussion was to be embarked on
1022
this afternoon, and, as the Report of the Commission to which he referred is not yet in the hands of hon. Members, I would prefer for the present to defer any remarks I have to make on the general subject. It is quite true I share my hon. Friend's view that the administration of the tuberculosis benefit is not satisfactory, and that in that regard there is a good deal of room for improvement. I have no difficulty in associating myself with what my Friend said on that point, but I am bound to add, in fairness to the hon. Member for Lincoln, that I cannot go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. I would not like to be regarded for a moment as charging him with personal and intentional misrepresentation. I admit some of his answers were unsatisfactory, but that is quite another thing.
Mr. ROBERTS: I need hardly say I shall be most careful to observe the ruling we have had from the Chairman, although it has put me in a very embarassing position seeing that I have been exposed to general charges by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and have no opportunity of replying to them.
Mr. BOOTH: I shall make them again.
Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Member has had many opportunities in the last week or so to raise this whole question, and I hope he will take an early opportunity of doing so, because I shall be glad to have a chance of discussing statements he has made, both in this House and out of it. I give him notice that I shall take care to ask him to justify certain statements he has made.
Mr. BOOTH: I can do it, and more.
Mr. ROBERTS: I now come to this particular Vote. As a matter of fact, I do not think the Scottish people have any reason to think that they have been treated any worse or any better than the English people, or than any other part of the United Kingdom. The Committee knows, I think, that there are circumstances which have reduced the general amount of money available for the treatment of tuberculosis throughout the country. I regret that, and I should be very glad if the deficit could be made up, but this particular Vote has nothing to do with that. It refers only to a particular arrangement for the treatment of dependants of insured persons under Section 17 of the Insurance Act, 1911. Therefore, the whole

1023
question of the general reduction is absolutely out of order. As the Committee will perhaps remember, the dependants, the non-insured population, can either be dealt with by joint agreements made between the local authorities and the insurance committees by means of what is known as the Hobhouse grant, or under Section 17 of this particular Act it is possible for a county borough of a county to make arrangements, if they please, for giving sanatorium benefit to the dependants of insured persons, and then any excess moneys which this arrangement throws upon them are divided between the Treasury and the county authorities. It is that arrangement only which is the issue at the present time. Some of the counties in Scotland have made a more extensive use of this arrangement under Section 17 than was anticipated, and consequently an extra amount falls, I imagine, upon the Treasury to defray, and therefore the Treasury comes for a Supplementary Estimate. It is not a Vote for the Scottish insurance at all. It is a Treasury Vote put down for the Treasury, and therefore all these extraneous questions which it is attempted to bring in, and which once more I shall be very glad indeed to have a chance of dealing with in this House later on, simply do not arise on this Vote.
Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): The hon. Member for Lincoln has explained to the Committee what the origin of the Vote is, and I think I can give a little more explanation of the details on the point raised by the hon. Member for Lanark. The original Vote in the 1916–17 Estimates was for £425,000, and of that £75,000 was the estimate for the Vote for Scotland. When the amount has been sanctioned the control of expenditure passes, for all practical purposes, out of the hands of the Treasury, and is controlled by the three Local Government Boards for England. Scotland, and Ireland, and by the Welsh Commissioners for Wales. All, therefore, that remains for the Treasury to do is to pay up 50 per cent, of the net cost when the accounts are sent in. Now this Scottish Vote has been exceeded, and the amount that is duo to be provided for to meet the deficiency owed by the Treasury comes to £27,000, the sum for which we are asking powers in this Supplementary Vote. We felt, in asking the Committee to assent to this Vote, that it would not be right for us to
1024
keep the local authorities out of their money, but at the same time we felt that, as the Estimate has been exceeded, and especially as it has been exceeded only in the case of one of the countries concerned, we have a right to ask them how it comes that in a year when we think that extraordinary precautions should be taken, the Estimate has been exceeded, and we are told that the increased expenditure has arisen partly from the increased cost of treatment—and, of course, that is common really to all the countries concerned—but mainly owing to an increase in the number of cases they have had to assist, and in the early and unexpected completion of certain sanatoria in Scotland which has led to an increase in the standing charges of those establishments. We have not yet completed our investigations into the causes, as they have been reported to us, but we feel satisfied that we are doing right in asking the Committee to agree to this Vote, that we may hand over to the local authorities in Scotland the balance of the money due to them. I hope that with this explanation the Committee will allow this Vote to pass.
Mr. PRINGLE: I will put one further question. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this acceleration on the part of the local authorities in Scotland has been due to a desire to meet the needs of the military authorities? It is suggested that in one case at least the completion of a sanatorium was accelerated for that purpose, so as to provide a hospital for wounded men, and possibly this may account for the increase in the grant.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am sorry I cannot definitely answer the point raised by my hon. Friend. My information is that in any case where sanatoria have been completed the reason why the work was proceeded with was because it had gone so far that it would have been wasteful to stop it.
Mr. BOOTH: After that courteous explanation from the two representatives of the Government, the House will not expect me to move a reduction, which I should have done if it had applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, but I must express my regret that the explanatory note was not put in a clearer form. There is nothing in if to indicate that no part of the Vote went to England. I would like to draw the attention of the - Committee to this, that one of the great

1025
merits claimed for the Insurance Act when it was passed has evidently been fulfilled as shown by the Vote. It was meant to encourage local authorities to spend their own money in grappling with this disease, and where they did, they were entitled, as has been stated on the Front Bench, to certain grants. This is a case where evidently the authorities In Scotland have been acting up to their duties, and therefore they are entitled to this Grant, so that in addition to the direct benefit of the Insurance Act, although it has its faults, there was also the indirect benefit that it has been the means, in Scotland, at any rate, and I think to some extent in England, of inducing local authorities to do a little more in grappling with this disease than they would have done if the Act had not been passed. I think that result should be 'claimed as a merit for the original passing of the Act.
Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending or the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to call attention to a subject under this head, namely, the arrangements which have been made in connection with the combing out of munition workers. I understand that my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Ministry of Munitions is prepared to make a statement on that subject. Most hon. Members are familiar with the agitation which has recently taken place in regard to what has been called the combing out of munition workers. In order to meet this outside agitation I understand that certain concessions were made by the Ministry of Munitions, and an agreement was come to that all men under a certain age would be made available for military service, and at the same time that others who in the past, apart from age, had been exempted from service because they were medically unfit, would be subjected to medical re-examination. But an exception was made, and under this exception special privileges were granted. Certain agreements were made—I do not know exactly who were the parties to these agreements—with the representatives of certain trade unions
1026
that any man who was a member of one of these trade unions, and consequently had a trade union card, would be exempted from either of these processes of combing out. Nobody would object to exemptions being granted solely on the ground of the special skill of the individual worker. If, for example, he belonged to a trade union which included all the men specially skilled in one particular craft, it would be perfectly fair that a trade union card of that particular union should give him the right to exemption, but unfortunately the arrangement, as I understand it, does not have this result. In the first place, it is not confined to unions of skilled men, unions of craftsmen. It extends to other unions, the members of which can by no stretch of imagination be described as skilled men. I understand that several of these unions are simply unions of general labourers, unions anybody can become a member of without any qualification, simply on the payment of the membership fee. Obviously, if this concession is extended to unions so constituted, we have a great abuse. You are really, under cover of this privilege to a particular union, giving exemption to men who have no particular skill at all, and consequently not retaining for munitions work the only men who ought to be retained, namely, the men who have some particular skill. I hope that my hon. Friend in the course of his reply will give to the Committee the names of the unions to which this particular privilege is extended. We want to know who it was that negotiated this arrangement. It is particularly interesting to know, because apparently—I think there is some reason for the suggestion—this special privilege has only been extended to particularly powerful unions, which were able to exert strong political influence.
This system of giving exemptions is unfair to two classes of men. It is unfair first of all to the skilled man who is not a member of any union, and who does not desire to be a member of a union. I think that man is entitled to sympathy. He is a skilled man, but simply because he is not a trade unionist and does not desire to become one, his skill is not to enable him to be secured for that form of national service for which he is specially skilled. Again, there is the other aspect of the matter, that it is only special unions which have been able to exert their influence which have been enabled to

1027
obtain this privilege. There is one particular class of men who, I think, deserve this privilege, perhaps more than any other; yet they are absolutely excluded. I refer to the whole class of engineering draughtsmen. Obviously, these men are highly skilled men, though they have not up to the present had any trade union at all. Simply, however, because they have never had a trade union these men are not recognised for the purposes of this special privilege.
I know that recently they have formed themselves into a society for the purpose of protecting their interests and communications have been sent to the Ministry of Munitions on this very point. Here, however, we have this situation, that you find men, simply because they belong to a labourers' union and possess the cards of that union, receiving exemption from military service, although they are possessed of no skill; while, on the other hand, you have these skilled draughtsmen, many of whom have taken from fifteen to twenty years to acquire skill in their trade or profession, because they belong to no trade union, are yet being combed out. At the same time you are actually bringing back from the Army in France men skilled in that particular calling. That is a case which deserves an answer from the Minister of Munitions.
The questions, therefore, I wish to put to my hon. Friend are these: First, what are the names of the trade unions specially favoured? Second, are any of the unions which are favoured unions in which there is no special skill required in the trades affected? Thirdly, is this privilege denied to a great body of skilled engineering draughtsmen of this country? If it is denied to them, will the Minister of Munitions see at once that the privilege is accorded to that class?
Mr. BOOTH: I would like to put a question, following on the points raised by my hon. Friend. The Minister of Munitions, as the hon. Gentleman very well knows, has very large powers in the way of taking the surplus proceeds of controlled firms. I should like to ask, in regard to this combing-out matter, whether the experience of these controlled firms, their loyalty in helping the Government and releasing men for military service, will be considered when the Department comes to deal with the amount of
1028
profit to be taken? It may be that a firm; may have been badly hit; that the combing-out process may have been severe. It may not have had the same chances as a competing firm because of matters entirely outside its control. In view of this, will these important aspects of the case be taken into account when the Government surveys the financial position at the end of the year?
Mr. KELLAWAY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Munitions): In regard to the point put by the last speaker, I can assure him—and his own knowledge of the way in which the Ministry has dealt with these matters in the past will lead him, I think, to accept that assurance and to confirm what I say—that every proper circumstance that should be taken into account will be taken into account in computing the amount to be taken. In the short period I have been at the Ministry of Munitions that work has been done with great care. Having regard to the delicacy of these operations I should think it has been done with considerable satisfaction to the very large number of controlled firms. As to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lanarkshire in regard to the trade card scheme, we do not say that this scheme is a perfect one. It is, however, very difficult to build up machinery under the conditions which exist during a war, or to project any scheme in which it would not be possible to pick holes, especially with such an acute critic as my hon. Friend. But this scheme has been put forward as a practical war measure. On the whole I think it has succeeded fairly well in meeting the emergency which has had to be met. My hon. Friend's case suffered somewhat from over-emphasis and over-statement. I should have been better pleased, at least it would have been of more service to the Ministry, if ho had concentrated his attention more upon showing where were the, practical defects with which the Ministry could deal in order to build up as nearly as possible a perfect scheme, under, of course, war conditions. It is not accurate to say, as he said, that all the unions which are covered by the trade card scheme are unions to which unskilled men can apply for admission.
Mr. PRINGLE: I did not say all.
Mr. KELLAWAY: Or that there are in the list of unions here unions to which membership can be obtained merely on payment of the subscription, and without regard to whether or not a member is a skilled man. There are twenty-five unions parties to this scheme. I have the names here on the list in my hand. It is rather too long to read out now, but I am quite satisfied if my hon. Friend will afterwards meet me in the Smoke Room and go through this list with me he will see that every one of these unions is a skilled union. With my knowledge of the work, I am satisfied that that is so. There are no unskilled unions parties to this scheme. May I take a typical example? There are the Society of Boilermakers, the Associated Blacksmiths and Ironworkers, the United Patternmakers, the Society of Sheet Metalworkers and Braziers, the Scientific Instrument Makers, the Society of General Union of Braziers and Sheet Metalworkers, and so on. That list is quite typical of the whole of the twenty-five unions. If my hon. Friend is correct in stating that there are members who have been admitted to these unions whose skill is not of the kind necessary to the country in connection with the prosecution of the War, that is a circumstance which requires examination.
Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend has given us a number of the unions; can he not give us the additional?
Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be quite prepared to let my hon. Friend have this list to look over, and I know the military will be prepared, if they receive any representation from my hon. Friend or any other Member of this House in regard to this trade card scheme, to hear what they have to say. If there are men outside the scheme which an intelligent and informed opinion would suggest ought to be included in the scheme, certainly that is also a matter that should be considered. This scheme is not to be regarded as similar to the laws of the Medes and Persians— which could not be revised. Having regard to the circumstances under which these negotiations had to be entered into, I think we can claim for the scheme that it is a practical, commonsense scheme which, on the whole, has been accepted with a fair amount of satisfaction, and whose defects, if shown, are those with which the Government are prepared to deal. My hon. Friend suggested, and I do not think the sugges-
1030
tion was quite worthy of him, that the unions who were parties to this scheme have become parties to it because they were able to exert considerable political influence.
Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear!
Mr. KELLAWAY: And that those who were not parties to it were not parties because they had a negligible political influence.
Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear!
Mr. KELLAWAY: In reply to that I should say that outside this scheme are some of the most powerful unions in the country, with considerable political influence; and included in the scheme are unions whose political influence must be accounted exceedingly small. The underlying principle on which this scheme was based was that the men concerned possessed a type of skill which was necessary for the Government for the proper conduct of the War. That consideration, and that consideration alone, was the one which influenced the Ministry in its negotiations with the unions. I have already indicated to the Committee that we do not regard this scheme as one which is not open to improvement. I think I can see the hardship, and, it may be, the illogical, position of the men possessed of a similar type of skill, belonging to unions, who were not parties to this schema. That is not a position which can be defended logically. That, however, does not alarm mo very much. That evil is not a very considerable one. The point, however, which the Government has to consider is whether the scheme, if it is to remain, can not be extended to cover the men possessed of a similar type of skill, but who do not belong to the unions which are covered, or those which were parties to the application. With the qualifications—and I am giving them quite frankly to the Committee.—on the whole the scheme has worked well. We are prepared to remedy any defects to which our attention is drawn, and if my hon. Friend is prepared to assist us in that direction, I, for one, shall welcome his assistance.
Mr. HOGGE: I have only one criticism to make on my hon. Friend's reply. It seems to me that there is a very easy way to determine whether one statement was or was not correct. It would not take my hon. Friend more than a few seconds to read over the names of the trade unions

1031
that he omitted. If he does so, it will probably reveal the fact that there is a large general labourers' union among the twenty-five. That would settle the question.
Mr. KELLAWAY: There is no resisting my hon. Friend. I will read the whole list. It is: the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the Society of Boilermakers, the Associated Blacksmiths and Ironworkers, the Steam Engine Makers, the United Pattern Makers, the United Journeyman Brassfounders and Coppersmiths, the Society of Shipwrights, the Liverpool Shipwrights' Trades Friendly Society, the Society of United Machine Workers, the Sheet Metal Workers and Braziers, the Society of Associated Ironmoulders of Scotland, the United Kingdom Society of Amalgamated Smiths and Strikers, the Society of General Union of Braziers and Sheet Metal Workers, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Vehicle Builders, the Society of Electrical Trade Union, the Amalgamated Brass Workers (National Society), the Society (West of Scotland) Brass Turners, the Society of Amalgamated Toolmakers, the Sheet Iron Workers and Light Platers' Society, the Society of Scottish Brass Moulders, the British Steel Smelters, the Scientific Instrument Makers, the Friendly Society of Ironfounders, the Society of Coppersmiths and Braziers, and the General Plate Sheet Metal Workers and Braziers.
Mr. BOOTH: I should like to ask a question in regard to the explosives factories. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can give me any information as to whether there was any loss of life in a recent sad accident which occurred in the West Riding. I will not further specify the place. I heard there was no loss of life. That leads me to offer this suggestion, that as far as possible high explosives' manufactories should be removed from the immediate neighbourhood of dwellings. This should be done for two reasons: One is that there is a general fence put round in order, I suppose, to stop trespassers. Unfortunately, when loss of life occurs men are caught in the barbed wire of the fence. That would be obviated if they were removed. I understand that the last explosion took place about three-quarters of a mile from the highway. If the place were this distance
1032
in every case there would be small damage and very small loss of life. I should like some assurances on this point. I take it that the Department in tuture—nay, I feel sure that they will — have these facts in mind. I venture also to say that human nature must be studied. Close inquiry into these disasters reveals some very distressing facts. It is unfortunately true that the working man is a very brave fellow, and sometimes his very strength, bravery, and the feeling that he is on work for the soldiers in France, lead him to be not so careful, and, I am sorry to say, that some of the women are even worse than the men. Why men who work on explosives should have such fondness for cigarette-smoking I can never make out. In new factories on model lines you have experienced chemists, who are insistent on proper care, but in some of the older works, where men have been dealing with picric acid and high explosives all their lifetime, they do not quite see the need for this care, and where the work has increased and multiplied, and new people have been brought in, I think it is time for taking care. I am not complaining of the Ministry of Munitions at all. I think their effort has been uniformly for good, so far as I can gather, at all their explosive works throughout the country, but I should like some assurance that, in the recent explosion to which I have referred—I understand, a model works—a loss of life was avoided.
Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it is possible to give any statement as to the amount which has been spent on the item, "Headquarters and Branch Offices of the Ministry of Munitions—Salaries, travelling allowances, and incidental expenses." It is rather important to know, I think, what actual amount is spent upon the paraphernalia of the Ministry—clerks, offices, etc.—and I should be very much obliged if the hon. Gentleman could give me definite information. Then I do not quite understand why it is necessary to have two Votes. In this first Vote there is an item for guns and small arms. Then we have another Vote for Ordnance factories. I do not quite understand why that should be a very much larger Vote, and why, if there is an item for guns in the first Vote, it is necessary to have a very much larger sum under the heading of Ordnance factories. There may probably be a very good reason for it.
Mr. O'GRADY: I want to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) about the manufacture of high explosives in very crowded areas. I think we ought now to cease taking over factories for the purpose of making high explosives in these crowded working-class areas. Everybody knows the devastation caused among the working-class people by the terrible explosion in the East End of London. An explosion occurred a little while ago just outside my own Constituency—the name of the place need not be mentioned— causing a terrible devastation. In connection with that matter, there is another point I want to raise, and that is the question of railway facilities. At a place just outside Leeds there are very inadequate railway facilities for the people getting to and from their employment, and the consequence is that just before and at closing-time there is a tremendous rush to catch the train. I think the Minister in charge will agree with me when I say that the explosion just outside Leeds largely arose from that fact. The particulars as I have them are these: The whistle blew at a certain time when shells were being filled by girls, and a girl rushed away from a particular machine to catch the train and get away home on a dark, cold night. When the night shift came along, another girl came to this machine, where a shell was half-filled, with the result that there was a terrific explosion.
I suggest that there should be a warning buzzer, some time before the time of leaving off work, and that there should be an adequate train service for the people, so that they need not rush away to get home. It is clear that that terrible explosion, with its lamentable loss of life, occurred as a result of the inadequate railway facilities which exist in that particular place. I have been told—I do not know whether it is a fact—with regard to the last explosion, that numbers of working-class houses were levelled to the ground, and, although I do not accept all that is told me, this, by the way, was told me by a very eminent engineer, that the people some little time after the explosion had no home to which to go, and could not get away from the big town in question, and there they stood. I do impress upon the Government the necessity, not only for adequate railway facilities, but for such simple precautions as I have indicated with regard to an early buzzer being
1034
blown in order to warn the people that the time has come for nearly leaving off, so that the operation in which they are engaged shall not be left partly finished.
My last point is this: I do not know whether the Government themselves have taken up the matter of compensation— for instance, for the people in the East End of London. So far as I understand the situation, it has "been allowed to rest upon the benevolence of the ordinary public—in the main. What I mean is compensation for the loss of little household goods and things of that kind. Have the Government fathered a scheme definitely? I do not want these things put at the mercy, if I may use the phrase, of the benevolent public. After all, these are War workers; they are fighting our battles as are our troops, and in all these matters of compensation the Government themselves should father the responsibility and see that the people are adequately provided for.
Mr. DILLON: I should like to ask the Minister in charge for a few words of explanation as to the form of this Estimate. It is a very peculiar Estimate. Although we are accustomed to these Estimates, this is a wholly new departure, and I admit that I cannot exactly understand the form in which the Estimate is presented. We are asked to vote £100 as a Supplementary Estimate, and the Committee will perceive that the total amount is £20,000,000, of which £19,999,900 are Appropriations-in-Aid. I should like to know from the Minister what is the exact nature of these Appropriations-in-Aid. Even in war-time I think these Estimates ought to be presented in such a shape that the members of the Committee can really understand their meaning. Of course, we know that the Army Estimates and the Navy Estimates are now presented as Token Votes, and in that case we understand what we are asked to do. We are asked to vote each Estimate simply on a Token Vote, and upon that to have a general discussion, but are not given particulars. This Estimate, however, professes to give some particulars. Although I admit frankly I do not understand the form of this Vote, or that of the succeeding Vote, I object to it on the ground that the proper principle of an Appropriaton-in-Aid is a sum of money in regard to services done by the Department—something, at all events, outside the staff of the Department. But, so far

