Commons Sitting of 12 March 1917

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, in the room of Jonathan Samuel, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Gulland.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bristol Water Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRISONERS OF WAR (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 7, 1917).
Copy presented of Further Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of British Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in Germany (in continuation of Miscellaneous, No. 26, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University for the year 1915–16 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order, numbered D.I.P., 458, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURTS PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1915–16.
Return presented relative thereto ordered 8th March; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 47.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Wells
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports during the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MILITARY SERVICE.

      COLD STORAGE PLANTS (ENGINEERS).
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the outlook respecting the national food supply, especially meat and other perishable foodstuffs, steps will be taken to protect those engineering firms whose existence is essential to the maintenance of the country's cold storage accommodation from further depictions of their skilled staffs and employés?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): The importance of engineering firms necessary to the maintenance and repair of the machinery and plant used at cold storage premises, and at factories and workshops doing essential work is fully

      689
      recognised. The staffs of these firms have received a considerable measure of protection under the List of Certified Occupations, and their importance has also been recognised in the List of Trades and Occupations of Primary Importance recently issued by the Director-General of National Service.
      Mr. FIELD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if I forward him particulars of certain cases of interference which are prejudicial to the trade, he will have them inquired into?
      Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS.

    PAPER (TRADE CATALOGUES).
    Mr. HINDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that no trader can send out advertising catalogues or circulars after the 10th instant, and that many traders have such catalogues and circulars now being printed which cannot be cancelled with out loss and unnecessary waste of paper, he will at once give instructions that the date fixed in the Order shall be postponed to 31st March, subject to the provision named in the amended Regulation since published?
    Mr. ROBERTS: A general licence will be issued extending up to 24th March, the period for the issue of catalogues, etc., which were already in process of printing at the date of the Order. Individual applications for a further extension of time in exceptional cases will be considered by the Paper Commission on their merits.
    Mr. HINDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the request in writing referred to in Clause 3 of the Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act referring to advertising circulars is to be interpreted as meaning that a separate request in writing must be made for each individual circular, or that, a request having once been made in writing to the trader, he will be in order in sending his catalogues, circulars, or price lists to such person without a request being made in writing in respect of each such circular; and, if the first meaning is to be attached to the order, will he say whether he has realised the
    690
    inconvenience to the public residing in outlying districts which must result and the hardship which will be inflicted on the trader?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The request in writing referred to in the Order need not be for one particular circular, but may be a general request for all such circulars as may be issued, or for all circulars of some specified class or description.
    Mr. HINDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Order in Council prohibiting the delivery by traders of catalogues and circulars will destroy immediately a large amount of mail-order business which has taken years to build up, and that, apart from such business, a large part of the regular trade done by suburban and provincial firms throughout the country depends upon the issue of advertising catalogues; and if he will say what steps he proposes to take to economise the use of paper by the curtailment of advertisements of the same nature in the public Press which will have the effect of diverting a large volume of trade to those houses who, by reason of their situation in the centre of London or other large provincial centres, are alone able to avail themselves of such methods of advertising?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Order which has been issued will not preclude the sending of catalogues to persons who ask for them, and will, I hope, not unduly interfere with the maintenance of essential business. It is not at present proposed to impose restrictions on advertisements in newspapers.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to stop the circulars of non-essential industries entirely?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If my hon. Friend will see the Order he will see that power is taken to regulate the use of circulars.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to stop the advertising of all non-essentials-luxuries?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is not for me to decide matters of that sort.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in granting licences to shopkeepers and others whose trade depends

    691
    upon the issue of circulars enabling them to use such circulars, he will in every case allow circulars that have been printed to be sent out and thus prevent financial loss?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As has already been announced in the Press, a period of a fortnight (ending 24th March) has been allowed without specific licences being required for the sending out of circulars which tradesmen had on hand.
    Mr. MACDONALD: The point I want to find out is this: Supposing circulars are actually printed, so that there can be no saving of paper or of labour in regard to them, will those who have ordered them in a bond fide way be entitled to circulate them?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have stated that there will be free circulation of circulars of that character up to 24th March.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that advertisers have in many cases posters already printed; and will he see that unnecessary loss is not inflicted upon them by the prevention of distribution?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The provisions of Clause 1 of the Order with regard to the size of posters prohibits manufacture of posters over a certain size, but not the exhibition of posters already in stock. The only provision against the exhibition of posters is that relating to newspaper bills and to goods offered for sale by a retailer, and as regards the latter it has been decided to allow a limited time within which those already in stock may be exhibited.

  LABOUR SCARCITY (TRANSPORT OF BEER).
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the question of the labour involved in the unnecessary carriage of beer about the country by train and drays and lorries; and will he consider the desirability of preventing this by making a town with a brewery consume the beer made there instead of sending quantities to another town also with a brewery which sends quantities of beer to the first town?
  Mr. ROBERTS: This matter has already been very carefully considered, but it has not been thought necessary to take action
  692
  in the direction suggested. The majority of brewers, I understand, send their beer short distances only.
  Mr. FELL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think a good deal might be done, at any rate in certain towns?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter has received the careful consideration of the Railway Executive

  WORKMEN'S TICKETS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware (1) that in consequence of the booking of workmen's tickets at the various railway stations on the Metropolitan District Railway and the Great Eastern Railway not later than 7.30 a.m., many thousands of people have to loiter about at the various railway stations on account of many of them not starting work before 8.30 and 9 o'clock a.m.; will he bring the matter before the railway managers' executive, with a view to having workmen's tickets issued up to 8 a.m.; and (2) is he aware that many thousands of workpeople are called upon to work on Sundays; if he is aware that there are no workmen's tickets issued for Sunday morning travelling; and if he can see his way clear to advise the railway managers' executive to issue workmen's tickets on Sunday mornings on the same conditions that they are issued on week days?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am doubtful whether it would be practicable to extend the issue of workmen's tickets as suggested, but I will consult the Railway Executive Committee.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the outbreak of war R. Staehr, an alien enemy resident in Berlin, held 3,600 £5 shares of the Great International Plate Glass Insurance and Cleaning Company, Limited, out of a total issue of 5,407 shares, and that the business of the company was being carried on mainly under the control and for the benefit of an enemy subject; whether he is aware that since the outbreak of war the greater part of R. Staehr's shares were transferred to Max Otto Kuehn, a German by

  693
  birth and naturalised in this country in 1913, who now holds 5,100 shares of this company; whether the Board of Trade has power to cancel this transfer and to wind up the business of the company; and, if not, whether he will introduce legislation so as to enable the Board of Trade to deal with cases of this character?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware of the facts relating to the transfer of shares of the Great International Plate Glass Insurance and Cleaning Company, Limited, which purport to have been sold compulsorily under powers contained in the company's articles of association. The case of this company was considered by the Advisory Committee, who advised the Board of Trade that it was a case in which the provisions of Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916, should not be enforced. I will consider whether any amendment of the law is desirable.
  Mr. BUTCHER: May we expect that legislation to meet this and similar urgent cases will be introduced as soon as possible?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I can only say that this and kindred matters are receiving the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend the President.

  MINING INDUSTRY (RATES OF PAY).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made by the Controller of Mines with regard to the employment and rates of pay of men engaged in the mining industry?
  Mr. ROBERTS: No alteration has been made in the existing arrangements.
  Mr. MILLAR: May I ask whether any arrangement has been made for the existing wage agreements to remain in force, and also, in the event of necessity arising for raising wages, whether any machinery has been arranged for that purpose?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend the President met in conference members of the Miners' Federation a week or so ago, and he gave an undertaking that there was no intention of in any way interfering with the existing wage arrangements, and of course they have their means of submitting any desire for modification.
  Mr. MILLAR: May I ask who is to be the arbitrator in the case of a demand being made for increased wages?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question, of which notice should be given.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Can the hon Gentleman say if the Controller has taken over the Irish mines?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I was not aware of mines in Ireland myself, but I must express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for improving my knowledge.
  Mr. JOYCE: You have something to learn yet!
  Mr. HAZLETON: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire of his own Government Department?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will he inquire of the Chief Secretary why the Government proposed to build a railway from Athy to the Wolf Hill mines?