1035
as I understand this Vote, it is almost, although not quite, clear, on the face of the Vote, that the Appropriations are for the whole of the Headquarter Staff and all the clerical work of the Department. I venture to say that it is a wholly new departure in presenting Estimates to this House. It is not correctly described as an Appropriation-in-Aid. If the Government were determined to give us no details at all they ought to have put this down as a Token Vote. I am somewhat of a stickler for old forms, but I think there is a great deal more in that than might appear to some members of the Committee, because if you do not keep the Government to a correct preparation of the Estimates, the House is apt to be asked to vote large sums of money without knowing where they are.
The first question I would put to the Government is this: Is the amount of £20,000,000 simply a portion of the Vote of Credit, and if it be a portion of the Vote of Credit, what does it consist of? If it covers items A and B—Headquarters and Branch Offices of the Ministry of Munitions; Salaries, travelling allowances and incidental expenses; and Inspection. Research, and Store Departments—I say that it is a wholly improper heading to bring under Appropriations-in-Aid. They are not Appropriations-in-Aid, but part of the expenses of the Department, and ought to have been set out as such, so that we might know what is the growth of the expenses of the Department. If for some reasons, which I do not think myself sound, the Government were prepared to say that they do not wish, in the public interest, to allow this House to know what are the expenses of the staff, and the work of the officials of the Department, then they ought to put that in the Estimate, and have a Token Vote. I say they ought frankly to state on the face of the Estimate that they will not give it, and they ought not to bring this under the form of an Appropriation-in-Aid, when it is not really an Appropriation-in-Aid.
5.0 P.M.
The other question I want to put has been also put to some extent by the right hon. Baronet. You have, under the Estimate for the Ministry of Munitions, the headings "Guns and Small Arms, Ammunition, Transport Vehicles, Miscellaneous Stores, Explosives and Propellants," and, in fact, so far as I can see, for all the munitions of war an army in the field requires. On the next page you have another Sup-
1036
plementary Estimate for Ordnance Factories. Why are the two Departments kept separate? So far as any ordinary man can see, it evidently leads to overlapping and great additional expense. I was under the impression that the question of the control of the Ordnance Department as distinct from the control of the Munitions Department, which had long divided the Cabinet, was finally settled in the autumn of last year. We all remember that there was a very great deal of public controversy when the Munitions Department was set up as to whether they should take over the Ordnance Department, and the War Office for many months resisted and insisted upon controlling that Department. I understand now that the Ordnance Department has completely passed under the control of the Munitions Department, and if that is so what is the common sense of keeping these two Votes separate with a separate charge for administration. In the footnote to the Ordnance Factories Estimate there appears the sub-heads "establishments, wages and police, materials and stores." There is a similar heading under the Munitions Department. The other headings include "machinery obtained by contract, buildings, miscellaneous, noneffective charges and Appropriations-in-Aid," amounting to £35,999,000. There is not a single item in all that for munitions and guns for the Army in the field, and I want to know what is being done with that £35,000,000. Either the Estimates have been made up carelessly or else there is some extraordinary mystery in the matter, and I cannot see why the main part of this expenditure should not come under the Munitions Vote. The question I wish answered is why the expenses of the headquarters and branch offices of the Ministry of Munitions, including salaries, travelling allowances, and incidental expenses, and the expenses of inspection, research, and store departments are entered under this £20,000,000 Vote? That illustrates a point I intend to raise upon other Votes, because it appears to me to be a wholly new departure.
Mr. THOMAS: The question I want to raise is one affecting the agreement with the Munitions Department, made following one of the unfortunate disputes in Sheffield. So far as I understand the matter, it was part of the settlement of that dispute that the Society of Engineers should be allowed to give cards of exemption from

1037
the Army to their own members. That is to say, instead of allowing the old system of skilled men being taken into the Army at the time when it was known there was a shortage of munitions, an attempt was made in this agreement to get over the difficulty by allowing the trade unions themselves to guarantee that no skilled man should go into the Army, and if any such man was called up they were given power enabling them to give an exemption card to prevent that man being taken. I am not going to argue as to whether that was a good or a bad thing. Clearly it is evident that it was a decision arrived at hastily, and because of a difficulty that had to be dealt with at that moment. I do submit, however, that no Government Department ought to enter into an agreement or give a privilege to any particular people that is not given to all. I am speaking as a trade union leader, and I am speaking of a particular privilege given to a particular trade union. I have never claimed, and will not claim, any special advantage for our own people. The result of this vicious system is that, instead of helping the situation and the Government, and creating a good feeling, it has engendered more friction and bad feeling, and nothing has happened since the War that has been so bitterly resented by the trade unions.
The point I want to draw attention to is that if this system was necessary, if it is the best that can be done, and if it is wise to have it in operation, then instead of applying it to one union it must apply to all. The remarkable thing that is happening now is that there are cases where circulars, pamphlets, and statements are being issued, stating, "If you want exemption join our union." That is a thing that cannot be tolerated in the midst of a war, and it is quite indefensible. The curious thing is that neither the Munitions Department nor the War Office appear to know who is responsible. I have taken the question up very strongly with the Munitions Department, and they say that the War Office is responsible. I have taken the matter to the War Office, and they tell me that the Munitions Department is responsible for it. I have had interviews with both Departments, and as a matter of fact neither of them attempt to defend the system. Unfortunately, it has gone on month after month, with the result that to-day, unless it is definitely tackled, I
1038
am absolutely certain there is going to be trouble, because of what is happening in the large engineering shops every day, where the men are saying, "Here is Smith, an engineer, given a card of exemption. I also am an engineer, but because I do not happen to be a member of a particular union I cannot be exempted and Smith can." I admit that that is a state of things that ought not to be allowed to continue, and I submit that in a question of this kind it is not the duty of a Ministry to be merely guided by a big union. If the principle is good, then it should apply to all, and if it is bad, it should apply to no one. It is because I want it applied to all or none that I ask the Minister representing the Munitions Department to give some explanation of the situation, and, above all, give a guarantee that there shall be no preferential treatment between one union and another, and that in questions of this kind all those affected should have a fair crack of the whip, and we should not allow a state of things to continue which, in my humble judgment, is a scandal at this moment.
Colonel YATE: The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) mentioned the question of the disastrous explosion in the East End of London. I would like to inquire how it came about that there was such an enormous accumulation of high explosives in such a thickly-populated district. We quite understand that the exigencies of the War may have necessitated the manufacture of some part of these explosives in that particular district, but I think it is inexcusable to allow more than one day's manufacture of these explosives to accumulate. We can estimate the quantity of explosives which was allowed to accumulate by the blowing up of a fair-sized town, and there must have been a huge accumulation. I want to know whether the Minister in charge can now give us any explanation as to why such an accumulation was allowed to arise, and who was responsible?
Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to refer again to a point which I raised at the beginning of this Debate, and which was dealt with by the hon. Member for Derby. The Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has suggested that I overstated my case, but after his reply, and after the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I think the Committee will agree that, if anything, my case was understated, and we have had no defence put forward

1039
beyond the usual statement that this is practically a War measure, and when nothing else can be advanced on behalf of any policy, I am driven to the conclusion that that policy is specially absurd. What is the situation? We have set up a scheme for military service under two Acts of Parliament under which exemptions have to be granted in a particular way either by tribunals or a Government Department. Now, however, we have, apart from legislation altogether, this right of exemption conferred upon a certain favoured trade union. Such a thing was never in the contemplation of Parliament. I think that is an abuse of the legislation we have passed. The hon. Member for Derby says both the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions disclaim responsibility in this matter. I asked in my speech by whom this agreement was made, but in any event by whosoever it was made, you have the result that certain trade unions are entitled, without any question by any superior authority or appeal to any tribunal, to grant exemption from military service to whomsoever they please. I think that is a most extraordinary situation that has ever occurred in regard to military service in any country. What is the effect of it? It is giving certain trade unions the means of recruiting members. The hon. Member for Derby said that circulars are issued by these favoured trade unions announcing "If you join our trade union, you will be exempt from military service." I ask any member of this Committee would Parliament for a moment think of sanctioning an arrangement whereby the privilege of exemption from military service was to be used as a means of forcing men into certain trade unions? I do not think there can be any defence of that.
This is not for the specially skilled people at all, and the list of trade unions which has been read proves that. There are a number of these unions in which there are members who have not gone through a long period of apprenticeship, and there are very highly skilled men who do not belong to a trade union who are being combed out, whereas the men who come under the shelter of these particular trade unions are receiving exemption. If this is put forward as a practical war measure, then it does not do much credit to the Department responsible, nor does it tend to create confidence in their probable success in prosecuting
1040
the War. It is neither a practical measure nor a war measure, and nothing has been said to defend it. Surely it was easier to get some means of testing the skill of the men to be exempted rather than adopting this arbitrary method of membership of a particular trade union. I think it is the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this proposal, and take measures to prevent unions recruiting their ranks by using the privilege that has been granted to them. If any evidence can be given to the Ministry that any union is using this special privilege for the purpose of gaining members, the privilege should at once be withdrawn from them. I think that is a fair request to make. I made another point earlier with regard to specially skilled men who do not belong to unions, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will be able to give us some assurance publicly in regard to engineering draughtsmen. They undoubtedly belong to a specially skilled trade, and they are at present being combed out by re-examinations. I hope my hon. Friend will give an assurance that skilled men who have had long experience in that trade will not any more be subject to re-examination, especially as at present we are actually bringing skilled engineering draughtsmen from our Army in France. It is surely absurd while bringing men of that trade from our Army in France to take those actually working in this country at the present time.
Major Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I will deal with the questions which have been raised other than labour questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) both raised a point on the form of the Estimate. This is still a Token Estimate, dealt with in exactly the same way as last year, and as the Army and Navy Votes have also been dealt with. There is no mystery hidden in the form of the Estimate itself. The reason why £20,000,000 is added as an Appropriation-in-Aid is this. The Government at this moment have power to spend the amount of the original Estimate. These Appropriations-in-Aid are receipts which will be coming in in the course of this year. We are now asking for power to spend those receipts, and unless power is given, we shall have to come for that larger sum out

1041
of the Vote of Credit. The hon. Member was partly right. It partly comes from other Government Departments, and is partly actual receipts accruing to the Ministry from various articles which it is responsible to produce. The receipts come in quite properly as Appropriations-in-Aid, and, if authority is given, then there will be a less draft upon the Vote of Credit by the exact amount authorised. If this were not authorised at all, then the sum would come into the Treasury and a larger sum would be taken out of the Vote of Credit. The other principal point raised was why there were two Supplementary Estimates and not one. The reason we have a second Supplementary Estimate dealing with ordnance is really in order to have a continuation of the Estimate which used to appear when ordnance was under the War Office and not under the Ministry of Munitions, and because on the whole it is considered it is the convenient course for the purposes of comparison later. The details of the Vote are merely the heads under which in duo course the expenditure will be accounted for. They do- not profess to give the figures of expenditure under the particular heads. They merely state the heads under which the expenditure will be accounted for in due course. If the governing factor in the situation is borne in mind—namely, that this is a Token Vote and nothing but a Token Vote;—I think my right hon. Friend will appreciate the reason why this form is adopted.
Sir F. BANBURY: I asked whether the Government would give me a rough estimate of the amount which would be spent under Item A.
Major Sir W. EVANS: My right hon. Friend knows very well that the object of putting down Votes in the form of Token Votes in war-time is to avoid giving information, not to Members of the House of Commons, but to the world, our enemies included, as to the totals of the heads of the Vote. The policy of Token Votes is well established, and it is one from which I certainly cannot promise to depart. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) asked whether there were any fatal casualties in a recent explosion in the North. I am glad to say that so far as the Ministry are aware there were no fatal casualties. Various Members have referred to the position of the explosive factories, and have naturally said that they ought not to be set up in
1042
crowded areas. I can assure hon. Members that new factories are not set up in crowded areas. One of the first considerations naturally is that they should be in such a place that if an accident should unfortunately occur it could be localised, and there would be as little loss of life occasioned as possible. The position of the factory in the East End of London where the explosion occurred would not have been chosen for the erection of a new factory. I would like to go closely into the reasons why high explosives were dealt with at all at that particular spot, but, as my hon. Friend (Colonel Yate) knows, the matter is the subject of a Home Office inquiry, and I do not think it would be right for me to deal with, it to-day.
Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Report of that inquiry be published?
Major Sir W. EVANS: My hon. Friend asked that question of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions at Question Time to-day, and he cannot expect me to differ from my right hon. Friend's answer. I therefore confirm it. The hon. Member for Pontefract urged that proper care should be taken, and that those working in the factories should be enjoined to take proper care. I can assure him that it is not for want of instruction that proper care is not taken. Instruction is given, inspection is made, and the managers of the factories do everything they can to ensure that proper care is taken, but human nature being what it is, sometimes it is not taken. The hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) wished that warning should be given before a shift left the factory. I do not know how far that is practicable, hut his suggestion shall be taken into consideration, and, if practicable, I have no doubt that it will be adopted. My hon. Friend did not give me notice that he was going to raise the question of railway facilities, and I am not as well able to deal with it as I should have liked, but consideration shall be given to the matter. The only other point was the question of compensation. The Government, without admitting liability, are going to pay compensation in the East End explosion, and: the promptest steps were taken to see that the cases requiring compensation were dealt with. A local office was opened within three days of the accident, because it was well known that those who suffered were not capitalists and people who could

1043
afford to wait out of their money. Their claims were immediately inspected, and I am told that some of the smaller claims have already been paid. I think the Ministry in that case is entitled to take great credit for the prompt way in which the question was handled. It is the desire of the Ministry, when these unfortunate accidents happen, that those who suffer shall be treated in exactly the same way as those other soldiers who are fighting for Great Britain in the fields of France and Flanders.
Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend tells us that he cannot give me an answer to the question I put as to the amount of the salaries, travelling allowances, and incidental expenses of the headquarters and branch offices of the Ministry of Munitions, because it might give information to the enemy. He says that the token Vote was arranged so that information might not be given to the enemy. I do not think it would give very much information to the enemy if they knew how much the different officers and officials were receiving. I cannot see that there would be any advantage gained by the enemy.
Mr. HOGGE: It would encourage them to fight on.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I must beg to differ from my hon. Friend with regard to the reasons for which a token Vote was taken. I understood that a token Vote was taken at the beginning of the War, because it was impossible in the ordinary way to estimate what the expenditure would be. The Germans know now that the expenditure under this Vote is £20,000,000. It was, therefore, not because the Germans might get to know, but because the Government did not know what they were going to spend. They, therefore, asked the House to be indulgent, and to allow them to put down a token Vote of £100, and to be permitted later on to spend any amount they liked. That was quite right, but I do not think that ought to be used as an excuse for not giving us, when we are multiplying Departments and officials, the actual part of the salaries, travelling allowances, and incidental expenses of the headquarters and branch offices of the Ministry of Munitions. If my hon. Friend would consult with any Cabinet Minister, I think he would find that he would agree that to give the information would be of no earthly use to the
1044
Germans, whilst it would enable us to conserve our money and to carry on the War for a longer period than we shall be able to do if we indulge in this extravagance and the House of Commons is refused information in this way. I will not deal with the questions of Appropriations-in-Aid, because my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) may have something to say-in regard to that matter, but I always understood that an Appropriation-in-Aid was something which the Department had to dispose of, and the two accounts had to be kept, an account of the actual money spent, and an account of the receipts. I have never heard of an Appropriation-in-Aid which arose from the salaries, travelling expenses and allowances of headquarters or branch offices. I really do not think they ought to include it, but that is more or less a minor or book-keeping point, which is not important. I think the other point is extremely important, and I hope that hon. Members will press for an answer to it.
Commander WEDGWOOD: I desire to support the request of the hon. Baronet opposite, who should have a full list of the officials and salaries as soon as possible. Now that the Ministry has been more than a year in existence, I think it is reasonable that we should know what salaries we are paying to the officials there. In the ease of the ordinary Government Department, it is not perhaps so very important, because we have the check of the Treasury and the list of salaries, so that we can be sure that no one is receiving more than he is worth and no one less than he is worth. But in the case of the Ministry of Munitions there has been no Treasury check, and further than that we know that there are many civilians who have been taken in at a big rate of pay, whereas there are other patriotic citizens equally skilled who very often have gone to the Ministry without any pay at all. I do not think it is to the advantage of any public Department that there should exist side by side the fully-paid man who has been bribed to go into that Department and the unpaid man who is patriotically fulfilling his duty in that Department. To begin with, the rates of pay which rumour says are paid to the specialists inevitably get enormously exaggerated, to the great disadvantage of the rest of the public service, because, as everybody knows, when you hear that So-and-so is getting a very big rate of pay you naturally think that you

1045
are more capable of doing that work than any other person, and also that you ought to get the excessive rate of pay. Therefore, the publication of exactly what these various specialists are getting would be of enormous advantage to the country. We have a right to know what they are paid, because alter a year or two it ought to be possible to dispense with some of those specialists retained at a specially high rate, since they should now have trained people capable of doing the work at the ordinary rate of permanent secretaries in Government Departments. We know that permanent secretaries in Government Departments get much smaller salaries than they could get in the open market outside, but it is the dignity and prospect of titles which make the Government service attractive and which counter-balance the smallness of the salary. I think the same principle should apply to the Ministry of Munitions as to other Departments, and it might be possible if we could scrutinise those lists, or even if the Treasury could do so, that we should have a very substantial reduction in the cost of maintenance of the Ministry of Munitions. I think the new Ministry are very anxious to cut down expenses, and they will probably be able to take this matter up and push it through in the Department.
There is another matter I wish to mention about which I saw the hon. Gentleman recently, and that is as to the supply of forgings to the shellmakers of this country. At the present time there are not enough forgings to go round as the demand is in excess of the supply. People capable of performing the concluding processes of certain size shells are, to a certain extent, held up through a shortage of forgings. This question lends itself to an enormous amount of underhand pressure in the Ministry. We want to be assured that there is no sort of underhand pressure being brought to bear to secure for certain firms and certain districts forgings which other firms and other districts are unable to get. We must have the reasonable certainty of fair treatment between firms on this question. There are certain factories in this country known as National Shell factories which are the property of the Government and which are very often run by private manufacturers. IE there is any department in ammunition manufacture which ought to get a full supply it is such factories. In-
1046
stead of that, we hear many rumours that these forgings are going principally to the old armament firms. It is true that those firms produce many of those forgings themselves, but after all they are controlled by the Government, and it is only fair that the forgings produced by the armament firms and by the Government generally should be equally divided amongst the whole of the shellmakers of this country. I had a promise made that my district, which is unfortunately a sub-district to Birmingham—I refer to North Staffordshire—should have a minimum supply sufficient to carry on day shifts. On making inquiry I find that firms in Manchester and elsewhere are getting their full supply for day and night shifts, while North Staffordshire the week before last received one-fifth of the quantity promised to keep it going for day shifts. That sort of treatment is not, I believe, peculiar to North Staffordshire, which in this respect is no worse than some other districts, because we do not want to make trouble for any department just now, and we hear of the same difficulty all over the country. There is a serious sense of injustice that certain private manufacturers who have a pull in the Ministry are getting a full supply of forgings, while other private manufacturers are getting a far shorter supply simply because the forgings are going elsewhere. It is a small point in itself, but it is of vital importance to the Ministry to convey the impression of being rigidly fair between the manufacturers. People will put up with any kind of hardship or inconvenience or taking of hands or cutting down of productions which may be necessary, provided that the burden is laid evenly on all, but if they get the idea that certain firms or districts are specially treated that leads to discontent not only with the operations of the Ministry, but with the Government generally.
Mr. DILLON: I must confess that the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Worthington Evans) has left me in a greater fog than prevailed before he rose. In the first place, I entirely agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) that that hon. Gentleman was wrong in his statement about a Token Vote. The main object of a Token Vote was not to conceal the amount spent from the enemy, because there was no possibility of doing that, and the rough details would be of no value since he knew the number

1047
of millions spent in each Department. The details, as I understand the matter, are subsequently accounted for and set forth when these accounts come before the Public Accounts Committee. The purpose of a Token Vote and the main purpose is that it would not be convenient in times like these for the Army and the Navy to be tied up as to expenditure and to have to make estimates which it would be impossible to make. In addition to that, it would be quite impossible owing to the War to throw a vast amount of labour on the officials at a time when they have got more to do than is possible for them to do. To give them a free hand in this War expenditure is my idea of the main purpose of a Token Vote. What I was chiefly concerned about was this: I do not believe the House of Commons meant, when giving the Vote of Credit, that a number of Token Votes were to be used for the purpose of covering the enormous growth of new Departments and clerical staffs. That is where the Minister has wholly failed to meet my point. Does the hon. Gentleman for one moment contend, or is he prepared to contend, that it would be injurious to the public interest, and giving to the enemy dangerous information, to let us know what are the number of clerks attached to these various Departments?
Major Sir W. EVANS: I will give that.
Mr. DILLON: That would to a large extent remove my difficulty. The reason why I attach so much importance to this point is that this omission of which I complain runs through the whole of these Supplementary Estimates, and is not at all confined to this Department, but applies to all new Departments created by the War Cabinet and whose salaries are thrown on the Vote of Credit and not set forth on the Estimates. What is one of the first effects of that system? We have seen an immense amount of those effects during the last fortnight, and very misehevious to my mind. The wildest reports are circulated, and stories go abroad that all kinds of individuals are brought into these Departments at enormous salaries, and stories which I have no doubt are wholly unfounded. But if you make a mystery of a matter of this kind you are bound to set in circulation extraordinary reports. This is a new departure not in accordance with the practice of this House, and in no manner covered by the
1048
plea of national necessity or the desirability of keeping information from the enemy.
I come to the second point I raised, and here, again, I must say that the explanation gave me no help at all. I asked the hon. Gentleman to explain, where the £20,000,000 or £19,999,000 came from, and what was the nature of the balance. He said that that was an Appropriation-in-Aid and came from other Departments, and that all that would be paid into the Treasury if it were not for this Vote. That staggers me, because I strongly suspect that this sum of almost £20,000,000 comes out of the Vote of Credit. When the hon. Gentleman says that all that sum and the £35,000,000 comes from other Departments for goods supplied by this Department, that equally staggers me. What other Departments could possibly pay those sums to the Munitions Department, and how can the hon. Gentleman make out that this sum would go back to the Treasury if it were not for this Vote? I take it to be out of the Vote of Credit in order to make up this Estimate in some mysterious manner and it is treated as an Appropriation-in-Aid. The objection I take is that that is not a proper way to describe expenditure of the Munitions Department and that it ought to be accurately described. The hon. Gentleman says that it does not come out of the Vote of Credit and he asked me not to press as to where it comes from. I do not think he even made an attempt to justify the action of the Government in preparing an Estimate in that way, and I do not think it would be giving any useful information to the enemy to know what it comes from or belongs to.
Mr. KELLAWAY: Before my hon. Friend replies to the financial point, I desire to deal with a new point raised by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and others. That hon. Member asked who was responsible for the particular scheme to which he refers. That scheme was an agreement entered into between the late Government and several trade unions.
Mr. PRINGLE: Who represented the Government?
Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the late Minister of Munitions, the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire and the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle. It cannot be abrogated except by the Government as a whole. I think the point I took