  COAL PRICES.
  Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the Controller of Coal Mines is aware that the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight have suffered hardships for some time owing to the price of coal, now retailed at about £3 per ton in the island; and if he can see his way to take any action in the matter, with a view to alleviating the distress caused by these prices?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. Member to the letter which was addressed to him on 27th July last, informing him that the local authorities in the Isle of Wight had not availed themselves of an offer made by the merchants at the instance of the Board of Trade to come to an arrangement for the limitation of retail coal prices, and to furnish information to justify such prices as were proposed. The price which the hon. Member quotes indicates a substantial increase as compared with those of which complaint has previously been made, and the Controller of Coal Mines is again drawing the attention of the local authorities to the desirability of an understanding with the merchants similar to those existing in other localities.
  Captain HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman send me a copy of that letter, which, I have never received?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will certainly cause one to be sent to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  COTTON IMPORT DUTIES (INDIA).
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Secretary of State for India if when it was decided to raise the Import Duties on cotton goods it was considered to give any preference, and, if so, to what extent, on the cotton goods imported from the United Kingdom and the Dominions and any degree of preference on those goods imported from the countries of our Allies?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. The increased Customs Duty was imposed for revenue purposes, and the whole of the proceeds are for the present required to meet the new charges incurred by India for the War.
  Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether in framing these duties he did not have any regard to the Tariff Article of the Paris Resolutions?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend means had I those Resolutions in my mind, of course I had. But if he means was I able, in dealing with this particular charge in the duties, to give effect to them, then the answer is, "No, I was not." That is a question which will properly come under consideration, and I hope will come under consideration in regard to a review of Imperial policy and of our own fiscal policy when the War is over.
  Sir C. HENRY: Then as it stands at present, cotton goods from the United States or Germany will go into India on the same terms as cotton goods from this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. In that respect no change is made from the conditions hitherto prevailing.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the duty was levied for revenue purposes only, will he say why no countervailing excise was levied?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think -that requires explanation to anyone except the hon. Gentleman himself.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    PASTURE LAND (BREAKING-UP).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, under the request by the Government to farmers to break-up pasture, the farmers follow this instruction are the clauses in agreements and leases preventing the breaking up of pasture land abrogated; have the restrictions by custom of districts in regard to courses of cropping been suspended; and can a tenant farmer, bound to farm on the four-course system or any other, vary the same without liability to claims for damages?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): A farmer will be relieved from liability to claims for damages in such cases as are referred to if he first receives the necessary notice or direction of the War Agricultural Executive Committee under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Does that mean the country agricultural committee?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Yes.

    KING'S PARK (STIRLING).
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what decision has been come to with regard to the ploughing up of the King's Park at Stirling?
    Sir R. WINFREY: About 20 acres out of 154 acres of the King's Park, Stirling, are proposed to be ploughed up for temporary cultivation during the War. Afterwards, this area will be levelled and laid down again to permanent grass. The President of the Board, as First Commissioner of Woods, agrees with the decision of the Stirling Town Council that the recommendation of the District Agricultural Committee for Central Stirlingshire to plough up this area should be approved.
    Sir C. HENRY: Were the Board of Agriculture consulted before potato acreage in Richmond Park and Bushey Park was ploughed up?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware of

    697
    the indignation in Ireland caused by the exporting of potatoes and other foodstuffs required for the Irish people; if, to prevent a repetition of the famine of 1847 which caused so many victims, he will prevent any further exportation of potatoes from Ireland; or if the people of Ireland will be allowed to deal with the exporters themselves, and be allowed to take whatever steps may be necessary to prevent the exportation of foodstuffs required for home use?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Board of Agriculture have asked me to reply to this question. The export of potatoes and oats from Ireland, with the exception of supplies for the Army and Navy, is at present only permitted under licence from the Department of Agriculture. In granting such licences the Department has had, and will have, due regard to the requirements of the country.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has not the time arrived to prevent potatoes going out of Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The prohibition upon the export of potatoes out of Ireland has been so effective that every grower of potatoes in Ulster for export feels himself aggrieved by the action of it.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of his own personal knowledge or has he heard that potatoes are the main food of the Irish people?
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Has anybody in Ireland been licensed to export potatoes except the hon. Member of this House who represents North Derry?
    Mr. DUKE: Yes, Sir. A large number of licences have been issued, but whether any licence has been issued to the hon. Member for North Derry I am not sure.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Can we have a list of these names?
    Mr. DUKE: Several hon. Members had lists many days since.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers who are agents of the military authorities are going round the country buying potatoes from farmers in their homes for export purposes, and will this practice be stopped and these men be sent into the open-market to buy their potatoes instead of going round the country?
    Mr. DUKE: Potatoes will continue to be bought, I hope, as cheaply as possible and as readily as possible for the supply of the troops at the front, so far as it is practicable, and for the supply of sailors at sea, so far as it is practicable. So far as I know there has been nothing done m the use of the military power of requisitioning, except for the express purposes of those necessary supplies.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, namely, whether the Government will cease issuing permits for export altogether, because there is a scarcity of potatoes in Ireland and also here? I think it is most unfair that potatoes should be brought from Ireland [HON MEMBERS: "Speech!"]. Will the Government prevent any more permits being issued?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.
    Mr. BYRNE: It is a very important question.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that at the present rate of consumption it is unlikely that there will be potatoes available for anyone during the later spring and the earlier summer months, it has yet been decided to establish compulsory potato rations?
    Captain BATHURST: As I have already stated, the Food Controller does not propose to ration potatoes. I may point out that even in normal years supplies of potatoes are frequently short in the late spring and early summer.

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what increased acreage of tillage the Department calculated to result from the Order to cultivate 10 per cent. of the land not tilled last year; what is the estimated total acreage by which the actual result falls short of their estimate; whether the duty of tilling has been shirked chiefly on the large grass farms; and, seeing that the season for breaking this land is passing away, what steps are being taken to have it done forthwith in order that the country may not suffer from shortage of the food deemed necessary?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture are not yet in a position to estimate

    699
    the total increased acreage of tillage likely to result from the Tillage Order. Ploughing operations are still in progress all over the country and will be for some weeks to come. Where necessary, the Department will exercise the powers conferred on them by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, to ensure compliance with the Regulations as to compulsory tillage.
    Mr. BYRNE: Have any arrangements been provided to cultivate Phoenix Park or will the Lord Lieutenant be allowed to keep his public promise?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not see anything in the question on these subjects?
    Mr. FARRELL: At what time will the right hon. Gentleman's Department decide that landlords or owners of large tracts of land not having complied will be penalised?
    Mr. DUKE: Nobody need assume that he will get another day.

    STAPLE ARTICLES OF FOOD.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Food Controller is considering the issue to the public of advice concerning the consumption of average weekly quantities of other staple articles of food in addition to those already published regarding meat, bread, and sugar?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The Food Controller will be issuing general information for the guidance of the public through the organisation which he has recently set up at the Ministry of Food for this purpose. He does not at present propose to fix a voluntary ration embracing other staple articles of food.

    POTABLE SPIRITS.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, having regard to the present shortage of food, it is proposed to take any steps to prohibit the further manufacture of spirits for potable purposes?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): Under the recent Orders of the Ministry no potable spirit is now being produced at the patent-still distilleries, except the small quantity for the export
    700
    gin trade, mentioned in the reply given on 1st March to my hon. Friend. I would remind my hon. Friend that the permit for the pot-still distilleries is only for the present season, which will shortly terminate.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is there any justification for allowing the manufacture of a further single gallon of alcohol seeing that there are already 140,000,000 gallons in bond, and having regard to the shortage of food?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member is aware that an arrangement with the pot-still distillers was come to last year with regard to the present season which is now nearly terminated.
    Mr. MILLAR: Has not the situation developed since the licences were issued, and the question become of much greater importance?

    POLISHING RICE GRAINS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if the mills employed in the polishing of rice have now been closed or put to some useful work; if the polishing of the grains of rice is never practised in those countries where rice forms the staple food of the people; and if the polishing is only done for the purpose of adding a lustre to the rice and rendering it more attractive to persons ignorant of the fact that the value of the rice as food is greatly diminished?
    Captain BATHURST: I understand that the number of mills in this country where rice is polished is very limited and that at practically all of them rice is also ground. I agree that the polishing of rice at the present time is to be deprecated as involving an unnecessary employment of labour and the removal of much of the nutritious properties of the grain.
    Mr. FELL: Would it not be possible very easily to stop the polishing of rice and release the labour?
    Captain BATHURST: It is done on so small a scale at present. It was done in pre-war times simply because the attractive appearance appealed to the public.