1049
was a sound one, that if new circumstances are brought forward which show that the agreement which was entered into did not properly cover all those occupations that ought to be brought within the ambit of such an agreement, then it must be reviewed. I do not think I am giving away any confidence when I say that the question is at the present moment the subject of consideration between different Government Departments in order to see what alterations ought to be made in this scheme. When those alterations are made I am quite certain that the very strong case of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, for which the hon. Member for Derby speaks, must be considered. With regard to the point as to the draughtsmen, which was put forward by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), the position of those men is, I think, sufficiently guarded. The fact that they are being medically examined does not mean that they are going to be called up. A good many people have been medically examined, but are not being called up.
Mr. KEATING: What is to stop them from being called up?
Mr. KELLAWAY: The agreements that have been entered into with the protected industries will protect them. In this practical world there are many things done which are not absolutely perfect. I have no doubt whatever that there are defects in regard to machinery of this kind, which covers the whole country and has to be administered by fallible human beings like ourselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Unquestionably that may be so. I willingly make the critics of the Government a present of all that, but I think my hon. Friend need have no anxiety in regard to this particular class of men. If they possess the type of skill which is necessary for the Government in the conduct of this War they will not be called up. My hon. Friend says that if this is the way in which the Ministry of Munitions is administering this agreement we cannot expect the country to have much confidence in their ability to prosecute this War. I am sure anybody who represents the Ministry here will be exceedingly sorry not to be able to secure the approval of my hon. Friend, but, after all, I am not putting it too high when I say that, whatever may have been the mistakes made by the Ministry, the commonsense of this country agrees that it has
1050
made a fairly considerable success of its work in this War. That cannot be removed by any small points of criticism which may be urged by a skilled critic. I am satisfied that the serious point which was taken by the hon. Member for Derby will be taken into account in connection with any revision of this scheme which is found to be necessary.
Mr. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman then say that, pending a reconsideration of the general question, the privilege, if I may use that word, now enjoyed by a particular class of worker shall be applied to all, without regard to the union with which they are connected?
Mr. KELLAWAY: I can go this far: In regard to the proposal to call up men between the ages of 18 and 22, an arrangement has now been come to between the Ministry of Munitions and the War Office that men possessing the type of skill desired who are members of the unions who were parties to this agreement shall not be called up. That goes a long way to meet the point taken by my hon. Friend.
Mr. PRINGLE: Would the hon. Gentleman answer one point—namely, will any action be taken in regard to unions which are sending out circulars to obtain members on the ground that they are able to secure exemption from military service?
Mr. KEATING: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not regard me as one of the skilled critics to whom he referred. I have been one of the silent Members of the House, and if I intervene now I hope it will be with the effect of drawing his attention to a very serious matter indeed— serious to those who are affected and to the Department concerned. The whole question of badges is one that has created a great amount of confusion and disorganisation in the industries of the country. I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying, in reply to a supplementary question recently, that it was impossible to define the term "skilled workmen"; therefore those people affected would have to bear the consequences of the ignorance or incapacity of the Government which prevented them from defining what it meant. It is not enough to say that the trade unions cover skilled men. There are many skilled men who are outside trade unions. In many cases, to my knowledge, the wide and sweeping operations of the military authorities have taken men who are actually skilled in the performance of their duties and thereby

1051
disorganised the work of the firm in which they are engaged. Many of these firms are engaged in work essential to the conduct of the War. It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the discussion raised by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). I want him to take a very serious view of a serious matter affecting men who are not within the ambit of trade unions and who never will be.
Take, for instance, the case of accountants. There are many men engaged in accountancy who are not members of the Institute of Accountants. They are engaged in work of most vital importance to the firms who engage them. They receive a calling-up notice from the recruiting officer. The local tribunal sits upon the case and says that the man is not a skilled man, therefore he must give up the work in which he is now engaged and go to the War Office or whatever part of the country to which he may be taken to perform work for which he is not so well fitted as for that in which he is already occupied. The fundamental remedy for that state of affairs is for the hon. Gentleman to consider a suggestion I put forward. If you have tribunals deciding cases of men who are medically fit to join the Army, surely it is worth while considering whether you should not set up a tribunal of practical business men to decide whether a man is engaged in work which is more skilled and more necessary than the work he would be called upon to do in the Army. If you have a committee or tribunal of that kind, you would do away with a good deal of the confusion and disorganisation which has resulted from the somewhat arbitrary conduct of many of the recruiting officers. I am not attacking the recruiting officers. They have gone by the Regulations, and if they depart from those Regulations they criticise themselves. If the Government really desires to utilise the skilled ability of many men to the advantage of the country, my suggestion as to the creation of a tribunal to decide the degree of skill might assist the Government in the matter of deciding what "skilled" means. I sincerely hope that that suggestion, or some similar suggestion, will be adopted.
As to the existing agreements, they do not touch anything like the number of men affected by the operations of the recruiting officers. There are thousands of skilled workmen—skilled accountants and
1052
skilled officers in industrial establishments—who are hauled up upon the ipse dixit of the recruiting officer, and taken away from work in which they are useful to work in which they are of no use at all. I know many skilled men in the country who are capable of earning anything between £200 and £500 a year who have been taken away from work in which they are experts and sent down to some parts of the country where they are engaged pulling coal, or hauling flour, or cleaning drains, or some other skilled work of that kind. I hope that this matter is not going to be brushed aside by a mere reference to a skilled critic. It is not right for any Minister of the Crown to take that view of earnest criticism which are made in the interests of the country by Members of this House. At all events, I hope that the hon. Member will exonerate me from any desire to advertise myself. I hope that he will convey to those with whom he is associated that a grave situation has arisen in connection with this matter, and that a method will be found to prevent these things in the future.
6.0.P.M.
Mr. W. THORNE: I apologise for not being in the Committee while this discussion was going on. I have learned that a discussion has arisen upon the question of exemption cards being given to members of craft unions. I have no objection to the cards being given to craft union members, because I understand that is done under an agreement arrived at between representatives of the different organisations and the Ministry of Munitions. It has, however, created very serious difficulty with a very large number of members of other organisations. As regards the union that I have the honour to represent, we have in our organisation many more members who are known as machine workers than has the Machine Workers' Union. The Machine Workers' Union is one organisation that has obtained the cards of exemption. Those cards have been given out to various members. There is a form of pinching or poaching going on. The cards are being used in a very unfair way, to which I hope the Minister of Munitions will put an end at the earliest opportunity. It has been said by representatives of what are called the craft unions, to men who belong to the union I represent, "You men should belong to the union represented by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan) and others. If you come over into this union we will give you a card of exemp-

1053
tion." Naturally the men, thinking they are going to get an exemption card, transfer into that organisation. The Parliamentary Secretary has all these facts at his disposal, because we have hammered the matter out on various occasions. There are men belonging to semi-skilled trades who are working side by side with the men that belong to other unions, doing exactly the same kind of work, and the men who belong to other organisations are getting cards of exemption, while men who belong to the General Labourers' Union are not getting any card of exemption at all. We were advised to get special forms. I have seen a very large number, at least 2,000, which have been filled up by members of our organisation, and up to the present no definite decision has been arrived at between the Minister of Munitions and the War Office in regard to this question. We were advised, rightly or wrongly, by the chief representative at the War Office, General Geddes, to go to the Labour Exchanges, but they have told us they have not got these forms. When we have obtained them they have been filled up and sent to the Minister of Munitions. When any representation has been made to the local military authorities they simply say, "That is no good to us. We do not recognise it at all. We have had no authority front the Secretary of State for War about these matters." I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will inquire at the War Office whether anything has been done to give information to the local recruiting officers whether they are taking into consideration that the men who have signed these forms are doing exactly the same class of work. We do not want any privilege at all. We only want to be in the same position as the craft union men. We are doing the same work and getting the same pay, and we say we are just as much entitled to consideration for our members, and even if they are outside the organisation they ought to have the same rights and privileges as men who belong to the organisation. Therefore, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what is the position at present. If ho can do that I am certain it will give a great deal of satisfaction to members of our organisation and others.
Mr. BOOTH: I was waiting to see if any hon. Member would question the Department on the matter of houses. I do
1054
not propose to discuss it, but I think it is of sufficient importance that we should hear from the Ministry of Munitions some account of what their policy is. I do not press for a lot of figures. The Government has met us on the whole fairly well, and there is nothing to complain of in the attitude of the Minister to-day, but if we could have some indication of what the policy is it would be helpful. If there is one thing that troubles an employer of labour it is the supply of housing accommodation. Collieries have always to consider the life of a seam, and public authorities have to consider the life of an industry with regard to drainage schemes and local improvements. I want to know whether the Government is taking the same care in their plans, because to put up substantial houses, with large local works expenses, if the industry is only to be short lived, would not be good expenditure. I am not raising this by way of criticism, but many of us have had to work on these problems on local authorities for many years, and we know how difficult they are. I think the Committee will like to know what is the policy of the Department with regard to this problem, and what they intend to do with the houses eventually. We have always been told that the Ministry of Munitions is a War Department. When they go away will hand over the houses to the local authorities or to the Office of Works, or will they sell them? Their views upon that point ought to determine very largely how far they go. I am not asking out of curiosity, but I think the ultimate destination of the property should be taken into account in deciding how far the Ministry will go. I shall not make any complaint if we do not get a mass of statistics, but I hope my hon. Friend will see the importance of this matter, especially in view of the fact that recently the builders, architects, and surveyors of the country have been issuing a manifesto that all building has practically stopped through some legislation. I suppose it was on account of that fact that the Ministry of Munitions have been extensively forced into this themselves. I should like the position cleared up. I have had one or two deputations to see me on the matter of building cottages, and we all expect to have a large boom in the building trade immediately the War is over. That is generally expected through the country. I should like to know whether the Ministry is looking ahead at

1055
what their needs are, so that private enterprise can accommodate and supplement the projects of the State.
Captain A. SMITH: I should like to revert to the question of men having been taken for munitions work at the expense of the Army and the retention of skilled munition workers in the Army who properly belong to the Ministry of Munitions. I can say from very great experience that the whole thing has been a scandal. I do not say you can help skilled men going into the Army, but you can help unskilled men going into munitions work and the skilled men being withdrawn. I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite when he suggests that men who are accountants or are in some other skilled trade are doing all the rough work and leave other people to have the best job. Every man ought to make a similarity of sacrifice and do the work he is put to.
Mr. KEATING: I never made any suggestion of the kind. My point was that there were many skilled workers who were not embraced by trade unions who were subject to being called up on military duty, and it is up to the Government to devise some scheme for preventing that.
Captain SMITH: It so happens that if a man belonged to a particular trade on 15th August, 1915, if it was a certified occupation, he would be kept there, until quite recently, under various conditions. But what is the Ministry of Munitions doing now? It has had a system of debadging men, and I should like to ask whether some of these men who go round debadging men are subject to examination themselves. I know several who were never in a trade in their lives who have been doing this work. Tribunals have decided thousands of cases throughout the country—at any rate, if I take my own district as a criterion they must have done—they have decided against the appellants; and what they did was to rush to Gretna Green, or some of these places.
Then I should like to ask, is there some agreement between the people who are erecting and getting into efficient working order new works and the Ministry of Munitions with regard to the time that is to be occupied in the erection and leaving in full working order of those works. I ask because these men, who have been
1056
non-exempted by tribunals in skilled and all manner of trades, have rushed there and sheltered behind these particular firms instead of entering the Army in the ordinary way, while skilled men are retained in the Army who ought properly to be at their trade. They have gone through the Employment Exchanges, and all the efforts of the recruiting officers, I am told, to get these men back to their right places have proved unavailing. I am the last man in the world to put any obstacle in the way of the Ministry of Munitions doing its work efficiently, but they have gone a long way round to get to that point. They might, during the last year, especially from March or April to the end of the year, have got thousands upon thousands of unskilled men out of the munition works and replaced them by skilled men, and the output of munitions would certainly have been greater, and even if it had not it would have, been of better quality. I should also like to ask if that system is in operation now. I should like to know whether, if a man is non-exempted he can escape into munitions work or not. I firmly believe that men ought to be doing something, and if they are better employed there, after close investigation, well and good, but it is unfair to those men who are compelled through certain circumstances to go into the Army, however ill-fitted they may be for it, while other men can go just when they please into munitions works against instructions issued both from the recruiting office and regulations governing tribunals and against statements made by the Minister of Munitions. It is in the public interest that this matter should be cleared up. The War Office and the Ministry of Munitions and the Board of Trade seem to be at loggerheads. This example of men rushing in scores and hundreds into new munition works when orders have been issued against it has done great harm and has made the conditions of the work that some of us have been doing tremendously harder than it would have been otherwise. I hope the Ministry of Munitions and other Government Departments have come to some common understanding as to what has been done with regard to these cases.
Mr. KELLAWAY: A number of points have been raised which require an answer. My hon. Friend (Mr. Keating) is anxious about the position of accountants.
Mr. KEATING: I mentioned accountants as examples of what I mean, that there are skilled workers outside the union.
Mr. KELLAWAY: So far as accountants are concerned I am surprised to hear that there is any grievance of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend. The Ministry of Munitions has had the greatest difficulty in getting a sufficient number of properly qualified accountants, and it has had to take into the service of the Ministry a number of men who are of military age. That fact has been made a ground of criticism against the Ministry in this House.
Captain A. SMITH: If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the tribunals have had instructions in regard to accountants?
Mr. KELLAWAY: I am quite satisfied that no tribunal would take an accountant for military service if he was a fully qualified accountant. [HON. MEMBEES: "Oh!"] Of course, if my hon. Friends will bring any cases where properly qualified accountants have been taken, we will look into the matter.
Captain SMITH: There are two sections of accountants.
Mr. KEATING: There are many accountants outside the Institute.
Mr. KELLAWAY: If they are men qualified to do the work which the Ministry requires, the Ministry would be only too glad to have their services. It has been one of our difficulties to get a sufficient number of these men, and it has been made a ground of complaint against us that we have been taking men of military age into the service of the Ministry. The hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) asked if the Ministry would proceed against these unions which were proselytising members in order to get them into their ranks, because if they joined the union they would get a trade card. I am not sure that we have power to proceed against unions on that count, but it is a point well worth considering.
Mr. PRINGLE: I think you could refuse them the benefit of this privilege for members entering after a certain period.
Mr. KELLAWAY: That is a point which is now under consideration. It will certainly see that that particular aspect of the case is taken into consideration in con-
1058
nection with the discussion which is going on as to the position of the whole scheme. My hon. Friend (Mr. W. Thorne) raised the position of men possessing a certain type of skill. If he had heard my reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Derby, he would see that this is one of the aspects of the case that is being considered. We have already gone to the extent of saying that men of the ages of eighteen to twenty-two who possess a particular type of skill covered by the trade card scheme are not to be called up. That is a pretty clear indication, that so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned, it wants the spirit of this agreement, as apart from the letter, honestly carried out. In regard to the retention of skilled men in the Army, which subject was raised by the hon. Member (Captain A. Smith), that is not a question for which the Ministry of Munitions is responsible. It is a War Office responsibility. But I know that the War Office have issued drastic instructions to commanding officers that they must not retain men in the ordinary Line regiments if they possess skill, but they are to see that those skilled men are put into positions in which their skill in the Army can be used to the best advantage. I do not want to have to reply on behalf of another Government Department, but I thought it was due to the War Office to say this, as I know that those instructions have been issued.
Mr. HOGGE: They do not do it!
Mr. KELLAWAY: The question was also asked as to the position of the Ministry in regard to housing. The housing question was a difficult question before the War, and it has been rendered very much more difficult since the War by the increase in the cost of material and labour. I suppose the increase in the cost of building now is 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, higher than it was before the War, and that makes it impossible to build houses on an economic basis. The Ministry of Munitions recognises that if, as the result of putting up a Government factory, or carrying on Government work, a large body of labour is brought into a neighbourhood and the housing facilities in that neighbourhood are not adequate, the responsibility rests on the Ministry, so far as the circumstances of the time make it possible, to provide houses. There are now up and down the country a number of housing schemes which are, having regard to the conditions under which they

1059
had to be carried out, highly creditable to the men who were responsible for the work. They may not meet all the criticisms of those who value the æsthetic side more, perhaps, than the domestic comfort of the house, but on the whole the housing work has been well done. I am sorry that it has not been possible to do more, but schemes are now in hand in cases where the need is most urgent, and we shall continue, as far as we are permitted by the supply of available constructional labour, which is one of the large controlling factors, and the supply of material, to do our best to grapple with this housing problem. As to the position of the houses after the War and the question to whom they will belong, we have to enter into different agreements. First, it was difficult to get the local authorities to take any of the property. Having regard to the cost of the property, the local authorities are not very willing, and other arrangements are being made. The Minister may have to take possession of the property, or to hand it over to whoever becomes our successor after the War. I hope—and I am speaking now only for myself—that these cottages, many of them, good, well-built cottages, will continue to remain in the hands of some public authority. There was a point raised in regard to Gretna. My hon. Friend (Captain Smith) said men were going to Gretna and getting exemption from military service.
Captain SMITH: I said they had been refused exemption, and had got work at Gretna and were kept there.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I have had cases brought to my notice. I would prefer not to deal with individual cases, but with the general position. It is not only the case at Gretna, but at other places where similar work is going on of special urgency, and requiring a great body of constructional labour, which is the most difficult labour to obtain at the present time. Your big, hefty navvy is a good deal scarcer than your skilled men in some instances, and I am not surprised that on some occasions men who have been refused exemption by tribunals have gone to these works, and have succeeded in getting employment. I am afraid that is chiefly due to the anxiety of the man who is running the job to get his job finished in the shortest possible time. If the hon. Member will give me cases where he thinks this has been abused, I will see that the matter is
1060
gone into carefully. I do not think the Ministry has any right to complain of the temper of the Debate, and the way in which the criticisms have been put before the Committee. I know it is very difficult to deal with detailed points like these, and to give an adequate answer which will commend itself to the sense of the Committee, but I claim that, on the whole, in dealing with the labour side of the work of the Ministry, we have tried to be guided by sympathy and common sense, and chiefly by the desire to get our job done in the best possible way.
Mr. HOGGE: There is one question which requires attention before we pass from this discussion. The hon. Gentleman said that the commanding officers have received instructions in regard to skilled men, to use them in the best possible way which their technical skill demanded. Is he satisfied with the results of those instructions, so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned If he is satisfied, I know that many of us are profoundly dissatisfied. In the course of my communications with men of that type I have always found in regard to the officer commanding, or, if you have got beyond the officer commanding, General Geddes, who holds all these things in the hollow of his hands in Whitehall, that the last possible thing you could get done was to get a skilled man taken out of the ranks and put upon useful work. We had correspondence read the other day in regard to a skilled man in the tinplate industry, who was originally exempted, but who was transferred to the Highland Light Infantry, and sent off to Flanders to fight in the trenches. That is either ridiculous or it is not. It is nonsense for a representative of the Ministry of Munitions to come to the House of Commons to defend his position, and to say that he knows officers commanding have got these orders. He is bluffing us and he is bluffing himself. It is all clotted nonsense. The Army is using skilled men for its own purposes, which are Infantry purposes, instead of using those men for the manufacture of munitions. What troubles me in these matters, as in many other matters, is the question who is the real authority of the Government to sec that these things are put right. Is it the Ministry of Munitions, is it the Secretary of State for War, or who is it? It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say, "We have done our best; we have tried to get this kind of labour;" but the Minister of Munitions

1061
and his secretaries know perfectly well that the War Office has got them by the throat, in order to shake out of them the men they want, and they have not the backbone at the Ministry of Munitions to get their men for essential industries.
Mr. WARDLE: May I say a few words in reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), not on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions, but as one who has had some experience in this matter. I should like to say that the statement which has been made by my hon. Friend is, in his own words, "clotted nonsense." I had the privilege, if I may call it so, of trying to work with the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions for some months during last year in regard to this very problem, and I know that many thousands of men were got out of the Infantry and out of the Army, both into the artificers section of the Army itself and into the munitions industries.
Mr. HOGGE: That is a long time ago. I remember that quite well. I was one of the Members who went through the Southern Command and got these men.
Mr. WARDLE: Then it is not true to say they have not been got. With regard to the policy of the trade card scheme, my criticism of the Government is that this policy was suggested to them last June, it has taken them six months to make up their minds that they would adopt it. Had the Ministry of Munitions and the Army authorities come to an agreement to put that scheme into operation in June, instead of in December, this problem would not have been so acute as it is to-day. I agree with my hon. Friend in his criticism, so far as it concerns the slowness of the method they have adopted. I want to know whether the scheme which is now in operation at last is working satisfactorily, and whether they are getting more men and the kind of men they want, and whether they are getting real co-operation between the two authorities. I agree that there has been between the two Departments in this matter a kind of tug-of-war, one pulling one way and the other pulling the other way. In the public interests that ought to be stopped, if it has not been stopped already. If the trade card scheme is working now, as it might have been working months ago, satisfactorily, I think that the Ministry are going the right way to secure the skilled men for the work they require. I hope in regard to that, that they
1062
will continue the process—it was going on very well last week—of getting skilled men out of the Army and using that skill to the best end.
Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman who spoke last professed to contradict my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh, but the latter part of his speech was a very effective reply to the earlier part. He began by saying that the Munitions Department were getting men out of the Army, and then ho said that it was not being done, and he expressed the hope that it would be done.
Mr. WARDLE: I did not say that.
Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman denies that, but it is within the recollection of the Committee that he wound up by expressing the hope that it was being done, and if it was being done it would have been unnecessary to express the hope. But I have had very recently evidence that it is not being done. For instance, only two days ago, I received a letter which I have in my hand which referred to a particular man who was a skilled worker, and who is in the Army Service Corps, since September last. During that time he has not put in a day's work at his own trade, except the day he passed the Army Service Corps test, and now his family has been notified that he has been transferred to an Infantry regiment. In view of the necessity for skilled men to work at munitions and shipbuilding, such a state of things should not occur. I wish to deal with another subheading under this Vote. I see under subhead C, "Aeronautical supplies, including Eoyal Aircraft Factory." I am surprised to find this sub-head under this Vote. We all understood that there has been complete reorganisation in the Air Service, that a new Department had been set up with a new Minister, namely, an Air Minister, and that this new Air Minister had, as is usual with new Ministers, received a hotel for his special service, one of the largest hotel in the West End, the bedroom accommodation of which is extremely good. I understood that the new Minister was to have complete control over all supplies of aircraft, and that the Royal Aircraft Factory was also to be placed under his control, not only the questions of designs, but also the matter of supplies. In these circumstances it is rather strange to find this sub-head C still occurring under the Vote for Minis-