    TEA WEIGHED IN PAPER.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Wholesale Co-operative Society give the full weight of tea in each packet without weighing the paper; if he is aware that the majority of

    701
    grocers have their tea weighed up with the wrappers, which are now much heavier than in pre-war days; and whether he will issue an Order that all tea packages must give the full weight of tea without the weight of the package?
    Captain BATHURST: I understand that the practice of the Wholesale Co-operative Society is as stated in the questions. I am aware that a large number of grocers sell packets by a weight which includes and is stated on the packet to include the weight of the paper wrapper itself. The Food Controller is not proposing at present to make an Order to the effect suggested in the last part of the question. It should be recognised that, in the event of such an Order being issued, the price of the tea could be proportionately increased.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this firm could have made an increased profit on last year's trading of over £200,000 if they had Weighed in the wrapper with the tea and charged the price of tea for the paper wrapper?
    Captain BATHURST: I know nothing about the figures, but I conceive that is quite possible.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the paper of which the wrapper is made is worth about 5d. a lb., and that the purchaser has to pay the price of tea—2s. 6d. a lb.—for it?
    Captain BATHURST: Those considerations are being kept constantly in view.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Would it not be advisable to stop this practice of including paper as though it were tea so as to enable the public to know what weight of tea they are really buying?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not sure the hon. and learned Gentleman heard my original answer, in which I pointed out that on all these packets where the paper is included with the tea notification to that effect appears on the packet.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any notification as to the weight of the paper as compared with the weight of the tea?
    Captain BATHURST: No, there is not, but in the event of any case being brought to the Food Controller's notice of an increase in the weight of the paper being introduced action will be taken.
    Mr. LOUGH: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there was a Parlia-
    702
    mentary inquiry into the subject two or three years ago and the recommendation of the Committee was that the practice on the whole was in the public interest and should not be interfered with?
    Captain BATHURST: I am fully aware of that as I have already stated in the House.
    Mr. BILLING: Is there any limit?

    AMERICAN MEAT TRUST.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that there is a good deal of jobbing and speculation of meat on the London Central Meat Markets; if he is aware that as soon as beef prices look like going down any day the American Meat Trust managers go and buy or bid up all beef, especially the Morris Beef Company, who buy up English and Irish beef; if he can see his way clear to prevent the American Moat Trust managers from speculating in, and bidding up against the retail butcher for, the English and Irish beef on the London Central Meat Markets or any country livestock markets; if he is aware that the Armour Packing Company have been trying to corner the Irish poultry trade had have at present thousands of Irish chickens in cold storage at Lurgan; and if he is aware that they are holding them up for higher prices in May and June?
    Captain BATHURST: There seems to be no adequate foundation for the suggestion contained in the first part of this question. I understand that firms which have previously confined their operations to imported meat have, owing to the reduced supplies of frozen and chilled meat, purchased in the home markets for the purpose of maintaining their normal trade. The Food Controller, with the assistance of the Irish Department of Agriculture, is making inquiries into the alleged holding up of poultry at Lurgan. I may perhaps add on the general question of stocks of meat, that the returns obtained by the Ministry of Food from all the principal cold stores and warehouses in the United Kingdom, show that the total quantity of all meat in store on the 1st March was only 0.6 per cent. more than on the 1st February.
    Mr. THORNE: Would it be possible to send someone with authority to visit the

    703
    meat markets and watch this American beef firm, and if they are jumping up the prices prosecute them?
    Captain BATHURST: That has already been done, and will continue to be done in any case where there seems to be reasonable ground for suspicion. I may perhaps point out that the American Association have their customers in this country, who look to them to provide their reasonable quota of meat from some source or another.
    Mr. THORNE: If I send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a letter I have received in connection with this firm buying three or four hundred heads of cattle last Saturday week, will he inquire into the matter?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes. I have already received voluminous correspondence from the hon. Member and shall be only too glad to receive more.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that working-class people are experiencing difficulty in purchasing even limited quantites of sugar; that they often have to go for days without any sugar at all; that the prevailing practice of retailing sugar according to the amount of purchases of other commodities not subject to any fixed maximum price results in hardship, invariably necessitating ill-afforded expenditure on goods not actually required; and that, notwithstanding the inconvenience and hardship, the people at the same time witness in such places as Dewsbury consignments of sugar being used in the manufacture of sweets and confectionery; and whether the Food Controller will endeavour to so regulate the distribution of the available sugar supply as to enable each household to acquire regularly its share and no more, according to the number of persons?
    Captain BATHURST: The making of a sugar purchase conditional on other goods being taken will be included in an Order at an early date. As regards the use of sugar for the manufacture of confectionery and chocolate, I may remind the hon. Member that the amounts which may be used for that purpose in the present year have already been limited by
    704
    the Sugar (Confectionery) Order, 1917, to 50 per cent. of the amount so used in 1915, and this quantity may be still further reduced in the near future.
    Mr. THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that it is absurd for people to be asked to buy chocolate when their children are going without sugar? If it is necessary to curtail sugar, cannot these other things be stopped?
    Captain BATHURST: That consideration is certainly being taken into account. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the sugar problem is difficult and involved, and the Food Controller would be very glad to meet in one of the committee rooms any members of this House who are interested in the question of sugar, and discuss the matter fully with them.
    Mr. THOMAS: Does not that mean that the Sugar Controller should be here, because everybody is interested?

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (BADGES).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether power can be given to the President of the Board of Agriculture to badge men essential for the production of food?
    Sir R. WINFREY: In reply I must refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question put by the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancaster on the 27th of last month.
    Mr. LAMBERT: What was the reply?
    Sir R. WINFREY: It was to the effect that the tribunals had the power to deal with this matter.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper—whether power will be given to the President of the Board of Agriculture to badge men essential for the production of food? There is no question about the tribunals.
    Sir R. WINFREY: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HAZLETON: As there are no tribunals in Ireland, will power be given to the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland?

    CORN THRESHING,
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will direct the military authorities to refrain from pressing

    705
    for the recruitment of men essential for the working of steam threshing machines, the stoppage of which will prevent the threshing of corn needful for seeding in the coming months?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. These matters are regulated by agreement between the Departments concerned, and instructions have been issued to recruiting officers to cooperate with the agricultural representatives.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been issued to His Majesty's Consuls with regard to the use of British man-power in neutral countries?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): His Majesty's Consuls in neutral countries have been instructed to invite British subjects who are willing to return to this country for military service if they are called up to register their names at His Majesty's Consulates.

  ROGER CASEMENT TRIAL.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the statement on the Roger Casement case sent to the late Foreign Secretary by the American lawyer who had watched that case, to enable hon. Members to see whether that statement disclosed the fact that the British Government had prevented certain relevant material being brought before the Court, thus preventing the Court having the whole case before it?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin to a question on this subject on the 26th October last.

  CZECHO-SLOVACS.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to effect the liberation of
  706
  the Czecho-Slovacs on the lines proposed by the Prime Minister to meet the case of Ireland?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to the replies already given to the hon. Member on this subject.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, from his intimate knowledge of the Czecho-Slovacs, whether they will be satisfied with liberation on the terms suggested for Ireland? He has not given me any reply yet, apparently.
  Mr. BALFOUR: He must be a very bold man who would say whether any nation will be satisfied with any provision.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give these people an assurance that they will not be treated as badly as the Government has treated Ireland?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any provision for the large Ulster which exists in Czecho-Slovachia?

  MUNITIONS.

    DUBLIN NATIONAL SHELL FACTORY.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will give the names of the official board of management of the Dublin National Shell Factory and the date of their appointment; and if the capital of this company has been subscribed by public subscription or otherwise and if any part of it is Government-money?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The official board of management of the Dublin National Shell Factory was appointed in October, 1915. The members of the board are Captain Kelly, Captain Dowme and Mr. Lewis Gray, all officials of the Ministry of Munitions. The factory has been equipped and is being carried on entirely with Government funds.
    Mr. LUNDON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question and the two next questions are directed against the present lady superintendent of the National Shell Factory, who, according to the admission of the War Office last week is one of the most efficient in their service; is he further aware that this lady has two brothers at the front and that she is the sister-in-law of the late Tom Kettle, and is it fair