1063
try of Munitions. I hope that some hon. Gentleman will be able to state whether the Ministry of Munitions still has control over aircraft supplies and over the Royal Aircraft Factory, or whether, if he has not, this Department has been handed over to the Air Ministry, and if it has been handed over to the Air Ministry, whether we are to have a Supplementary Estimate for the Air Ministry, so that we may be able to discuss the policy of the new Department.
Mr. HOGGE: This is too serious to pass in this way. The point which my hon. Friend raises deals with sub-head C, and includes perhaps the most important, or at any rate a growingly important arm of one of our offensive services, the aeronautical supplies, including the Royal Aircraft Factory. The Royal Aircraft Factory has for some considerable time been engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes of a certain design, against which at times there has been certain criticism, the nature of which I do not need to discuss at this moment. If there has been one Committee sitting on this particular subject there has been half a dozen, and there has been quite a number of different arrangements, and recently some of those arrangements were detailed, and we were left to understand that the Ministry of Munitions was to have a certain continuing share in the manufacture of aeronautical supplies That raises the question, to which we are entitled to an answer—is the Ministry of Munitions responsible now for the building of aircraft, or, if not, what do they mean by aeronautical supplies? Obviously aeronautical supplies must have reference to all the various parts required in the manufacture of aeroplanes. Presumably they have got to do with the machinery which is required in various parts of the country. If the Ministry of Munitions has got this as part of its work, how much control has it got over the building of these aeroplanes which are produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory? Presumably there are other aeroplanes which are made outside Government institutions, but somebody must be responsible, and obviously if the Ministry are responsible only for furnishing the parts of machines, somebody must be responsible for assembling them, whether the Royal Aircraft Factory itself, the Ministry of Munitions, or your new Air Board. I understand that the Royal Aircraft Factory is practically an experimental shop of the Government
1064
with regard to the use of aeroplanes, and are we to understand that that still continues under the Ministry of Munitions Department, or that the Air Board comes in and overrides everything with its authority and that the Ministry of Munitions is simply content with the manufacture of supplies? If it is confined to the supplies, can either of my hon. Friends who are in charge give any idea as to what the Ministry of Munitions is now doing in this respect? If there is one Army service that has been criticised as much as another in this War it is the Air Service, and many improvements have been made. Can either of the hon. Gentlemen say what interest the Ministry of Munitions has in this particular Department? I do not see any objection to a short answer being given to that. If my hon. Friend will give an answer, I need not prolong my speech, but the Committee is entitled to some explanation.
Major Sir W. EVANS: Nothing but modesty on my part prevented me from getting up. I have already addressed the Commmittee. My hon. Friend has done so two or three times. The Ministry of Munitions is responsible for aeronautical supplies, including the Royal Aircraft Factory which is referred to in sub-head C. The position of the Ministry in this respect is that it is the supplying Department. We are responsible for all the components that go to make up aircraft, and for the aircraft. We are not responsible for design. That is a matter for the Air Board, and they as it were indent upon us, according to the capacity we have for supply, and we, to the best of our ability, supply them. Hon. Members can rest assured that that is a reasonable working practical arrangement. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) pointed out that Token Votes were not instituted for the purpose of keeping back information. I entirely agree. They were instituted because it is almost impossible, with the great expenditure which the Government has to make, to give any explanation which is of the slightest value to the House of Commons. But they do also have the effect of preventing information which ought not to be given being exacted. For example, under this head C, if the amount of expenditure under aeronautical supplies were stated, a very good estimate could be formed of the number of aeroplanes which were in course of construction or were about to become available. That reason does not apply to

1065
sub-head A. That is the salaries, and I see no reason why the House of Commons should not be told that the salaries and other items under sub-head A of the Vote are to-day at the rate of about £837,000 a year. That is a very rough estimate made since I have been on the bench, but I think it is approximately correct.
Commander WEDGWOOD: Is there any means of knowing what the biggest salaries are?
Major Sir W. EVANS: I want to deal with another point which my hon. Friend raises. I think my hon. Friend has some experience of the Ministry of Munitions, and at one time the Ministry was, as he stated, free of Treasury control. But that is not the case to-day. The Treasury have laid down the rate of salaries that should be paid, and special sanction has to be obtained for any appointment that carries a higher salary, and in fact the Ministry of Munitions has in that sense got on a peace footing, and the proper control of the Treasury as an institution is now brought to bear on the Ministry of Munitions. As regards publishing a list, that is another matter altogether, and I cannot deal with that. I hope that hon. Members will let us have this Vote now. We have had a useful, wide and discursive discussion, and there are other Votes to follow.
Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Ministry of Munitions, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc."
Major NEWMAN: This Estimate for the year I take to be merely a rough conjecture as to the cost of the ordnance factories for 1916–17. I am sure that while the majority in this House are prepared to vote the necessary money, they want to be sure, just as the people outside want to be sure, that it will be spent well, and that we shall get the best in the way of
1066
rifle, shells, and other munitions that can possibly be obtained. I am one of those who take an interest in the Small Arms Factories, and, in regard to the rifles supplied to our troops, I think they have the very best weapon that could have been furnished to them since the War began. Not only the Expeditionary Force, but the large Armies which have followed it, have been supplied with the best rifles and the best guns, though not always enough of either one or the other. I am very glad that the Enfield rifle, with its strengthened mechanism, has proved itself to be such an excellent weapon. Before the outbreak of the War there was an intention to change the rifle, but luckily the Government did not do so, and it is now felt that the Enfield rifle has stood well the strain of the campaign. In the year immediately preceding the outbreak of the War the Royal Ordnance Factories were being brought down to the lowest level-perhaps not so much at Woolwich, though, at any rate, the Small Arms Factories at Enfield and Waltham were brought down to a low level indeed—in regard to the number employed and the work turned out. Machines were standing idle, with the result that apprentices who had served their time could not be taken on to earn the higher wages when they came to be twenty-one years of age. With the help of the High Commissioner of Australia, the present Member for the St. George's Division, Hanover Square (Sir George Reid), I was enabled to get some forty of these apprentices emigrated to Australia, not to take positions as skilled workmen, but simply as agricultural labourers.
That was before the War. Apprentices who had served their time at the Small Arms Factories were ready to take up more valuable positions. What happened at the outbreak of War? The number employed rapidly increased from 2,000 to over 8,000. Men in all sorts of positions—nursery gardeners, and so on—flocked to the factories, ready to do their bit as well as the men in the trenches. Afterwards, as hon. Members know, it was found necessary to adopt a process of "combing out" men who had gone into these Small Arms Factories, and, undoubtedly, some delay occurred at Enfield and at Waltham, as there did up and down the rest of the country. What happened at these Small Arms Factories was that married men who had worked there for a great number of years, having risen from the position

1067
of apprentice, were combed out and sent into the Army, while in a great many cases, I am sorry to say, single men—some of whom had only entered the employment at the outbreak of the War—were retained. The question has been a burning one in the two districts to which I refer, Enfield and Waltham, and it has come before the tribunals of Enfield, Brentford, Chingford, and Edmonton, and the parties concerned, backed by the workers' union, have sent protest after protest to the Minister of Munitions and to the Commander of Ordnance about this retaining of single men and the dismissal of married men who had been employed at the factories. Only at their last sitting the Enfield Tribunal were so dissatisfied with what was happening that, as a protest, they adjourned the consideration of the cases of the married men that came before them for a fortnight, until they could get from the Ministry of Munitions some information as to why so many single men were being retained at the Small Arms Factories. The Secretary of the workers' union was also requested to go before the tribunal, and make complaint as to the matter.
I have been given a list of forty names in one department alone of the Enfield factory, and they are, I am told, the names of single men who are at this moment employed in this one factory. The forty men do not represent a complete list of the single men still employed in the departments of the Small Arms Factory, and only yesterday I had an interview with a man, aged forty, who has been employed at the factory for twenty-five years, and will be called up probably in the near future. I could give the Committee other instances which have come before the tribunals, but will not do so, as I do not desire to detain the Committee. This, of course, is not a new subject. A deputation from these local tribunals was received by the Minister of Munitions last November. I was with the deputation, and the Minister went into the whole matter with us very fully, patiently, and carefully. He promised that the list of names of those employed in the two small arms factories should be carefully and closely gone into, and, unless there was sufficient reason for retaining single men, they would be discharged before the married men were taken. I cannot say, however, that since then things have been going quite well in that respect. Undoubtedly the feeling of
1068
grievance has extended, and, of course, this causes dissatisfaction amongst the employés. In these lists I find about eight names marked with a cross. I wrote to find out what the cross meant. The reply was that the cross meant that these single men retained were relatives of the foremen of the various Departments. It is believed that because these single men were relatives of foremen they were being kept back. I do not believe that, however. I do not believe that men in the position of foremen in the small arms factories, either at Enfield or Waltham, would do such a thing as that. I suggest that when it was seen that single men were being retained and married men discharged, people began to ask why, and if they found out that a certain single man was a nephew, son, or relation of a particular foreman, they would say that was why he was being kept back, and thus discontent arose—a discontent which was prejudicial to me factory.
I ask the Minister of Munitions to take up this question of the employment of single men who are retained at small arms factories while married men are discharged. Of course, formerly the small arms factories were under the Army Council, but they are now under the Ministry of Munitions, represented by three civilians, and I do not think that the employés have quite realised that fact. I urge the Minister of Munitions to go very carefully through the lists of those employed at the small arms factories and see why it is that single men are kept back while the married men are dismissed and called up. I would utter this word of caution. If he is told that a particular man is under notice he should not rest satisfied with that information, but should put the further question, How long the man had been under notice and when he was going? For it is the fact that though a man is under notice he sometimes does not go at all, but is still kept on. After all, we can get substitutes from all quarters. Indeed, since the War began over a thousand women have been taken on and still more are to be employed in the future. This question is a very grave one and is causing a great deal of discontent. The people see hundreds of unmarried men kept on while married men with families are sent away. I urge the Minister of Munitions to take up this subject most earnestly with a view to removing causes of discontent and seeing that single men, wherever that it is justifiable, are taken before married men.
7.0.P.M.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I know this subject is one in which the lion, and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman) has taken a great deal of interest; indeed, he has raised it here on more than one occasion, and we could not possibly object to the question being brought up in Committee because it is a good thing it should be discussed here. I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member into what he said as to what happened before the War at Enfield. It would no doubt be a very interesting chapter, but time is urgent and we cannot now go into it. But when the hon. Member went on to speak of the footmen, innkeepers, and shopkeepers who flocked into Enfield let it be remembered that they did so in response to a national appeal, and the country undoubtedly owes them a deep debt of gratitude for having put aside their ordinary occupations in order to assist in meeting the demands— the clamant and increasing demands—for supplies for the Army in the field. I am quite prepared to admit there may be men in Enfield who, if we could know all the circumstances, ought to be combed out. Possibly, too, some have been combed out who ought to have been allowed to remain. But I do not think it is fair to bring to this House a list of forty men and say, "I am told that these forty men are single men employed in one particular branch of the factory," and then expect such a list to be dealt with by anyone standing at this box. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me the names I will undertake that every case is examined into. He spoke of eight men of whom it was said that they were kept there because they were relatives of foremen. I can only say in regard to that that the decision as to the retention of men does not rest with the foremen. It is recognised it is too big a decision for them to take, and it therefore rests with the head of the factory who, it is quite true, may act upon what the foreman says. But how can that be avoided in any properly conducted undertaking? If I can have the names of the eight men who, it is alleged, have been kept on because they are relatives of foremen, I hope I shall be able to give the hon. Member some good ground for keeping them there, or else see that they are combed out.
Major NEWMAN: I am not saying it is true. I am quoting this as one of the things which breed discontent.
Mr. TYSON WILSON: If the hon. Gentleman finds it is true, will he comb-out the foremen as well?
Mr. KELLAWAY: I can only say I hope I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member that we are doing all that is required. But I do suggest that my hon. Friend is not fair in making statements of this kind unless he is prepared to accept responsibility for them. I have had figures supplied to me with regard to the number of skilled men employed at Enfield at the time the last deputation waited on the Minister of Munitions. There were at that time 1,220 single men between twenty-one and forty-one there employed, and the Minister for Munitions gave an undertaking that he would have every case examined and the attendant circumstances inquired into, and would comb out those who did not possess skill regarded as indispensable, or in regard to whom there were other circumstances which made it desirable that they should be moved. It was discovered that 535 men were indispensable. I may be asked why. I will deal with that point presently. Twenty-seven were placed in low categories—C 3 men and so on. It is obviously undesirable that C 3 men, who cannot be of much use for the Army, should be removed from Enfield, where they are doing useful service. Two hundred and thirty-six men had been rejected for military service or had been discharged. That gives a total of 798 men accounted for, leaving 422 single men, who it was admitted ought to be replaced. I submit you cannot replace 422 men all at once without disorganising the work of the factory. Since that date, out of the 422 men, 253 have been discharged, leaving 169 still to be dealt with. I do not think that is a bad record for just over two months. Out of 422 men, 253 have been discharged and substitutes have been found for them.
I now come to the question of indispensability. The real question in which the Minister of Munitions is primarily interested is not whether men are married or single, but whether they can produce munitions of war better than other men who might be put in their place. If they possess a class of skill for producing bayonets or rifles which is really indispensable for the conduct of the factory, then the management has to consider not whether a man is married or single— although I agree that if other things are equal, if you are dealing with men of equal

1071
aptitude, then the single men should go first—but indispensability is the guiding consideration at Enfield. I am confident it is the only consideration that guides the management in coming to a decision in regard to these cases. We cannot, in the interests of the Army in the field, allow these indispensable men to be taken out of our factories. We should be making what, I think, was the greatest mi stake the country has made in this War in underestimating the importance of material in this fight. This is as much a war of material as of men, and to-day Germany is bringing back from the trenches large numbers of men to work in the munition factories. We should be doing poor service to the Army in the field if we allowed to be combed out of our factories, under the influence of cases where prejudice has been created, men whom we regard as indispensable for the production of munitions. I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to believe that the one consideration that guides us is whether these men are really necessary for equipping the Army, and if he likes to come to me and let me go through his lists of cases with him, I think I shall be able to justify to him the way in which we have dealt with the Enfield factory.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [13TH FEBRUARY].
  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916–17—Class 1.

    SURVEYS OF UNITED KINGDOM.
    Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,370, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Survey of the United Kingdom and for minor services connected therewith."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. HOGGE: The Leader of the House, when this Vote was in Committee of Supply, promised there should be some body hero on Report stage to give us in formation which was lacking on that occasion. I would like to know if there is any Minister present in a position now to do that?
    Mr. PRINGLE: As there appears to be some difficulty in obtaining the presence of Ministers to give the information we desire, I may be doing the Government a service if I occupy the time of the House until the Minister concerned is found. It will be remembered that when this Vote was in Committee there was a considerable amount of discussion on it which was largely due to the universal ignorance displayed by the occupants of the Front Bench. There were at the moment something like half-a-dozen Ministers present, and three of them spoke, but not a single one who endeavoured to enlighten the Committee on that occasion was in possession of the necessary information. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General (Sir Gordon Hewart) spoke on the Committee stage, and made a very interesting and well-phrased speech, but it did not contain much information, and as he is now silent I am inclined to think his mind is, at the present moment, as much a blank as it was then. The hon. Member who represents the Board of Agriculture (Sir R. Winfrey), who is understood to be an authority on this subject, has, I know, evinced considerable anxiety to be present at this stage of the Vote, as it was understood that he would obtain some information from the Department which would enable him to answer our questions. Perhaps his absence at the resent moment is due to the fact that the Report stage has been brought on at this moment very unexpectedly. We know the circumstances which have led to a change in the evening's programme, and we are aware that the Prime Minister was to have made a speech this evening on another important subject, and that therefore this particular Vote might not have been reached. But business has been facilitated. I see the Leader of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture are now in their places, and I trust that the latter Gentleman is in a position to give us the information which was promised in Committee. As I see he has a long document in his hand, I will not stand between him and the House any further.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): I regret I was not able when this Vote was in Committee to give all the information that the House desired, but I hope I can do so now. The expenditure on the survey of the United Kingdom in the year prior to the War was £210,900. The amount was reduced

    1073
    very considerably last year, when it fell to £174,920. This year it was felt that a further reduction should take place, and so the Director-General sent in an estimate for this year's expenditure of £96,430. However, after a conference with the Treasury, that was further cut down to £56,030, so that it will be seen that the expenditure this year is £56,000, as compared with the pre-war expenditure of £210,000; and I may say that out of that £56,000 no less than £21,000 is balance of pay to men in the forces, so that really the net expenditure in this Department this year is £35,000, as compared with £210,000 before the War. The result naturally was that the staff had to be very largely cut down, but whilst the staff was being cut down exceptional demands came from the front, and some of the staff had to be recalled. Other reductions of the staff, instead of being immediate, as it was hoped, had to be spread over the whole of the financial year, and this accounts for the excess of expenditure on this Vote of £5,420 over the original estimate. It really means that instead of this Department being able to save £40,400, they have only been able to save £34,980. Still the saving is very large. It will be seen how much it has been when it is compared with the pre-war expenditure, and really the War reduction in this one Department is £164,500.
    I was asked something about the staff the other day which I was not able then to reply to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), I think it was, asked me with regard to the staff. Before the War we had a staff of 2,070 men. To-day that has been reduced to 1,054, and we have 779 of the men now serving in the Army. I was asked how many men were of military age. I find that of the 1,054 which we now have in this Department there are only twenty-five in England and twenty-five in Ireland who are fit for general service at this moment, and of the twenty-five who are in England five are under notice to join the Colours, and we are asking for substitutes in order that the other twenty may join at the earliest possible moment. That disposes of the whole twenty-five in England. With regard to the twenty-five in Ireland, eight have been rejected by the military, and the remainder in Ireland are not subject to compulsion. If the House will allow me for a moment I will refer to the enormous work which this Department has
    1074
    done throughout the year. The average number of maps printed is something like 20,000 a day, and these maps have to be printed in five colours. To show how necessary it is to be prepared for all eventualities and contingencies that may arise, I would mention that the appointment of the war agriculture committees the other day by the Board of Agriculture necessitated our supplying them with no fewer than 11,000 maps very quickly, and it is because of this fluctuating demand that it has not been possible to lay down a rigid war establishment in this Department. It has been necessary to keep a sufficient reserve of staff, and therefore we have to revise our estimate, and we find that we are spending £5,420 more on the staff than we originally hoped to do. The other item refers to the sale of maps, and I did explain that pretty fully. The reduction in the sale of maps to the general public is natural in war time, but the reduction has been larger than we anticipated. We estimated that we should sell something like £22,000 worth of maps, but as a matter of fact we only expect now to sell about £15,000 worth.
    Resolution agreed to.

WAR CABINET.—Class II.
Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,075, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the War Cabinet,"
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. HOGGE: I want to ask again with regard to this line at the bottom of page 4, "The salaries of the Staff of the War Cabinet are paid out of the Vote of Credit." I have been making some inquiries between the date on which we last discussed this Vote and now, and I find that at No. 4, Whitehall, where the War Cabinet is housed, extensive alterations have gone on, partitions have been broken down in order to make better rooms for members of the War Cabinet, rooms have been provided for various members, and various members have not been in those rooms, and the building has been remodelled. I have also found out that there are thirty-six members of the secretariat of the new War Cabinet, and I want to know if there is any responsible Minister who can say definitely if that is

1075
so. It must be an extremely costly business to set up a War Cabinet of five members if you have attached to it already thirty-six people ail in receipt of salaries. Really, there ought to be some limit to this appointment of Secretaries, with their attendant clerks and other officials, and if it is true, as I am informed, that they have now grown from thirty-six for those five members of the War Cabinet, I think attention ought to be drawn to it, and some explanation offered.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): If the cost is borne on the Vote of Credit it cannot be here at the same time.
Mr. HOGGE: Why is one part of this put down in a Supplementary Estimate and the suggestion made that the efficiency part of the War Cabinet is borne on another Vote? I do not think this is fair to the House, because how are we to ascertain what secretariat is attached to the War Cabinet? You cannot get it on the. Vote of Credit, when there is no opportunity for asking this kind of question, and I submit that we are entitled on Report to get the information with regard to the method in which our money is spent. This was asked while we were in Committee, and if I remember rightly somebody was going to find out and give us the information. Surely, even though it were not strictly in order, some Minister can tell us whether it is true that inside this short space of time there is now a secretariat of thirty-six members attached to the War Cabinet at No. 4, Whitehall, and if that is an indication of how the nation's money is to be wasted.
Mr. PRINGLE: I do not know whether the silence which prevails among the nine Gentlemen who now occupy the Front Bench is due to the same reason as when this Vote was put from the Chair on the last occasion. Then the reason was the absence of all information on the subject, but I had hopes, after the discussion we have had already, that on the question which my hon. Friend has put the hon. Gentleman who acts as Secretary to the Treasury would have been able to say something. It seems to me to be a very irregular proceeding to put down a new sub-heading in the Votes—"War Cabinet"—and when that new sub-heading is placed in them to find that the main service of that War Cabinet on which the bulk of the expenditure would arise is not
1076
to be accounted for on the Vote at all. I desire to protest against that proceeding. I think there is no reason why the salaries of the staff of the War Cabinet should not be included in this Vote; and, further, I wish to say that if, when the main Votes are put down for the new financial year, the salaries of the staff of the War Cabinet are not included in the Votes, just as the salaries of the staff of any other Government Department are included in the Votes, a strong protest will be made and means will be taken to have a complete statement made by moving a reduction of the Vote.
I wish to revert very shortly to one matter which was closely argued in Committee and which, I think, ought not to be lost sight of by the Government, and that is that this system of having Ministers, without portfolios should come to an end as speedily as possible. It was then forcibly pointed out that we have in the past been able in this country to dispense with Ministers without portfolios because there are certain sinecure offices in the Government without Departmental duties to which statesmen could be appointed whose services were required in council rather than for administrative purposes in any Department. The question will not be allowed to rest. If an opportunity is not speedily taken to reduce the apoplectic proportions of the present Government by dispensing with Ministers without portfolios and assigning them to these sinecure Departments, and by other pruning processes, then the matter will call for strong criticism in the future. I hope, however, that, apart from this point, the hon. Member who acts as Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give us an assurance that we will have in the Estimates for the new financial year a detailed Estimate of the whole staff of the War Cabinet.
Mr. BALDWIN: The only reason I have not risen before is that this is not a Vote which deals with the salaries of the staff of the War Cabinet. It is a Vote that deals solely and entirely with the salaries of two Ministers without portfolio at a rate of £5,000 a year.
Mr. HOGGE: It says "and expenses of the War Cabinet."
Mr. BALDWIN: But it docs not include salaries. The information at the bottom of the page is information that the House is entitled to have as to the source from

1077
which the salaries of the staff are taken. I think, with respect, that it would be out of order for me to enter on the subject on a Supplementary Vote of this nature. The hon. Member who has just spoken is fully competent, if I may say so, to find any and every opportunity that may arise to raise this question, and when he has that opportunity and raises the question, which is one that is quite proper to be raised, it will be met at due time and in due place.
Resolution agreed to.

BOARD OF TRADE—Class II.
Resolutions reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,709, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."

BOARD OF CONTROL, ENGLAND—Class II.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3.800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray die Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England."
Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOAN COMMISSION— Class.II
Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
Resolution agreed to.

SECRET SERVICE.—Class II.
Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: I think so large a sum as this requires an explanation and some justification. As there are no less than ten right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench I hope that one of them, at any rate, will be able to give a little information upon this subject. It is perfectly obvious that there has been an enormous increase in the amount spent on secret service. I do not object to that—in this sense, that in a time of war a great deal must be kept from the eyes of the public which Parliament and the public have a perfect right to ask about and to know in times of peace. When the War broke out I think our annual Vote for Secret Service was about £40,000. I suppose it is fifteen times as much as that to-day. I want an assurance—if it can be given—and let me remind right hon. Gentlemen that it was given by their predecessors, the last Government—that after the War the amount of the Secret Service Fund shall go back to this pre-war figure. We do not want to have saddled upon us in time of war a large Vote, the reason for, the way in which, and the possibilities upon which it may be spent quite unknown—we do not want this system of a huge secret police thrust upon us in time of war. It is the mention of this huge secret police that we have about us at the present time that gives ground in my mind for some suspicion and alarm. I hear on quite a number of hands that secret agents are being employed, not necessarily to track out the enemy and to obtain in foreign countries information that we desire, but actually in our own land. It is stated that they are being employed among our own workers to support and to foment discontent, suspicion, and disunion amongst the workers who ought to stand together, and who otherwise would stand together against the profiteer and the persecutions that are put upon them.
Quite a number of cases have been brought to my notice. Some may be rather suspicious, because in a day where there is so much secret agency going about there must of necessity be a great deal of suspicion, more or less unfounded, or more or less well founded. I very much regret, therefore, that it has been necessary to increase this Vote. I hope that the Estimate which will be presented for the coming year will go back to the old figure of £400,000 and that we shall have no Supplementary Estimate. There is another question in connection with the secret service to which I must call attention. A great deal of secret service money is being em-

1079
ployed in ways that are not at all secret. There are at least two Departments carrying on their work in offices which are perfectly well known, not only to Members of Parliament—because there has been repeated questions put and answered in this House about them—which have all indicated that certain persons are doing certain work, in certain ways, with certain objects, all supported on the Secret Service Vote. I suppose everyone of us knows several persons of this description. There are former Members of this House doing work for the secret service, and making no sort of secret whatever about it. That is a very new and a very unfortunate development of the Government of the day.
They send men to do work that is not secret. Instead of having a report of their work laid before the public, instead of their activities being open to criticism as they would be if their payment or salaries and expenses were put upon the ordinary Estimates of the House, certain persons and certain departments of the work are withdrawn from the criticism of this House by having them put on the Secret Service Vote. There are many ways in which this House has in time of war given up its control. I am sorry to see the advantage taken by the Government of this tendency that the House has very properly shown not to inquire very deeply into some of these matters, but to take as much as possible for granted. The Government have withdrawn from the public gaze certain activities of their members or their services. I greatly hope that in future we shall not have any increase of this Secret Service Vote, and that those people who perform secret service, and are paid by this Vote, will not go about London and other places proclaiming that the work that they are doing is secret service work. I should like to make it a condition—and I should do so if I were at the Treasury—that these people who do secret service should work in secret, should not blaze forth their activities in public, and should not go about telling people how they are paid. My suggestions may not be very well received, I dare say, but I believe they are worth something or I should not make them. There are a good many remarks I might make upon this subject, but I had the opportunity of speaking on some of these matters in Committee, and therefore I shall content myself with what I have now said.
Mr. BOOTH: I should rather be inclined to criticise this matter from the opposite standpoint to that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, though I do not propose to do so. I hope the House will never begrudge anything under this head. It we cease on both sides to trust the Government of the day in matters of this kind, I think it is all over with the Empire. The fact is there is a large increase— much larger than the hon. Member seems to think. I think it will be an increase of £420,000 per annum—the original Estimate being £200,000— thus making the total £620,000. The fact is one on which I would rather commend the Government. I am rather glad that the Government are waking up to the fact that they are fighting an unscrupulous enemy, who will stick at nothing. The utmost length to which you can get the Government to stretch the Secret Service Vote is not anything comparable to the diabolical inventions of which our enemy is capable. I presume the hon. Member knew, when he spoke, that he would not be successful in influencing the policy of the Government. At any rate, I do not want his to be the only voice put forward in this matter.
I should like to throw out a suggestion to the Government. It turns upon a point which I feel I rather expressed badly on a former occasion. There is an exceptional opportunity now for our secret service if they take as a starting point some of the exposures of the German firm's machinations in this country. I think the results will show that the money has been well spent. There is no doubt at all about it that the German commercial people here were largely secret service men of the German Government. If you tear the veil aside and get into the inside of the German firms you will establish the fact of the lengths to which they would go, and have gone, with bribery, corruption, and the teaching of particular knowledge of British Acts of Parliament—so as to evade them— and the procedure of our Law Courts. The Government have an opportunity in the winding up of these enemy firms. If they would put some of their secret service men on to the records which are for the first time available, I think some of the contentions I put forward in a former Debate would rather be found to be true—that a great deal of the corruption in British commercial life has been forced upon Britishers by the competition of these German firms, who were

1081
so unscrupulous that sometimes weak competitors gave way and tried to meet them in their own fashion. I feel that a great deal of the corruption aimed at by the legislation, of which I spoke before, has been fostered and encouraged by the German contingent in this country. I think if our secret service men could get access to the records which are now available in the Board of Trade control of these firms, and examine the books, and some of the payments, and then connect them with politics—as I think they would be able to do—a very great deal of valuable information would be obtained. This increased vigilance on the part of the Government should have, I think, the hearty support of the House.
Question put, and agreed to.

REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, IRELAND— Class II.
Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: I have taken a great deal of interest in this matter of the registration of business names, which, I suppose, it is proposed, through the Department of the Registrar-General in Ireland, to put into operation in that country. As one who does business occasionally in Ireland, and who occasionally goes to Ireland, I should like to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland can give us any information as to what has been done there? Will the Act be put into force in the same way there as in this country I Can he assure us that this very useful Act will be put into force without any delay whatsoever?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): All the arrangements have been made for putting the Act promptly into operation. All the details have been carefully thought out, and I have no doubt by the 31st March the bringing of this Act into operation will be as forward in Ireland as it will be in this country.
Question put, and agreed to.

COUNTY COURTS.—Class III.
Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £13,366, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: I should like to ask whether it would not be possible to rearrange the County Courts. There is less work now going on—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is quite out of order.
Question put, and agreed to.

POLICE, ENGLAND AND WALES.—Class III.
Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,191, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant - Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, Repayments to the Metropolitan Police Fund, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and Expenses in connection with Special Constables and the Police Reserve."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING Mr. KING: This is rather a serious matter that we should have a Supplementary Vote for the Metropolitan Police at all. First of all, crime has very greatly decreased in London and everywhere. Why, therefore, do we want more money spent on police? There is another point. A great number of patriotic citizens, too old to bear arms in the War, have come-forward with the greatest spirit and self-denial to act as special constables, and if you were present outside the House when His Gracious Majesty came to deliver his Speech from the Throne the week before last, you would have observed rows of dignified, stalwart citizens of mature years, but ready to serve their country at home, by acting as special constables. I

1083
must say to me it was a very inspiring sight that we have so many special constables.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this Vote. This is a Supplementary Vote for quite another purpose. The hon. Member cannot raise general questions in this way.
Question put, and agreed to.

LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND.—Class III.
Resolutions reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £344, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.—Class III.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,590, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.—Class III.
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £56,770, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
Resolutions agreed to.

TREASURY CHEST FUND.—Class V.
Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,675, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1915–16."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: This is an amount which I think rather large, and as to which we ought to have an explanation. "Various Treasury Chests Abroad" are mentioned. I think we ought to be told which of these Treasury Chests are referred to.
Mr. BALDWIN: Every year there are published full particulars of the transactions of the Treasury Chest. I should like to add that if the hon. Member thinks the amount voted this year rather large, the transactions have been very large, and the actual cost to the Treasury of making these payments all over the world to people who are serving works out at some-think like one-tenth of 1 per cent, of the turnover.
Question put, and agreed to.

GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.—Class VI.
Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Mr. KING: I think we ought to have a little more information than was given to us the other night. I listened very attentively then to all the Debate upon this Government hospitality. I am sorry the First Commissioner of Works is not here, because I think it is especially a matter in which he takes a hand, and I am sure he does it with great dignity, affability, and success, and possibly some of us may some day, in some way or other, share the hospitality which I am sure we all feel towards the many distinguished foreigners who come to the country at the present time. But this Vote, as I understand, has not been taken for some years. It is not an annual Vote, but it is made just once in a way, and then the sum left at the end of the year does not go back to the Treasury, but is a sort of standing balance that will go on from year to year. I would like to know how long it is expected that this sum we are now voting will last. Do we now entertain so many distinguished foreigners that the money is going very quickly? Is due economy exercised in war-time? I hope there will be a little further information on this point as to

1085
whether it is anticipated that the amount now being voted will last, say, for a couple of years.
Mr. BOOTH: I think, perhaps, the hon. Member is entitled to an answer from the Government. What I would like to ask is this. It says:
"Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on 81st March, 1917, will not be liable to surrender."
Does the fact of printing this note in small type make it so? I should have thought there ought to be some operative words.
Mr. BALDWIN: I am sorry the "First Commissioner of Works is not here to reply to the points raised. With regard to what the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) said, of course he knows perfectly well it is quite impossible to say what demands may be made on this Vote in the forthcoming year or the forthcoming two years. The immediate reason for our application to the Committee for this sum is in view of the forthcoming Imperial Conference. That will bring a number of distinguished statesmen to this country, and they may be here for some time That, undoubtedly, will make some inroads on this amount. How long this sum lasts entirely depends on what other gatherings of a similar nature or of representatives of the Allied Powers may meet in London. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), I am not sure I can give him all the information he requires, but I would remind him that the practice in the past has been for this Committee to vote a certain sum, and that sum remains to be drawn against until it is expended. There has been no Vote taken for four years. The last was in the financial year 1912–13, and there is sufficient balance on that Vote to cover the expenditure until just now, when, as I have said, in view of the forthcoming Imperial Conference we are obliged to ask the Committee for what is in effect a further Credit.
Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.—Class VII.
Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,915, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the
1086
Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
Resolution agreed to.

GRAND JURIES (SUSPENSION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title and Extent.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Grand Juries (Suspension) Act, 1917.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move to leave out the words "or Ireland," and to insert instead thereof the words, "In the application of this Act to Ireland Subsections (3) and (4) of Section I shall not have effect."
8.0 P.M.
I think it is very much to be regretted that the Government have not seen the necessity of extending a Bill of this character to Ireland. In framing their Bill, the Government have not taken the existence of that country into their purview. Last year the present Home Secretary brought in an Indictments Bill. I then made a strong protest against the non-application of that to Ireland, but, at all dents, here was a question of public convenience or inconvenience, whereas here there is a distinct question of public convenience. In England you propose to dispense with grand juries attending in every English county and county borough, but in every Irish county and county borough twenty-three gentlemen are to be brought from their business to the Assizes to hear Bills of a most trumpery kind. I supported this Bill on the last occasion, and the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. Archdale), who has been returned to this House after many years' absence, cordially supported my suggestion that this Bill should apply to Ireland. All that this involves is the omission of the words "or Ireland" and that would do no harm. We are told that this Bill is not demanded in Ireland. Of course it is not, because they do not know of its existence, and they do not know that it has been introduced. A representative from Ireland suggests that this is a useful Bill and

1087
that Ireland should have the benefit of it, but the Attorney-General says, "No; I have got a telegram from Dublin Castle from a person who is in complete touch with the rest of Ireland and he speaks for all the counties and the cities of Ireland." Was there ever anything heard of more absurd? The people whom this Bill will affect are persons who as yet have not any legal existence because the sheriff's precept has not been issued to call them together, and it affects the very class who, in the South and West of Ireland, have given such large support to the Government as officers in the Army. They largely constitute the middle classes from whom the grand juries are drawn and they will be absent serving at the front. I do not like to take up further time discussing this matter, and I will now listen to what the Attorney-General has to say. If he can present any arguments why Ireland should not be included, I shall be glad to hear them. We are told that Ireland only needs to state her grievances and the House is ready to listen to our arguments. Here is a little Bill involving no cost except that of printing, and I hope my Amendment will be adopted.
Mr. SCANLAN: I rise to support this Amendment. The Clause to which objection is taken states that, "This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland." There is no question on this point in regard to Scotland, because there the people have always been too sensible to have grand juries, which they consider is an antiquated system. There never has been in modern times any real justification for this system, and there is no justification for it at the present time. In Ireland there is no demand for the perpetuation of the grand jury system, and it would be a great convenience to those who have to serve on grand juries in Ireland to be relieved from that obligation at the present time. This is a tentative proposal, and it is absolutely for the period of the War. It is tentative as regards the question whether the grand jury system shall be abolished or not. As far as I can see, the cause of justice in criminal administration would not suffer by this proposal, but would be advantaged by the final and complete abolition of the system. This is a tentative proposal, and it would be well, I think, to extend it to Ireland. There are many ways in which the men who are now called up on grand juries could do useful service by assisting in food production,
1088
and it would be a great pity if this Act were not extended in its application to Ireland.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): I really think I have some grievance against my two hon. and learned Friends opposite. I regret that it did not occur to them when they decided to make this serious proposal to the House of Commons to give me some kind of warning as to their intention. This measure was well advertised in the papers, and the Government announced very early their intention of introducing this legislation. I was asked a question about it as late as last December, and I clearly indicated that it was my intention to introduce this Bill. I gave hon. Members six weeks' notice before the Bill was taken. If I had been given a chance I should certainly have taken steps to ascertain the opinion of the Irish people on this matter. On the Second Reading the hon. and learned Member opposite adopted quite an amiable disposition towards the Bill, and I hope he will not prevent me tonight from getting through the Committee stage. Before the Bill was drafted in a form applicable to England, had my attention been called to this proposal, I can assure hon. Members I would have done my best to meet their wishes. But consider the position in which I am placed. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M Healy), almost with a sneer, said that had communicated with Dublin Castle and accepted their claims to represent the views of the whole nation. I did not do anything of the kind.
Particular attention has been directed to the fact that the hon. and learned Member who represents Ulster (Mr. Archdale) sympathises with the views which have just been expressed in regard to this Amendment, but I am sure I shall not he thought unreasonable if I hold that this is a matter upon which I should consult the views of the Attorney-General for Ireland more especially in regard to a matter which concerns the judicial system of Ireland. I have received a telegram from the Attorney-General in which he says he is opposed to this change in Ireland, and that he cannot find that it has any considerable volume of public opinion behind it in Ireland. Of course, he may be right or wrong, but no one who practices at the Bar would deny my obligation to consult the Irish Attorney-General on this point. The hon. and learned Member

1089
says there is no distinction between the position in England and in Ireland. I know, however, that in England there is an overwhelming demand for this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Healy) says that nobody in Ireland has ever heard of this Bill. No doubt that is a rhetorical phrase, but in this case the phrase of my hon. and learned Friend is so rhetorical that it has no connection with the facts. Does he really mean that the members of the grand jury, the very class which has bombarded me in this country with representations of their intention, the class that supplies officers for the Army, read so little of the English and Irish newspapers that they are wholly unaware that this measure is contemplated in this country to relieve grand juries of the grievances under which they suffer when in Ireland they are feeling the same burden?
As far as I know, they have never made a single objection to this measure. The other day I did consult the only two members of the Irish party whom I could discover in the precincts of the House, and both of them specifically stated that, in their view, there was no general desire that this change should be made in Ireland. The proposal now made would involve very serious risk to the Bill as a whole. No doubt my hon. and learned Friend has observed that Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section I cannot survive if these words are left out, and we require the securities that are preserved by those Sub-sections. I know this could be dealt with on Report, but to do that would not be convenient to the general structure of the Bill. Let me say that if my hon. and learned Friend can satisfy me, and those more particularly responsible for the administration of Irish affairs, that there does exist in Ireland any real desire that this Bill should be extended to Ireland, I do not anticipate that there will be the slightest difficulty in giving immediate effect to that desire, and for my part I will give it every assistance in my power. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a reasonable man, and he will see that it would be very unfair and unreasonable to me and to those classes who are complaining of the burdens imposed upon them in this country if I were to endanger this Bill and delay its passage by accepting this proposal, because this is a measure which is very much demanded in this country. Had I been able to get all the stages of this Bill through on the last
1090
occasion it would not have been necessary to summon the grand juries at the forthcoming Assizes at Durham and other places, but it is now too late. I sincerely trust that after these observations my hon. and learned Friend will not pursue his hostility to these proposals.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: As far as I am concerned, of course if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept my Amendment I shall not persist in delaying his measures, but he must allow me to say that he has laid down what I respectfully submit are entirely false canons of procedure. It is the duty of the Government draftsmen in the case of every Bill brought into this House, which is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to consider the United Kingdom as a whole. The contrary doctrine laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is what has hitherto been called in the dictionary of his party the separatist principle. Scotland is out of the case, because the Scottish legal procedure is entirely different from ours, but you have forced the English common law upon Ireland, and it becomes the duty of the Government draftsman, the law of the two countries running in one stream, to consider how far Ireland is affected. The course of action invariably taken is to do whatever is convenient to yourself and to let the Irish, if they can, come in at the tail. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also laid down the doctrine that it is our duty to place our case before the Attorney-General for Ireland of the day. Sometimes one is not on such terms of admiration and freedom with the Attorney-General for Ireland as the whole House is with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he is certainly putting upon Irish Members an extraordinary duty, namely, of going round to the office of the Attorney-General for Ireland, knocking at his door, and saying, "Dear Sir, I am an Irishman. You have a Bill which is at present in steep, and you are not thinking of applying it to Ireland. Pray do not forget the Emerald Isle." Was ever such a doctrine put forward from that Treasury box? Most of the Attorneys-General for Ireland that I have known would have kicked out any such Irish Member.
I do not wish to oppose the passage of this measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, if I would bring him evidence of a sufficient body of opinion amongst the Irish Members of this House

1091
in favour of the measure, that they will immediately bring in a Bill and make it applicable to Ireland. Have I any means of showing what is the opinion of Ireland except by taking a Division? I feel quite sure that the large and stalwart muster of my hon. Friends around me would support me in the Division Lobby, but I really cannot say how many the Division bell would bring in. I would therefore ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do this. Let him acknowledge the attitude that I am taking up in letting this Bill go through. I accept his promise of future performance, but I say that the duty is upon him to make himself acquainted with Irish opinion, and it is not upon us. Having regard to the question of drafting, I must do justice to myself by pointing out that I propose to move to insert the words, "That in the application of this Act to Ireland Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section I shall not have effect." I must, on the other hand, acknowledge, and it is only right that I should do so, that the moment the right hon. and learned Gentle man was able to quote the Attorney-General for Ireland as opposed to this change, I agree lie had a very strong argument against the line that I have taken up. I therefore lay no blame upon his shoulders. The blame is not his; it lies in that quarter where he has put it, and I leave the matter there, stating my profound dissatisfaction which enables a useful Bill of this kind to be refused to the Irish people.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill, as amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1. (Suspension of Grand Juries).
(1) During the continuance of the present war and until the twenty-eighth day of December next after the determination thereof, no precept for the summoning of a grand jury or grand jurors shall be issued nor shall any grand jury be summoned, and any such precept or summons in existence at the date of the passing of this Act shall be void and of no effect.
(2) Any bill of indictment which but for this Act would have been preferred before a grand jury shall be preferred before the court before which the indictment is to be prosecuted, and the judge of that court, or an officer of that court duly I authorised in writing by the court for the I purpose, shall append his signature to the
1092
bill, and thereupon the bill shall be proceeded with in like manner in all respects as if it had been found a true bill and so presented to the court by a grand jury, and the statute and common law relating to such proceedings shall apply accordingly:
Provided that in any case where the judge whose duty it would have been but for this Act to charge a grand jury would have advised such grand jury not to find a bill of indictment a true bill, either as to the whole thereof or as to any count therein, the judge shall make an endorsement upon such bill of indictment to the same effect, and thereupon such bill of indictment or count therein shall be dealt with in all respects as if the grand jury had found no bill in respect thereof.
(3) The First Schedule to the Indictments Act, 1915, shall apply to all bills of indictment preferred before a court in pursuance of this Act, except that the words "presentment of the grand jury" required by Rule 2 in the said Schedule shall be omitted.
(4) Where the form of any recognizance or other instrument (statutory or otherwise) relating to procedure as to indictable offences contains a reference to a grand jury, such reference shall be omitted, and the rule committee established by the Indictments Act, 1915, shall make rules for making such variations in such forms and instruments, and for making such adaptations in the procedure for the trial of indictable offences as may be necessary to give effect to this section.
(5) No bill of indictment for any offence, whether or not an offence to which the Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859, applies, shall be preferred before a court under this Act, except in the circurstances in which a bill for an indictment for an offence to which that Act applies may under that Act be presented to a grand jury.
(6) For the purposes of this section, judge of a court shall, in the case of a court of quarter sessions, mean the chairman.
Sir G. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), to leave out the words,
"Provided that in any case where the judge whose duty it would have been but for this Act to charge a grand jury would have advised such grand jury not to find a bill of indictment a true bill,

1093
either as to the whole thereof or as to any count therein, the judge shall make an endorsement upon such bill of indictment to the same effect, and thereupon such bill of indictment or count therein shall be dealt with in all respects as if a grand jury had found no bill in respect thereof."
I move this Amendment in order to ask a question. I cannot help thinking that the Bill would have been very much improved if these words had been left out. I believe I am right in saying that the learned judges would very much prefer that this duty should not be put upon them. They do not like the idea, after the magistrate has committed a prisoner to take his trial that it should be left to them to say that he shall take his trial or that he shall not take his trial, as the case may be. That duty ought not to be put upon them. We must remember another thing. This applies not only to learned judges of the High Court, but also to Recorders, and, whilst desiring to speak with the greatest respect of all Recorders, still I think I am right in saying that there are certain Recorders of small boroughs in whom one would not repose implicit confidence. So much is that the case, that I remember when magistrates used to decline to commit persons to a certain Recorder. You may have the Recorder of a small borough before whom only one prisoner goes for trial in five or six years, and you give him by this Act, although a bench of magistrates after full consideration has committed a man for trial, the right to say that he shall not take his trial. I do not think it is a right that ought to be given to a Recorder, or indeed to learned judges of the High Court, and I think they would very much prefer that it should not be given. What is to be done in the case of a voluntary bill where there are no depositions? Is the learned judge to have all the evidence before him and to try the case in the first instance in order to say whether or not it is to come on for trial before him? I do not think that point has been raised. From what the Attorney-General says now, do I understand that he would have the witnesses before him in the case of a voluntary bill where there are no depositions. As a matter of fact, that point was put to me by a learned judge who wanted very much to know what would be the course which he would be expected to
1094
pursue under such circumstances, and it was chiefly for that reason I moved this Amendment.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment. The greatest and most cardinal principle of law is that judges are to decide in reference to law and jurors in reference to facts. This Bill makes a judge in the most offensive way a judge of fact. He has to go over the depositions—they always do, as a matter of fact—for the purpose of charging the grand jury and to come to the conclusion whether, in his own mind a prima facie case is made out. That is not a judicial function, but the function of a juror, and is an invasion really of a very great constitutional right. When the Bill was in Committee the Attorney-General promised to consider the case of peers being indicted and that he would draft an Amendment, which has not been done.
Sir F. SMITH: The first point raised was very fully considered in Committee, and my impression of the Debate was that the opinion of the House was that this extra safeguard, for what it was worth, should on the whole, be preserved. My hon. and learned Friend says that judges do not like to differ from magistrates, but, in my experience, I have seldom met a judge who did not greatly enjoy overruling the Courts below, and there is very little pain and mortification caused to the Superior Courts when that takes place.
Sir G. GREENWOOD: I was referring to the responsibility of exercising the responsibility of grand juries.
Sir F. SMITH: No one is fit to be a judge who is incapable of exercising responsibility. With regard to the second point as to judges being judges, of the law, and juries of the facts that is a generalisation, and there are often cases in which there are no juries at all.
Mr. MacNEILL: Not criminal cases.
Sir F. SMITH: The generalisation is by no means confined to criminal cases. The judge to-day has the responsibility of instructing the jury on those very matters of fact and advising them. I think, on reflection, my hon. and learned Friend will see that when you are dealing only with a War Emergency measure that ground ought not to stand in the way of a necessary reform. As to the question of

1095
voluntary indictments which may be presented direct, without finding by the magistrates, that is dealt with by Subsection (5) of Clause 1. With reference to the last point as to the peers, that was considered, and it was felt that, as it concerned procedure in the other House, it should be left to that House to deal with it
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time"
Mr. S. ROBERTS: I was not able to be present when the Bill was read a second time, and I desire on this occasion to make a few remarks. I was one of the members who served on the Royal Commission on the King's Bench Division in 1913. At the end of that year, as hon. Members will remember, there was a congestion of business, and the Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission, with Lord St. Aldwyn as chairman, to go into the reasons for that congestion, and to make a Report. The system of grand juries was one of the things we considered. We came to the conclusion that the system was obsolete and out of date, and a piece of machinery which might very well be done away with. On page 22 of the Report of that Royal Commission there is this statement:
"For centuries the consideration of bills of indictment by a grand jury was the only preliminary investigation before the accused was put upon his trial. Charges are now so thoroughly investigated by magistrates, many of them learned in the law, before any committal takes place, that the investigation of the same charges by a grand jury may well be considered a work of supererogation."
We examined—not on this point—altogether some 100 witnesses, including judges of the High Court, barristers, solicitors, and lord mayors of cities. The conclusion we came to was that besides the grand jury system being obsolete and unnecessary, it was inconvenient. Mr. Justice Scrutton, now Lord Justice Scrutton, put two of the points in this way: He said having to summon the grand jury and the witnesses for a certain date and to give them long notice before that date prevented the flexibility which he thought was necessary in order that the judges should move on from one Assize town to another as soon as the business was over; that if you summoned a grand jury for a fixed date, that date had to stand, because the jurymen and the witnesses were summoned. He gave another
1096
reason which is, perhaps, more forcible, namely, that all the witnesses for the prosecution must be summoned for the first day of the Assizes, because they had to go before the grand jury, but that if the case did not come on on the first day they had to go home and come back again on the day when the case was reached. That is most inconvenient, especially in times of war like the present, when people want to attend to business and save expense. Those are two reasons showing the great inconvenience of the present practice of having a grand jury at all. I do not think that the grand jury is any protection to a prisoner. He now gets two fair trials, first by the magistrates, and in all cases, so far as my experience goes, those investigations by magistrates are made with very great care. Formerly there were no investigations before magistrates at all, and then the grand jury system served a useful purpose. Now that the investigation before the magistrates is so full and careful, the functions of the grand jury are unnecessary. The only reason that was brought before us—it was a very weak one—why the grand jury system still served a useful purpose was that it was said it brought the magistrates into contact with the judges and taught them how to administer justice. That can hardly stand. I have served on grand juries myself, and my experience is that as soon as the grand jury has finished its business the magistrates take the first train home. They do not stop to hear the case tried in Court by the judge.
Mr. MacNEILL: They stopped to the high sheriff's dinner.
Mr. ROBERTS: I have only one other point to mention. This Bill is admittedly a temporary measure. I will not quarrel with the learned Attorney-General on that ground, but I hope he will find that the measure is so successful that when the War is over the Bill may be made permanent and the grand jury system, which is obsolete, will be done away with permanently.
Mr. RAWLINSON: On the Committee stage the Attorney-General promised to consider the words "for the purposes of this Section, judge of a Court shall, in the case of a Court of Quarter Sessions, mean the chairman." I suggested it would be necessary to have some words indicating a Recorder in the case of a city or borough Court. The right hon. and learned Gen-

1097
tleman said he would have the matter looked into before the Report stage. He is probably right, but I have had one or two letters since from different people, and it seems to me that if the words are left as they stand, Recorders would be left out, and, after the speech of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) as to the terrible consequences that would ensue, I dare say he will deal with the matter in another place.
Mr. MacNEILL: I never like to appear in any way penitent, but I really do appear in a penitential garb after the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. S. Roberts). He said that one of the arguments in favour of grand juries was that they were brought into contact with the judges and learned the law. That would be one of the worst arguments going.
Mr. ROBERTS: My hon. Friend misunderstood me. It was not my argument. It was put before us by certain witnesses.
Mr. MacNEILL: I am glad it was not my hon. Friend's argument. He is far too wise a man, if he has any knowledge of the grand jury system, to rely on such an argument as that. It would be the strongest argument against the abolition of grand juries. The best system has its examples of great dereliction. I remember the case of a Chief Justice and an Attorney-General in Ireland. The Attorney-General wrote to the judge to say it would be a very good thing, so far as he could, in his charges to the grand juries, to affect the policy of the country especially in reference to
"that ruffian Daniel O'Connell."
The judge, who generally destroyed his correspondence, forgot to destroy this letter. He stuck it in his armchair. The armchair went to the upholsterer, who sent it to Daniel O'Connell, who in turn sent it to Lord Brougham, who made it the subject of an attack on the Government. I mention this for the benefit of the present Attorney-General when he becomes Prime Minister when anything is brought home to him, so that he may assume a great air of English propriety and virtue, and never inquire into a matter at all. Peel was very hard pressed. He wriggled himself into a simulated posture of virtue, and said whatever they thought about the letter he knew nothing of the authorship.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
In asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading to-night I know I am making a call upon its good will, but I do so because I do not believe there is a single Member who is opposed to the principle of the Bill, and I think I can undertake that if the Second Reading is taken to-night sufficient time will be allowed before the Committee stage so that Amendments may be put down. I do not think there is any need to spend much time in arguing that there is a strong case for a Bill of this kind. It deals, of course, with what is called the Social Evil. The evils are patent to us all, and I think the need for remedy is urgent. I have no doubt the case may be easily exaggerated, and I am quite ready to admit that this country is no worse, and, indeed, may be better, than other countries; but we know the facts in our country, and I think we are all agreed that something should be done. I have endeavoured, in framing the Bill, to confine myself to proposals which, so far as I know, would receive general assent, and would be quickly passed into law, so that no time would be lost. These are matters which we all of us hate to discuss, though we are obliged to do so, and I think the remedy ought to be quickly applied, and no time whatever should be thrown away. I will only refer to the main proposals of the Bill. I propose, in Clause 1, to raise what is called the age of consent in charges of indecent assault. Generally speaking, the rule is that to a charge of assault consent is an answer. In 1880 an Act was passed which provided that it should be no defence to a charge of indecent assault with a child under the age of thirteen that the child consented to the act of indecency. No doubt the ground was that a child so young could not really understand the meaning of such an act, and could not in any real sense consent to it. I think the same argument applies to a child over thirteen and up to the age of sixteen, and the proposal in the Bill is that the age should be raised to sixteen. There is a little difference in form betwen this Bill and the Act of 1880, because the latter simply assumes consent. It has been sug-

1099
gested to me that to say that a child of, say, fifteen cannot consent would be going rather far and therefore, instead of using the fiction of the Act of 1880, we provide directly that any act of indecency upon a child under the age of sixteen shall be the subject of indictment, and it shall be no defence that the child consented to the act.
The next matter I want to refer to deals with Amendments to Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885. This is Clause 3 of the Bill. Section 5 of the Act makes it a misdemeanour to have, or attempt to have, unlawful carnal knowledge with a girl over thirteen and under the age of sixteen. There is a proviso that it shall be a sufficient defence to such a charge if the Court or the jury is satisfied that the person charged had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was over the age of sixteen years. I am informed that that proviso as to reasonable cause has had a great effect upon prosecutions under that Section. It has to a great extent nullified the Section itself. A girl of nearly sixteen years of age may often have the appearance, or may at the trial be made to have the appearance, of a girl above that age, and juries are very apt, I am told, to take the view that a man who is charged with that very serious offence way have been deceived, so that in fact the acquittals on charges under that Section are said to amount to as much as 50 per cent, of the charges. I think protection for girls under sixteen against this very grave offence should be absolute and there should be no loophole for escape. The reference is to unlawful knowledge only. If a man has such intercourse with a girl who may be as young as under sixteen years of age he ought to take the consequences. Therefore, I propose to repeal altogether that proviso as to reasonable cause. If the result is to induce greater caution and to some extent to protect girls over the age of sixteen and even up to seventeen, so much the better.
There is, as I know, a body of opinion which is in favour of raising the age under that Section from sixteen to seventeen, or even eighteen. I have considered that question. It has been the most difficult question which I have had to consider under this Bill. I have not inserted that provision in the Bill. To begin with, every expert whom I have consulted is opposed to so raising the age. While the temptation to raise it is, of course,
1100
very great, you must have regard to the views of experts, which are founded on a desire to protect young people, so far as possible. The reasons, I think, are not very far to seek. If you raise the age under this Section 5 over sixteen you must, I think, retain the proviso as to reasonable cause. If you were to raise the age to seventeen or eighteen absolutely, and give no protection to a man who had reasonable cause to believe the girl to be younger than that age, you would really be setting a trap for people. I think, therefore, you could not raise the age and repeal the proviso, and if you raised the age and left the proviso you would have, I am told, not 50 per cent., but 80 per cent. or 90 per cent, of acquittals. Therefore, it really is better for the girls we seek to protect that that Section should in this respect remain as it is. Of course, if you go too far you may cause juries not to convict at all. Upon the whole, although I admit I have been very much impressed by arguments the other way, my present view is that I am doing more for the protection of young girls by repealing the proviso, and leaving the age where it is, than we should be doing if we raised the age from seventeen to eighteen. There is a proviso in Section 5 of the Act of 1885 which provides that proceedings under the Section for unlawful intercourse shall not take place more than six months after the date of the offence, or rather the original period was three months, and it was raised to six months in a later Act. It appears to me that six months is still too short. I am told there have been many cases where girls who have been so maltreated have hidden the fact until it was too late to take proceedings. They wait sometimes more than six months before revealing what they naturally wish to conceal, and the effect has been that the guilty persons have got off. I propose, therefore, to raise the time allowed from six months to twelve months, so that there can be no question of the escape of the men who are guilty ox these offences on the ground of time.
The next point I propose to mention is the Clause dealing with houses of ill-fame. These houses are dealt with by Section 13 of the Act of 1885, and I propose to amend that Section, in two ways, first, by extending the special provisions, preventing the letting of a house preventing the letting of a house which is known to be intended to be used

1101
house is intended to be used as a place of habitual prostitution. The second Amendment which I propose is that the penalties shall be increased. The penalties at the present time for keeping a house as a house of ill fame are a fine of £20 or three months imprisonment for the first offence, and a fine not exceeding £40 or four months imprisonment on the second or subsequent convictions. Fines of that kind are really of no use at all. It has been found in cases which have been tried that the profits of that horrible trade are often so great that a fine of £20 or £40 is a mere flea bite. There was a case reported the other day where a woman was making by this kind of traffic as much as £17 a day, a rate which if it extended over the whole year would exceed £6,000. There was another case where the keeper of such a house was found to have deposited over £2,000 in her bank within six months. Where such profits are earned what is the use of a fine of £20 or £40? We propose to increase the penalty to a fine of £100 or three months for the first offence, £250 or six months for the second offence, and £500 or twelve months for the third offence. I hope that the magistrates will not feel themselves bound in cases where these convictions take place to be content with a fine, but that they will use as far as they think it necessary the penalty of imprisonment in a second or subsequent offence, and even if need be on a first offence. We propose to deal with soliciting under this Bill. The penalty for soliciting in London is a fine not exceeding 40s., and there is no power of imprisonment. Under the Towns Police Clauses Acts the penalty in the country is 40s. or fourteen days for a second offence. The result has been, I am told, that sometimes people have been convicted twenty, forty, even ninety times and have paid their fine of 40s. and do not feel it at fill. It is necessary where there are repeated offences of this kind to authorise a sentence of imprisonment as well as a fine. We propose to authorise that, for a second or subsequent offence, the magistrates can impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.
I now come to the last Clauses with which I need to deal, which refer to the subject of venereal disease. That subject is, I believe, of very real importance for the future of the race, and by the admirable Report of the Royal Commission on Venereal Disease it has been brought into a region where action may be taken.
1102
Among the recommendations of that Commission, perhaps the most important deal with the question of diagnosis and treatment, and provide for institutions which are to be provided or assisted by the local authorities. Those matters are entirely within the province of the Local Government Board, which has already taken very vigorous action in that direction. The suggestion that unqualified practice should be restricted is closely allied with the question of treatment. That, again, is not a matter so much for the Home Office as for the Local Government Board, and it is being considered now, as I happen to know, by the President of the Local Government Board with a view to legislation along that line. There remain matters which must be dealt with, if at all, by amendments of the Criminal Law, and, after consultation with my Noble Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and with his full concurrence, I have included in this Bill these provisions relating to venereal disease. The first of them is contained in Clause 2, which provides, in Sub-section (1), that
"A person who is suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form shall not have sexual intercourse with any other person or solicit or invite any other person to have such intercourse."
9.0 p.m.
I think that a person of either sex who has the misfortune to suffer from one of these terribly contagious complaints ought not to be allowed so to act that the disease is likely to be communicated to others and possibly passed on to future generations. Therefore, we propose to make that in itself an offence. In other directions, if you are suffering from an infectious disease, it is an offence so to act as to spread it among other persons, and in the case of a disease of this contagious character, it ought to be an offence against the law for a person so to act that he or she must in the natural course of events communicate that disease. I am conscious that there may be difficulties in bringing the offence home to those who may plead that they had no knowledge that they were suffering from the disease. We have inserted special provisions which will meet the difficulty in certain cases. We provide in Sub-section (3) that a person who is convicted of an offence under the Act may be examined by a doctor in order to ascertain whether he or she is suffering from one of these diseases—the doctor in the

1103
case of a female, of course, being a female doctor. We also provide that the doctor who makes the examination, or, in the case of imprisonment, the prison doctor, may give to the person who is found to be suffering from this disease a written notice to that effect, so that he or she cannot afterwards say that he had no knowledge that he was suffering from this disease. I do not think anybody can complain of such a provision being made in those cases. The other matter relating to venereal disease is Clause 7, which deals with advertisements of cures. The Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889, provided that advertisements of cures for venereal disease should be deemed indecent advertisements within the meaning of the Act. Unfortunately, it did not deal with advertisements in newspapers, but only with leaflets or advertisements on houses and in public places. We desire first of all to extend the Act to advertisements in newspapers, making special provision by Sub-section (2) of Clause 7 for the protection of newspapers which unwittingly publish such advertisements. We also propose to extend the Act not only to all advertisements relating to this disease, but to advertisements of means for procuring miscarriage or abortion, or suggesting that premises can be used for immoral purposes. We are also increasing the penalties, which seem to be too light. The penalties are increased to £100 and six months' imprisonment, instead of 40s. and one month's imprisonment, and £5 and three months' imprisonment respectively. I think this is a proposal which was made by the Royal Commission on Venereal Disease.
These are all the main Clauses of the Bill to which the House is now asked to give a Second Reading. When my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Herbert Samuel) was in the Home Office a Bill of the same kind was projected. I have omitted certain parts of the Bill which he proposed to introduce, and I have added Clauses of my own. He cannot, therefore, be held responsible either for what is included in or for what is omitted from my Bill, but I have every reason to hope that the general lines of the Bill will receive his support. I will ask the House to deal with the proposals with as little delay as possible, and not, unless they feel bound to do so, to smother the Bill with Amendments. I have only included Clauses which I think are immediately necessary,
1104
and I hope that we shall not spend too-much time in discussing Amendments. I hope that the measure will be approved by the House, and that if passed it will tend to give further protection to our young people, and to provide some additional safeguards for the health of the community.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The House is limited in these days to legislation which arises out of war conditions, or has some direct relation to war conditions, and I am very glad, indeed, to think that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider a Bill of this sort excluded by that fact. Indeed, the condition with regard to venereal diseases has probably been more serious of late than it has ever been before, and those who look forward to the conditions arising immediately after the War, and to the permanent interests of the health of our population, feel some disquietude as to the extent to which those diseases may prevail. I cannot pretend to be impartial with respect to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, because, as he has mentioned, when I had the honour to occupy the position of Home Secretary I gave very close attention to the subject, and drafted in some detail the heads of a measure of this character, and I am glad to know that in great part the right hon. Gentleman has approved of the draft which I prepared. He has omitted two of my Clauses, which I shall mention in a few moments, and he has added two or three others to which I will also refer, but in the main the Bill proceeds precisely on the lines which I had contemplated proposing, and it will do much, I am convinced, to safeguard the ravages which are wrought by venereal diseases and the scandal of child prostitution.
The most novel, and, in some ways, the most important Clause of the Bill is the second Clause. It is a strange thing that our law hitherto has not made it an offence for a person with full knowledge of his condition to infect another person with venereal disease. Morally it is a crime. If one person assaults another physically and does personal injury to life or limb it is recognised by the law as a crime and punished as such. If one persons poisons another with some noxious drug that of course is regarded by the law as a great crime. But a person with full knowledge of all the circumstances may deliberately infect another with a foul and loathsome

1105
disease, and may perhaps utterly destroy that other individual's health and happiness for years, and perhaps for life, with a disease which may be transmitted to a later generation, and in the eye of our law he commits no offence whatever and he can do it with complete impunity. It is amazing to me that it has never been suggested before that our legislation should deal with this particular wrong, and it is perhaps somewhat remarkable that the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases did not touch on this aspect of the question, and made no recommendation. I feel sure that Parliament, now that the matter has been brought before it, will be very ready to make the provisions of our Statute law fit the moral sense of the whole community.
I am not one of those who advocate that there should be compulsory notification of venereal diseases and compulsory medical treatment. I know that there are many persons really anxious to suppress the spread of these diseases, who regard this as a practical remedy, and indeed, in some cases, think it the only remedy which is likely to be effective. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not proposed a provision of this sort in this Bill, and indeed it belongs more properly to the province of the President of the Local Government Board, and I hope that when he comes to introduce the legislation which he may be contemplating he will also abstain from a measure of that character. You cannot enforce compulsory notification and treatment, and, furthermore, the effect of it would be to deter persons from voluntarily seeking treatment, which it is the object of those who are working at this quesction now to induce sufferers to do. I do not believe either that it is practicable as some have proposed to require compulsory examination of all the persons who go to the workhouses to see whether they have suffered from this disease, and, if so, to take measures to give them treatment. If we are to do that we shall not be able to say that any persons who are destitute and starving can find some place of refuge provided by society open to them, because we shall be saying, "If you go to this place we trap you here, we medically examine you, and we compel you to stay for as long as may be necessary to treat you for this disease."
Nor is the proposal anyway practicable to require a compulsory examination of all persons committed to prison. In my view it would be an outrage to take a
1106
person who is committed to prison, perhaps for theft, and to submit him to a medical examination to see whether he was suffering from this disease. Obviously it would be still more indefensible to take that course with regard to persons who find themselves in prison for perhaps some quasi political offence, and who are guilty of no crime or moral turpitude. But are we to say then that nothing can be done with regard to certain classes of persons who go about the world engaged in occupations which result in the widespread transmission of this disease, or even of individuals who do not make it an occupation but who may reasonably be suspected of practises tending to transmit disease? A case came to my knowlege when I was at the Home Office which will bring the matter before the House in a very vivid light. There was a woman who was a known prostitute who was suffering from this disease in its most virulent form, who was convicted of soliciting for prostitution and who found herself in prison and her physical condition was discovered. The magistrates refused to release her or to sentence her for the short period which was all that they would be willing to impose for the offence with which she had been charged. They remanded her, and meantime she received medical treatment in the prison. After an interval she was brought up again and remanded the second time, and she was before the Court three or four times. This went on until it came to the knowledge of the Home Office, which was in duty bound to point out to the magistrates that they were committing an illegality and that they had no right to use the system of remand to keep in prison a person in order to subject her to medical treatment which had not been authorised by Parliament and a form of detention which had not been authorised by Parliament.
The magistrates protested, and said that they knew what would be the consequences of releasing her, but, nevertheless, it was my duty then, acting as Home Secretary, to say that the Home Office could not acquiesce in a patent flagrant illegality, and the woman was consequently released. Within a few days she was again found soliciting for prostitution, with the certainty that she would undoubtedly transmit this disease to any person who happened to have sexual relations with her. This is a very unsavoury, unpleasant story to bring before the

1107
House of Commons, but it is necessary to bring home to many hon. Members who may have doubts as to the provisions of this Bill the absolute necessity of taking some measures to deal with a case like that. The proposal which I drafted, which the right hon. Gentleman has included in this Bill, is that any person, man or woman, who is guilty of what may be described as a sexual offence, one of the offences mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill, who finds himself or herself in prison may be examined for this disease after conviction for one of these offences, and then there may be served upon him or her formal notice from the doctor stating that he or she was suffering from this disease. If, after that, he or she is found doing any of the things stated in the Bill, the consequence of which will be the transmission of disease, then he or she is liable, not for having the disease, but for having done an action conducing to the committal of the offence of injuring a fellow creature by inflicting upon him or her one of these loathsome diseases. That is to be found in Clause 2 of the Bill. I most earnestly hope that it will receive the sanction of Parliament. The effect of it will be this, that where a man or a woman has received this notice, and knows that if he or she does any of these things in the Act, he or she will be liable for transmitting the disease to a heavy penalty. What would be the effect? They would do, what a good many of them do not do now, they would at once take steps to cure the disease. It would be an indirect way of securing that these men would resort to the centres of treatment which have now been opened by the officers of the Local Government Board throughout the country in order to rid themselves of these dangerous and terrible diseases. There is one minor point to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman for consideration before the Bill goes into Committee. Subsection (3) of Clause 2 provides that where a person has been convicted of any of these offences under the Act the Court may order the person to be submitted to such medical examination and tests as may be requisite. I do not find any provision in the Bill to enforce such an order; there is no procedure, no power taken to make rules, there are no penalties declared for refusal to obey the order. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to that before the Bill goes into Committee. Clause 3 effects another and most
1108
useful reform, which has been explained by the Home Secretary. Under the Criminal Law Amendment Act now the age is fixed at sixteen, and a person could be acquitted if he or she could show a reasonable belief that the young person was over sixteen years of age. It is obvious that such a provision would defeat the real ends of justice, and I am glad the right Gentleman has absolished it.
But I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to insert a Clause—which I hope to propose—to raise the age of consent to seventeen. I think that public opinion is fully ripe for an extension of that character. I confess I do not find that unanimity of expert opinion against raising the age which existed before. I think that many persons who carry great weight would cordially endorse the age of consent being raised to seventeen, and at the same time retaining the provision in the Bill abolishing the Clause in the old Act which provided for the case where there was a reasonable cause to believe that the girl was of a higher age. The effect of this would really be to give protection up to the age of eighteen. That is a proposal which has been made for some years past by many of those interested in the subject, and it is supported by a considerable weight of opinion. The Bishop of London introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, in 1914, which had a considerable volume of support, and which proposed to raise the age to eighteen. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it might be dangerous to raise the age to eighteen and abolish the provision with regard to reasonable ground of belief. If you raise the age to seventeen, and abolish that provision, it would in fact afford protection up to the age of eighteen. It may be said that juries might not convict. That might be so in certain cases. But public opinion has gone a long way in recent years, and juries are educable, and in the course of time they would be willing to give protection to young girls of the age certainly of seventeen, particularly if that proposal were accompanied by another proposal which I should very I much like to see in the Bill with regard to other offenders—those young girls of the age of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen who practise prostitution in the streets, and are really a scandal to civilisation. They have not got sufficient knowledge of life to I see the dangers they run, the ruin of body

1109
and soul to which they will expose themselves throughout their lives, and some measure of protection ought to be devised for them. It is perfectly useless to impose fines of 40s. when they are convicted. It is almost useless, I believe, to subject them to imprisonment. There might be some hope if, for a considerable period, they were received at some institution where they might be under influences which might possibly redeem them, or you might apply the reformatory system to this particular class. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would you apply it to the men?"] The cases of men and of women are not analogous. While I believe that the sexes should be on an equality in regard to all these matters—I do not like to go too far into an unsavoury subject—yet, as a matter of fact, the conditions cannot be the same in the two sexes, in regard to this particular point. That proposal, again, to which I have just referred, was made in the House of Lords, and not only proposed by the Bishop of London as an Amendment to his Bill, but also supported by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, who regarded it as an admirable one. The consequence of it would be, not only to give protection to many of these girls, but it would also dispose of the objection to raising the age of consent, which might give rise to cases of blackmailing.
That has been the chief argument advanced against raising the age of consent. You get young girl prostitutes parading the streets; they get some man to accompany them; and he is thereupon threatened that, unless he pays over so much money as blackmail, he will be prosecuted for having accompanied the girl below the age of consent. I do not think there is great fear of that, because exactly the same thing was said in the discussions in Parliament when the age of consent was raised to sixteen. The experience of the Home Office is that there have been practically no cases of blackmailing with regard to girls under sixteen, and I doubt very much if there will be any more cases if the age were raised to seventeen. But if the Bill had this provision that any girl under the age of seventeen or eighteen, who was convicted for prostitution could be sent to a reformatory established for this particular purpose—not to one of the ordinary reformatories—you would find that there could not be any case of blackmail, because immediately a person who was liable to be charged was
1110
blackmailed he would have a weapon in his hands, and would be able to say, "I have been accompanying you; if you are under the age, you are liable to be kept in an institution for a considerable period." So far with regard to that matter. I hope that when the Committee stage is reached the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is not possible to embody a Clause of that character. Clauses 4 and 5 which my right hon. Friend has included in this Bill were not contemplated by me, but I regard them as excellent Clauses. Clause 4, which he did not mention in his presentation of the Bill, seems to be one of the most important in the measure.
Sir G. CAVE: I did mention it.
Mr. SAMUEL: I beg pardon. It is a Clause which provides that if any place is used for purposes of prostitution by one person only, it might be regarded as a brothel for the purposes of proceedings against a landlord or other person, who let the premises. I believe if that Clause wore included in an Act of Parliament and enforced by the police authorities it would have very great effect indeed in combating the evil with which we have to deal. Clause 5, increasing the penalties on brothel-keepers, seems to be a very useful provision. With respect to some details of Clause 6, I have doubt. It is a Clause which imposes heavy penalties, not only for soliciting, but also for loitering with a view to soliciting. Possibly the details of that Clause may require some examination in Committee. Clause 7, which is one dealing with indecent advertisements, is calculated to have a useful effect. With regard to the Bill as a whole I can only repeat the observation I made at the beginning of my remarks, that I earnestly trust, even in this time of war, Parliament will be willing to legislate on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman along a direction so admirable for objects so necessary.
Mr. GLYN-JONES: I feel sure the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman that as few difficulties as possible will be put in the way of this Bill becoming law will meet with almost universal approval. It is because he asked that the Order Paper should not be flooded with Amendments that I venture to invite his attention to one or two points, in the hope that he may direct his consideration to them before the Committee stage is reached, and in that way possibly save a good deal

1111
of time. In Clause 2 we have a definition of venereal disease to which no objection will be taken, except perhaps in the last part, which provides that, for the purposes of this Section, it shall include diseases which may reasonably be suspected to be venereal diseases. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider these words, he will see that, in a Section which creates a criminal offence, they may prove very difficult words indeed. "A disease which may reasonably be suspected to be"! Reasonably suspected by whom? I do not want to enlarge on the point. I simply mention it because I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will consult his legal and medical advisers he will find there is a great deal of difficulty likely to arise in reference to these words.
I want next to refer to Clause 7. The House will remember that just before the War broke out a Select Committee of this House, which had been sitting for two or more years on the question of patent medicines, reported, and one of its recommendations was that there should be a prohibition of any form of advertisement connected with these particular diseases. I presume that this Clause is an attempt to give effect to that recommendation. If it is, I want to say, in the first place, that the provision is rather too wide in one respect and a great deal too narrow in another. It will be noticed, if this Bill becomes law, it will be an offence to advertise remedies for syphilis, gonorrhœa, and certain other diseases. But the provision is not confined to advertisements recommending remedies; it relates to advertisements of any kind referring to these matters, and the insertion and publication of such advertisements is to be an offence. That is shown by the exemptions, because the exemptions exclude from the operation of this Section notices by any local or public authority. Obviously that is put in in order to protect public authorities who, under the scheme of the Local Government Board, when dealing with these diseases, will find it necessary to make public announcement in regard to them. They will, in fact, be advertisements relating to these diseases. Suppose the National Council, which is not a public authority, chooses to issue literature in regard to the scheme; that undoubtedly would be an advertisement relating to these diseases. I think what really is aimed at is advertisements offer-
1112
ing treatment for these diseases or advertisements of remedies for them. If that is the intention, then I think the word "advertisement" must be accompanied by some other words. There must be words defining what is or is not an advertisement. Fortunately there is a precedent in this matter. There is a statutory enactment known as the Medicine Stamp Act, wherein there is language describing what is recommending or holding out a remedy for disease. It has been on the Statute Book since 1812, and has been the subject of High Court decision. There we have a settled law as to what it means, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised if he will look into that particular Statute, and see what are the provisions there relating to the recommendations of medicine which renders those medicines liable to Stamp Duty. I think he will find assistance there in getting words which would be very much better than those used in this Bill.
Before the Departmental Committee we heard a great deal of evidence from the medical profession, and there was an official body which was asking that Parliament should take strong measures against the advertising of what they regarded, and in many cases rightly regarded, as quack remedies for diseases. But they were met on that point by their own technical journal—the official journal of their own body—in which were pointed out, and in other strictly medical journals, instances after instances of advertisements for proprietory medicines advocating the use of those medicines. This Section, while it prohibits the publication of the advertisement to the public, exempts from its operation advertisements published in bonâ-fide medical or pharmaceutical publications. I ask why that exemption? and I can give good reasons for asking that question. I can understand the medical profession saying that the general public ought not to be told in public advertisements of any remedies for these diseases. The case they make out is a good case, that anyone suffering should go and be treated by a properly qualified medical man, but it comes rather ill from the medical profession to say, "We want you to still permit the proprietors of these remedies to tell us in our journal what these things are used for." Is it suggested that the-medical profession must be driven to the advertisements of these proprietors to tell

1113
them in their own technical journals what are the remedies which they ought to prescribe to their patients? It seems to me that there can be no excuse for the medical profession asking that advertisements in their own papers setting out the uses to which proprietary medicines are to be put should be exempted from the Clause. No one spends money on advertising something which can be bought in the open market. The money is spent by the proprietors of a particular remedy, and I say that it is not creditable to the medical profession that they should claim the right of being told by the proprietor of a secret remedy what its use is for, and I do not think the resources of the medical profession are so limited that it is necessary for them to go to their technical journals and the advertisements of proprietors of remedies to learn what are the remedies which should be used for diseases they are about to deal with.
There is a strong practical reason why this provision should come out. If the right hon. Gentleman goes into any public library, or I would say into nearly any public library, he will find these journals there—and what is going to happen? If in future people who are Buffering from these diseases are to be driven to the doctor by closing to them all the channels which were previously open to them of being told what remedies to take, if they once know that by going to a public library and getting hold of any of these journals they can there find advertised the very thing which is not to be allowed to be advertised in the public Press, then I think he would go a long way to undo the good which he intends this Section to do. I am not sure that the latter end of the Section is justifiable, because although it makes it an offence for the person to advertise, it says that a person charged with publishing an advertisement, that is, the newspaper proprietor or someone else who publishes
"if he is not himself the advertiser, shall not be convicted if he proves that he did not know and had no reasonable ground for suspecting that the advertisement was of such a character as to make the publication thereof an offence."
The man who advertises is very often a man of straw, and if you are dealing with this question at all I do not think it is too much to ask that the great newspapers publishing advertisements shall publish
1114
them at their own risk, and if the definition to which I have referred is made clear there will be no excuse on the part of any great newspaper or any journal for publishing an advertisement, the excuse this Clause would give them of saying they have no reasonable ground for suspecting the advertisement was of such a character to make the publication thereof an offence. These may appear to be Committee points, but I have raised them in order that if there is anything in them the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of considering them before the Committee stage is reached.
Commander WEDGWOOD: I detest this sort of measure. It seems to me that these Bills, which we have periodically, which are backed by agitation and driven through by pious speeches from both Front Benches—that these Bills with great promise in them when they are being argued before this House, as soon as they become Acts of Parliament sink into dead letters one after another. This Bill is like the one we dealt with a few years ago— a Bill under a pious sounding title intended for the persecution of prostitutes. There is great danger, no doubt, from gonorrhœa and syphilis and all these loathsome diseases, but there is a better remedy for these things than passing Acts of Parliament, and that is not to go with prostitutes, and as long as you have a rotten civilisation where women are driven on to the streets to make a living and where men think it right to go with them you are bound to have these diseases, and you will not eradicate syphilis or any other of the horrible diseases that come from it. This Bill is of course of the usual type. We are going to have women arrested more frequently by the police for loitering, they are then to be brought before the magistrade and convicted, and then to be inspected, and they are then to be segregated. That is, of course, the object of the whole of legislation for the last twenty years or more—more police inspection, and more bolstering of civilisation by fines and punishments. I do not think you will get very far that way. We have had lots of these Acts, and as long as the House of Commons is composed as it is, of people who always listen to the arguments put forward by the promotors of the Bill instead of seeing how far the provisions of the Bill can possibly be carried out, you will have Bills like this brought forward.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who I am glad to say is no longer Home Secre-

1115
tary, made a most appealing speech to the House about the criminality of infecting people with syphilis. He pointed out that a person who bodily injured someone else was guilty of a crime, and the same in regard to someone who poisoned somebody else, and he asked why should a person who communicated syphilis to another not be guilty of a crime. There is this difference to begin with, that the one is given voluntarily and the other against the will of the person injured, but apart from that, surely the difference is that, in cases of bodily injury or poisoning, if you could not detect them and there was no possibility of getting a conviction, it would be useless to make them crimes, and the only reason why this has not been a crime up till now is because it is almost impossible to get convictions or to fiud who is the guilty party in the business. It is possible that under these rules you may make it a little easier to get convictions, but everyone knows that for every case where a conviction is obtained there will be at least 999 cases where there is no conviction, and yet the crime is perpetrated, and do you think it adds to respect for law and order when you have a very large proportion of crimes going unpunished? There is another thing about this Bill which I dislike—there are parts I like; I think the point about the age of consent is admirable—but there is one thing I dislike, and that is that throughout it is pretended, and it is only pretended, that the law shall apply to men as well as to women. Everybody knows that this Bill in practice will apply to women only and that the men will go scot free as usual. The one Clause of which I approve in the Bill is that raising the age of consent to sixteen actually, and I think it might be raised to seventeen, because I think that hits the man as well as the woman; but in a House not elected by women, with no women representatives in it, to come in with a Bill like this for the persecution of this unfortunate class of women who have no one to speak for them, seems to me to be nothing less than iniquitous. The Bill, of course, will be dealt with faithfully in Committee. I trust some of the Clauses may escape and become part of an Act of Parliament, but against Clause 2, the third Sub-section, which deals with the powers of a magistrate to order the inspection of women, and Clause 6, which includes loitering under the heading of "crime," I shall certainly offer the most vigorous opposition.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not much agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Perhaps, however, I agree that this Bill appears to be divided into two very distinct parts. I think the Home Secretary really dealt with it in two parts. Personally I rather wish he had confined the Bill to the first part—I mean by that the part dealing with venereal disease. Clauses 2 and 7 both deal with venereal disease. That possibly may be said to be, and rightly said to be, emergency legislation. There is, however, a great need for legislation upon the point, and has been for many years; and probably that need has been accentuated by circumstances connected with the War. The rest of the Bill deals with amendments of the criminal law which—I do not say they are desirable or undesirable—have nothing whatever to do with the War and have no sort of connection with emergency legislation. Personally I very much wish that the one part, that of emergency legislation, had been brought in as one Bill, and the other and the second part as another Bill, The part dealing with venereal disease has been put somewhat hastily together. The hon. Member opposite took the words out of my mouth with his amusing remarks about the advertisements idea. That is, however, merely a drafting Amendment. The main part is that you have an amendment, and a very difficult amendment, of the law, which you are making for the first time. You are making it for the first time a criminal offence knowlingly to communicate venereal disease. Nobody can doubt the seriousness or the gravity of the offence which is committed. I have nothing to say against making it a criminal offence except this: that I do not think it is the best way to meet a difficulty. If the matter is only going to rest there, then I do not think you will have accomplished very much by this particular Section, because your difficulty of getting information will be very great.
I am afraid I differ entirely from the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, in the very eloquent speech with which he denounced as an outrage the idea that a criminal who is taken to gaol, and being suspected of disease is examined to see whether or not it is true, and to see whether he is likely to spread the contagion, or whether it is necessary that he should undergo medical treatment. For my part, I can see no outrage in the question. I think

1117
it is more by examination, and by learning more of the different people who are afflicted with this disease, and insisting upon compulsory treatment, that probably the real suppression of the disease will be very likely become about, than from the idea of making a criminal offence of it. If it only rests where it is I shall be disappointed with this Bill. I hope some further step will be taken with the criminal part, though really these are Committee points. I should rather like to know in Committee the definition of an act of indecency. It is a very, very wide term. It may be in some Act of Parliament with which I am unfamiliar; but it seems to me to be a new term, and an exceedingly wide one. You will have to remember that the real difficulty is the young girls of about fifteen who go about the streets—who are not driven there to make a living wage. It may be that they do not know the risks they run, but they know pretty well that they are doing wrong. Any experienced chief constable will tell you that they often tempt boys of sixteen, or thereabouts, and lead them into trouble, and when they are sent home there is the story of a lack of parental control. Police warning is given in the first instance. I am very glad that the late Home Secretary said that he had had the idea of dealing with this aspect of the problem. As to the phrase—I am afraid I object to all these phrases—equal treatment for the sexes, whatever may happen! Are you going to apply that principle to Clause 1, where it is to be an offence for a boy of sixteen to commit an act of indecency with a girl of fifteen, but not to be an offence on the part of the girl? But put together a boy of sixteen and a girl of fifteen. Is it always the boy that leads the girl on? Really, it may be said that you are making further offences of this kind. A criminal offence for the boy should be a criminal offence for the girl also. Cases of blackmail have been mentioned. One could not help being amused about what the right hon. Gentleman said on this point, which was that the Home Office had not many complaints of blackmail. All cases of blackmail do not go to the Home Office. If your knowledge of the world is confined to a Government Department, you will learn very, very little indeed. How many blackmail cases ever get into the Courts? There are people who dare not go into the Courts: dare not prosecute! They do not go to the Home Office or the Law Courts.
Sir H. CRAIK: I do not pretend to be able to follow the details of the legal profession as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University does, nor could I follow the hon. Member for Stepney in regard to the very ingenious charge which he seemed to bring against the medical profession in regard to advertisements. Surely there is a difference between advertisements for professional purposes in professional papers and those advertisements, with which we are all quite familiar, which fall into the hands of young and ignorant persons in the ordinary Press of the country? There is some distinction between them. In regard to the very breezy and interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, of course, there was in his arguments much with which we are bound to sympathise. We do dislike this constant interference with liberty, if it can be helped, but the attack which my hon. and gallant Friend made was, if I may be allowed to say so, upon a Bill which was entirely, or very largely, the creature of his own imagination. My object in rising is not so much to go into the special provisions of the Bill, as to which there will be time for discussion in Committee, but to urge most earnestly the necessity for proceeding speedily in this business. It is all very well to say that this is a matter that might be dealt with after the War, We all know at this time it is not only urgent, but urgent as a matter of war. We are incurring heavy liabilities in respect of our brothers from the Dominions and Colonies, that for the mere efficiency of our Army this, or some measure of this sort, is a war measure of the first urgency, and cannot be delayed.
10. p.m.
There are two reasons for the urgency of this Bill in this respect. There are, if we look at it in a broad way, two influences that may be brought to bear upon doing something for this horrible and increasing evil. There are the laws, police regulations, and legal provisions, and the extent to which you may reform them. That will not remedy the evil altogether. Beside that you must have some personal care and interest, some charitable effort, some missionary zeal, and there is plenty of room for both of these. But their lines must be marked one from the other, and, until you know how far the legal provisions may go, how far your police regulations may help you, what are the limits to which you can carry those police regulations, and what are the limits beyond

1119
which Parliament will not go—until you have done that, you have not drawn that proper line of demarcation. I know perfectly well from personal experience how many at this moment are anxious to inquire into the evil, and how earnestly they desire to aid in this matter, They cannot do so with the law unsettled, or not knowing whether they are interfering with some legal provision, or how far the police may be able to do it, and how far they may step in to help where the police cannot reach. One reads day after day in the newspapers excellent letters and proposals made by men and women of high motive and earnest effort whose views we cannot disregard. Does it not strike hon. Members, as it often strikes me, that those indicate a waste of effort—that all those men and women of high motive who are gifted with great powers of organisation, who are ready to give themselves heart and soul to the work of reclaiming their brothers and sisters, are held back by the fact that the law is at present uncertain, and that we do not know how far those powers may be strengthened? For the sake, therefore, of a demarcation of the line between these two agencies of police intervention and charitable efforts, let us pass this Bill as quickly as we can. Let us by this Bill lay down once more what it is the police can do, and then let us call upon the benevolent and philanthropic of both sexes, who have studied this question, or are anxious to study it, into a field which will be already marked out for their efforts, for I am certain, whatever the Home Secretary may do in this direction, he will still leave a great work to be accomplished by those benevolent people.
Sir G. GREENWOOD: I understand, from what the Home Secretary said, that this Bill is not meant so much as a Bill to endeavour to stamp out the terrible disease of syphilis and other venereal diseases, as what I may call a sexual morality Bill. I understand there is to be another Bill brought forward in another place to deal particularly and specifically with venereal disease. I must say I am glad to hear that, because the provisions of this Bill in regard to venereal disease I should rather look upon as a pill to cure an earthquake—to use a common expression. We all know there is real danger to the race in the prevalence of venereal disease—a disease which visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto
1120
the third and fourth generations. I think it is quite right if anyone knowingly communicates a venereal disease to another person that that shall be a criminal offence. I think that is quite right, but I rather doubt whether this Clause is going to have much effect. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel) said he was surprised that such a provision had never been brought forward and discussed, but that is really not the case, because I have taken for some time some interest in this question, being obliged to do so, and I have read the interesting Reports, and I wish hon. Members of this House would read those Reports of the Royal Commission, which reported in 1871 upon the Contagious Diseases Act, and also the Report of the Select Committee of this House which reported in 1882. I find in the report of the Royal Commission which reported in 1871 that the Commissioners said:
"Another suggestion which we cannot adopt is that it should be made penal to engage in sexual connection when the party, whether man or woman, is to his or her knowledge affected with venereal contagion."
They gave their reasons, and one was that
"It may be said that the proof of the offence would be almost impracticable, since corroborative evidence in addition to the oath of the principal would be indispensable and the law would be used, if it was used at all as an instrument of malice and extortion."
Therefore that provision was considered many years ago by the Royal Commission and was rejected. It cannot be said that corroborative evidence would be required as a matter of law because the act of sexual intercourse itself, not being a criminal act, the person who gave information would not be a party to the crime and corroborative evidence would not be necessary. I rather suspect that comparatively there would be few cases in which that provision would be found to be operative. I know it is supposed to be an unpopular thing to say, but I believe that if you are really going to try as a war emergency measure to stamp out these diseases there is only one way, and I think doctors will confirm this view, and that is to go back to the method of registration and inspection. It is said that that is unpopular and that the remedy is worse than the disease, but if you deliberately prefer the disease to the remedy, then I am afraid we shall have to have the disease. I am not going to dwell upon this point, but when it is said that those previous Acts dealing with this question were failures I say that it was not the case.

1121
There were two Committees of this House appointed and one by the House of Lords. A Special Committee appointed by this House reported in 1882, and there was a Royal Commission which reported in 1871, and all those Commissions and Committees reported in favour of the retention of those Acts. The wonder is that those Acts were so successful as they were, because they were very absurd in their application. They applied to Woolwich but not to Plumstead, and they did not apply to London at all. I will read one extract from the Royal Commission of 1–871, because it was adopted by the Select Committee of this House which reported in 1882. What I am going to quote was only subscribed to by seven Members, but they were very strong Members of the Royal Commission, and their recommendations were adopted in the Report of the Select Committee of 1882. They speak of the
"good moral effect which these calumniated Acts have produced and which in our opinion outweigh any moral objections which have been or can be alleged against them (1) Religions and moral influence has been brought to bear upon a large number of women, a great proportion of whom had been from infancy familiar only with scenes of debauchery and vice.
(2) Towns and camps have been cleared, or nearly so, of the miserable creatures who were formerly to be found in their streets and thoroughfares.
(3) A considerable number of abandoned women have been reclaimed and restored to respectable life, and in many instances married.
(4) The number of loose women has been greatly reduced, and those who remain have been rendered more decent and decorous in appearance and conduct.
(5) The practice of clandestine prostitution, which too often degenerates into professional vice, has been materially checked by fear of the consequences of such indulgence which are rendered probable under these Acts.
(6) The sad spectacle of juvenile prostitutes of tender age, so rife in such localities heretofore, has been greatly diminished and in some cases almost removed.
(7) The temptations by which young men of all classes have been hitherto assailed have been to a great extent taken out of their way, and morality has been thus promoted.
When we turn to the probable moral effects upon the women themselves of the periodical examinations which are so much objected to, we must contend that any disadvantages which may have attended them are more than counterbalanced by their good moral and physical results."
Unpopular though it may be, I say that those Acts were a great and wonderful success considering how partially they were applied. If you wish to stamp out this terrible peril to the race you ought to take your courage in both hands and bring back some form of registration and inspection, but I suppose that will not be done. I have, however, expressed my belief that that is the way to combat these diseases. I only want to say a word now with regard to the provision in Clause 4 of
1122
this Bill relating to premises used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. I only wish to say that I hope that what we are doing we shall do after full consideration with our eyes open. If these words are put into the Bill you make it criminal for a prostitute to have a home at all in this country. It is not merely a question of using the room or allowing many women to come in and use it, because that is tantamount to a brothel, and what is proposed is rather a cowardly way of dealing with the question. It seems to me that we ought to have the courage of our convictions, and if you think it is possible to stamp out prostitution, then have the courage to make it a criminal offence by itself. I cannot sympathise at all with this ignominious and, as it seems to me, rather contemptible policy of harrying these women from pillar to post, for the more miserable you make them the more degraded they get. When I was practising at the Bar the chief magistrate at Bow Street once pointed out that all you will do by this continual harrying of prostitutes from pillar to post is that you throw them into the arms of bullies and you make their lives a misery to them. I am not going to oppose this Bill, because I shall support it. I remember being accused of opposing the last Criminal Law Amendment Bill, and that was a most unjust accusation because that was a shockingly badly drafted measure, and I with others tried to make it a better Bill in Committee. I think, however, that this measure deals with matters which ought to be very gravely considered, because it really does introduce a very serious subject for our consideration. I hope the Home Secretary will at any rate consider whether he can not so modify these words that they will not apply absolutely to every woman who is a prostitute.
Mr. KING: We have here a very important Bill, and the discussion already has shown that there are different points of view and some very important principles upon which we shall, I fear, not be all agreed when we come to consider them word by word. I do not think that we shall be at all of one mind when we really consider either what this Bill is actually to do or our exact object in legislating. We all recognise the very great evil to combat which is the object of this Bill. Is there any really special need for this Bill at this time? I ask this because both

1123
the Home Secretary and his predecessor seemed to imply that there was more than the usual demand or necessity for such a Bill. I rather doubt it. There always is a demand for keeping legislation of this character abreast of public opinion, and there is always the danger of the spreading secretly and unbeknown either to the individuals who suffer or to the Government of this country all these terrible scourges and venereal diseases, but at the present time I believe that the actual necessity may be exaggerated. That need not prevent us from proceeding with this Bill seriously, and getting the best out of it, but it may be that the actual dangers and difficulties we have to contend with are not well understood. We have an Army that, as armies go, is as full of high spirit and discipline, and certainly as high in morality as any Army that has ever taken the field in such numbers. We have also an Army which all admit is singularly healthy. The standard of health which has been maintained by our authorities and the discipline of the men themselves are in the result very high.
Moreover, there have been no statistics of disease in the Army given to us which give any ground for alarm, and there has been no outbreak of crime or immorality in the country to cause any great offence. Certainly there has been no increase, very much the contrary, of illegitimate births, and, looking at the subject as a whole, I think the danger of venereal diseases at this present time as being excessively great or serious may possibly be—I hope it is—exaggerated in some quarters.
I have to observe about the Bill that, though it is nominally a Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill and proceeds to modify and amend former Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts, yet it introduces a subject into those Acts for the first time. The question of venereal diseases becomes here the subject of two Clauses, and, so far as I know, there is no reference in any previous Criminal Law (Amendment) Act to this subject at all. I agree with a good deal of what has been said on Clause 2, which is, of course, of a very drastic and novel character. I believe it will have to be very seriously considered in Committee, and I think the warning given by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) is well worthy of observation, namely, that it would be extremely undesirable to
1124
find that in practice this Clause is being used almost entirely against prostitutes, and in such a way as to make their offence and their condition harder and more severe, and in fact to make them more outcasts from society than ever. I think this special way of treating the very difficult problem of the unclean prostitute by subjecting her to examination when she has been convicted is a very dangerous one. I do not think it is the right way to go about it at all. I think that possibly an offence might be made of communicating certain diseases to any other person. The communication of those diseases to another person is in fact doing grievous bodily injury, and doing grievous bodily injury is already an offence well known to our law. To introduce into our criminal law an additional sort of penalty or treatment in the way of examination is, I think, an altogether new principle, and one that should be very seriously considered. A number of remarks have been made on various points in the Bill. I shall not make any remarks upon them because I dare say I may have a few words to say when we get into Committee. Here let me refer to the plea that has been put forward by the Home Secretary and by his predecessor not to flood the Bill with Amendments. I shall not do so, and I hope the House will not do so, but they must not think that this Bill is going to pass without any discussion just as it is. That would really be expecting too much. They must expect some real discussion upon points of vital interest and vital principle, and if they think they are going to get off without that they will be very much mistaken.
I shall content myself this evening with two general observations, not by way of objection, but of warning and criticism First, you must not, in this sort of legislation, attempt to outrun public opinion or the standard which the public will set up as ordinarily possible and right for law. On that matter I agree, though this is rather different to my former opinion, with the way in which the age of consent has been treated here. It would certainly be possible to raise it higher than seventeen, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), but possibly it is just as well to proceed on the lines on which this Bill proceeds. The second point—this is even more important—is that I do not want to pass legislation which, if carried out, will only result in convictions upon police.

1125
evidence. I am convinced there is a great deal of danger in passing laws which can only be carried out by relying on the police. The police are certainly no worse and no better than ordinary men, but from their position they are inclined to stretch evidence, I would even go so far as to say distort the facts in giving evidence themselves with the object of obtaining convictions; in fact, the police sometimes seem to think it is their object to get convictions rather than to see that the law is observed. If they more often gave warnings and cautions and ceased to try to get convictions, there would be more respect for the law and less crime in the country generally. The difficulty about the laws affecting prostitutes, loitering and soliciting, and the laws dealing with disorderly houses, is that when the eases come into Court they rest almost entirely upon police evidence. I throw out that warning because I am sure it is necessary—it is a point which the Home Secretary himself will realise—in carrying through legislation like this that we must rely more and more upon the common sense of the public and not merely upon police evidence. I am sure that this is a Bill which the House will welcome, and when it has been well discussed it ought to prove very useful legislation.
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It seems to me that in Clause 2, Sub-section (4), this Bill has passed short of the logical conclusion, and is, though an excellent Bill in a great many ways, half-hearted in that particular point. Under it a person who has been convicted of one of the offences in the Schedule of indecent offences of some sort goes to prison and is suspected of one of these diseases, is examined and found to be infected, he is then served with a notice and let out of prison. We know what will happen in nine cases out of ten. That person will proceed to communicate the disease to some other member or members of the community, and I think the logical conclusion of the examination and the finding of the person infected with the disease is to keep him or her under control until he or she is cured and no longer a danger to the community. You keep a person with scarlet fever under control until he or she is no longer a danger to the community, and yet a person who has got scarlet fever has been guilty of no moral or legal offence. Here you have people who have been guilty of both a moral and a legal offence, and you find
1126
them a danger to the community, and yet you let them out with a mere caution, quite well knowing that in nine cases out of ten that caution will not be effectual. I ask the Home Secretary to consider, between now and the Committee stage, whether it would not be much more logical, courageous, and effective to detain such persons until they are cured of their disease. I must emphasise that I am not proposing to extend the examination beyond what is stated in the Bill. The examination only applies to a person who has been convicted already of an indecent offence, and, therefore, what the ex-Home Secretary said about a person who had been convicted, say, of theft being examined would not have any application at all. I am only proposing that when a person has actually been convicted of an indecent offence and has actually been examined and found to be infected with one of those diseases he or she should be kept under control until he or she is no longer a danger to the community. I think under that procedure you would in the course of a few months or a year or so get segregated a very large number of most dangerous persons to the community, and you would have a great effect in diminishing the amount of venereal disease in the country and the amount of misery which it often brings upon perfectly innocent persons, many of them children.
Sir J. SPEAR: While personally strongly in favour of the whole Bill, though I would rather the age of consent were seventeen instead of sixteen, I specially desire to speak in my capacity as President of the Poor Law Unions Association for England and Wales, comprising 556 boards of guardians, who again and again have discussed this matter and strongly urge legislation such as is herein suggested. Lady guardians, as well as others, have strongly urged action being taken to deal with this terrible disease. It has arisen not only from evidence of the disaster occurring to the people themselves, but especially in its effect on children. As Poor Law guardians we are constantly seeing the distress caused to the children from diseases of this kind. My association warmly supports and thanks the Home Secretary for bringing in a Bill of this kind. There is one point which this association urges, and that is, that provision should be made for the voluntary treatment of

1127
persons affected with this disease. There is difference of opinion, but the general feeling was rather against compulsory treatment, and it was thought that if means were provided where these people could go voluntarily and be treated for their disease, it would be extremely beneficial.
Sir G. CAVE: I think that is being done through the Local Government Board and the local authorities.
Sir J. SPEAR: That is of recent occurrence. We want the two things to go hand in hand, not only the remedy, but also the punishment for the offence. I warmly support the Bill, and I disagree with my hon. Friend (Mr. King), who does not think that this action is needed at the present moment. The evidence we have had brought before us in the association is that the disease is increasingly terrible. Therefore, I am glad that the Home Secretary is moving in the matter. If he can see his way clear in Committee to raise the age of consent to seventeen years, I shall like the Bill still better. As it is, I am convinced that there is growing need for legislation of this kind, and I cannot think that anything but of a very beneficial character will accrue.
Mr. DENNISS: This Bill contains a great deal that is good and which may be said to have become necessary in the emergency in which the War has placed us, but there is a good deal that is higher, risky and dangerous. I think that the Clauses relating to venereal disease are absolutely necessary. It always has been a pressing question, which has never been tackled, and the provisions that are included in the Bill will certainly be steps in the right direction One observation I would make with regard to Clause 2, Subsection (4), is that it has been very loosely drawn. It provides that if a person receives a written notice after examination by a doctor that he or she is suffering from venereal disease that person shall be deemed to have been so suffering when the alleged offence was committed whether they have got it or not, unless the contrary is proved. That is a matter of medical evidence. How can they prove the contrary? At the utmost you will have two doctors, but there is no proof there. There will be a difference of opinion, and so the matter Will be in doubt. This Clause is objection-
1128
able in many ways. The expression "venereal disease" is defined as meaning
"Syphilis, gonorrhœa, or soft chancre, or any disease of the genito-urinary organs which may reasonably be suspected to be venereal disease."
Anything more vague or more dangerous it is difficult to imagine. How it may be abused hon. Members may easily conceive. The real blot of the Bill is Clause 1, Subsection (1), which provides:
"Any male person of the age of sixteen years or over who commits an act of indecency with a girl under the age of sixteen years shall be liable on conviction or indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years."
Two years' hard labour is the severest sentence that the Court can impose; it is far worse than penal servitude. It means death to most people. Those acquainted with police and criminal practice know very well that a sentence of two years hard labour, with all that it entails in the matter of dietary and labour is worse than penal servitude. What is "an act of indecency"? I turned up to-day in my chamber to see whether there was any definition in any Act of Parliament as to what is an act of indecency. There is none. A new crime is here created for the first time as a war emergency measure. It is a vague, indefinite and sweeping thing which involves the greatest possible danger to the liberty of the subject. What is an act of indecency between a boy and a girl? I can imagine all sorts of things being construed into acts of indecency. In these days, when one sees young soldiers about with young girls indulging in rough play, some people would call it indecent. A policeman might construe what they had done into an act of indecency when there was no indecency at all. When you make a new crime you must define it. There is no definition in any Act of Parliament or in any decided case. There are certain acts of indecency which are made criminal in this Bill. If hon. Members will turn to the Schedule they will find that it does not refer to Clause 1 at all. It only refers to Clause 2, Sub-section (3). If you took the first three items on the schedule there are acts of indecency which are punishable as offences specifically and the indictment which charges those offences. Fancy an indictment which charges a man "for that you did unlawfully commit an act of

1129
indecency with a girl under sixteen." What would be the evidence that would be admitted in a Court before a judge and jury on such a charge as that? Almost anything in the wide world. One is accustomed on Sundays and Bank Holidays on commons and other places to see things which of course are objectionable from the point of view of what may be called good manners, but which are really in their essence in no sense criminal. I would very seriously call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he is creating a new crime. My right hon. Friend has not practised in the Criminal Courts. He does not know what happens in those cases. I hope that he will ask the Attorney-General as to what happens in these cases. The House takes little or no interest in this matter at present, and proper attention cannot be given to it, and it cannot be threshed out. If the right hon. Gentleman would only consult my learned Friend the Director of Public Prosecutions——
Sir G. CAVE: I have consulted him.
Mr. DENNISS: There should be a definition in the Bill as to what an act of indecency means. The more hon. Members consider what may be the effect of this new crime the more they will hesitate to pass it until there is a definition, and a strict definition, in the Bill as to what it is to be confined to.
I rose for the purpose of pointing out this danger. With a great many Clauses of the Bill I am in sympathy. I should like to point out that in Clause 7, while you prohibit advertisements of articles and medicines which are to be used for the treatment of these diseases, you do not go to the logical length of prohibiting the sale of the articles themselves. What is the use of prohibiting advertisements and not prohibiting the sale? If these are secret remedies of which nobody knows the composition, and which probably cannot be discovered by analysis—for in all probability they contain dangerous ingredients or ingredients which will not effect the cure desired, so that they will be just as dangerous, because the person who takes them believes he is being cured, and will not go to a doctor to obtain a cure—you ought to prohibit the sale of such remedies. Then they would not be advertised, because there would be no purpose in advertising them, if they could not be offered for sale. There are other
1130
matters to which attention might be called, but the one blot on the Bill is in the second line of the first Clause as to an undefined crime which is a danger to the community.
Sir G. RADFORD: I think the Home Secretary ought to take to heart the words addressed to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman behind him. The Home Secretary appealed to us that this Bill should not be overloaded with Amendments, but I think the House will be wise in turning a deaf ear to his appeal, because in my judgment there never was a Bill which more needed to be scrutinised line by line and word by word than the Bill now before us. With reference to the communication of venereal disease, I regard that as a wicked act, and I think it should be included in this Bill. I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood), and I think the Home Secretary is wise in including this provision in his Bill. It may be remembred that the communication of such a disease is already known to the law and is not infrequently included in cases of divorce. If it can be used in divorce, I see no reason why it should not be included in criminal law cases. The other most important feature of this Bill is the extension of the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act to another class of offence which was referred to by my learned Friend opposite, and in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman is on dangerous ground. It was long ago said by a distinguished Member of this House, John Stuart Mill, that you take up an illogical position in not attacking the parties to the offence—attacking the persons who facilitated the commission of the offence. We cannot say that illicit sexual intercourse is to be made a crime. Even the Home Secretary, with all his zeal, with all his ardour for morality and the good of the community, does not propose to prevent such a measure as that, but he could make it harder and harder for those who facilitate the commission of acts which are themselves, if not blameless, left untouched by the law. Extreme care should be exercised in regard to the remedies to be applied, and the Clauses of the Bill dealing with the subject, need the closest scrutiny. If the right hon. Gentleman will look into the Bill, I think he will come to the conclusion that the Bill contains some provi-

1131
sions that he cannot recommend to the House, and he will probably modify them off his own bat.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. J. Hope.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

ARMY CLOTHING.
Major TERRELL: At Question Time to-day I put a question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I gave notice that I would raise the matter which seemed to me urgent and important, and that is as to the clothing which is being issued to our troops serving in France. Just before the New Year an officer returning from the forces in France showed to me some of the clothing which
1132
he told me was being issued by the authorities to the men serving in the trenches. The clothing which he brought me was torn, shrunken, threadbare, patched, and thoroughly useless for the purposes for which it was intended.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am afraid there has been some misapprehension as there is no representative of the War Office here. At the time the hon. Gentleman raised the point I understand there was considerable conversation going on, and I do not think my hon. Friend understood that it was intended to bring it up here on adjournment. At any rate, he is not here. Perhaps the hon. Member will postpone it?
Major TERRELL: Of course, I should like the Financial Secretary to be here. The matter is a most serious one. I will, therefore, postpone it, and hope he will be in attendance when I again bring it up.
Mr. KING: I hope this will be a warning to the Government. The hon. Member for Gloucester certainly gave clear notice and I stayed on because I considered it a most important question. As a member of the rank and file I appeal to the Government that due attention, should be given to inquiries by private Members.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly it Six minutes before Eleven o'clock.