    707
    that she should be pursued by the hon. and gallant Member, whose only gallantry consists in throwing mud at his own fellow-countrymen at the instance of the Marchioness of Waterford?
    Major NEWMAN: Should I be in order in saying that I am not asking these questions at the instance of the lady named but on behalf of other ladies who have also lost their brothers at the front. [Hoy. MEMBERS: "Carrion crow!"]
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that when the Dublin National Shell Factory was erected a canteen for women was with difficulty started and worked by a band of unpaid and volunteer social workers who have recently been dismissed by the official board of management; and has he been able to ascertain whether their services were dispensed with on the ground of lack of ability, lack of organisation, or any similar reason?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: When the canteen at the Dublin National Shell Factory was originally started the management was, as the hon. and gallant Member states, carried on by voluntary workers with certain paid assistance. Increasing difficulties, however, arose in getting sufficient voluntary assistance for work at night and during the summer months, and as a consequence numerous complaints were received from the factory workers as to the management of the canteen. It was on this ground and on the ground of economy that the decision was arrived at to run the canteen in the usual way with a paid staff. My right hon. Friend would like to take this opportunity of expressing his acknowledgment of the services that have been rendered by many of the voluntary workers.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Has the hon. Gentleman made inquiries, and, if not, will he make inquiries into the voluntary system, which is of such an unsatisfactory character that girls working on the night shift cannot even get tea?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I think the answer I have given covers the point generally.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether the cost of the substitution of paid labour for voluntary and unpaid labour in the munition canteen of the Dublin National Shell Factory will be met out of public funds or from the profits
    708
    of the canteen itself; and will he give an estimate of the salary that will be paid to the welfare superintendent at the factory, and an estimate of the weekly or monthly, whichever is most convenient, wages of the paid workers?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The additional cost of paid labour, due to the change in the management of the canteen, will be met out of the profits of the canteen. No additional salary will be paid to the welfare superintendent at the factory as a result of the change. It is estimated that about £15 per week will be payable to the canteen employés under the new system of management
    Major NEWMAN: Does that include the salary of the superintendent?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It includes all the salaries.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the War Office as to the advisability of transferring the hon. and gallant Gentleman from this House and sending him over to the Marchioness of Waterford as a voluntary worker?

    SHEFFIELD WORKMEN FINED.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Sir William Clegg, the chairman of the Sheffield munitions tribunal, inflicted a fine of £2 upon two grinders named James Bolsover, Emity Street, Sheffield, and Albert Gregory, St. Mary's Street, Sheffield, piece workers, for refusing to clock in and out, which is a new system adopted by the firm; if he is aware that this is a violation of the Treasury agreement, in consequence of the firm adopting a new system without mutual agreement between the two parties; if he is aware that Sir William Clegg threatened the men in question by stating that he would show the men what the tribunals can do if men refused to clock, and be invited the firm to bring the men before him again if they refused to carry out. the new system; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am making inquiries in this matter, and will let my hon. Friend know in due course.

    HOME DEFENCE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the sea-power

    709
    being the determining factor on the number of men allocated to Home defence, whether he will state if the old guarantee of the Board of Admiralty against an invasion of 70,000 men or over is still in force, or whether it has been superseded by another figure or withdrawn altogether?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can only assure the hon. and gallant Member that this is a matter which is constantly under review by His Majesty's Government, but my hon. Friend will understand that it is impossible to give a definite answer to this question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite sure that there is no possibility of any dreadful misunderstanding between the two Departments?

    DARDANELLES COMMISSION REPORT.

      OFFICIAL EXCISIONS.
      Mr. ASQUITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Report presented by the Dardanelles Commission has now been published and passes under review, and pronounces judgment upon, the conduct of servants of the Crown, living and dead, instructions will be given for the publication of the evidence upon which the findings of the Commission purport to be founded; and whether as soon as may be thereafter, an opportunity will be afforded to the House for the discussion of the Report?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In their Report the Commissioners state that they do not recommend the publication of the evidence because parts of it, to quote their exact words, "dealt either with naval and military considerations, or with the relations between His Majesty's Government and their Allies, which could not, without serious detriment to the public interests have been published."
      In these circumstances the Government are not prepared to give instructions for the publication of the evidence.
      Sir S. COLLINS: Would it not have been better not to have issued the Report at all?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As the House knows, the Government, as we thought,
      710
      were bound to issue the Report in consequence of the Act of Parliament appointing the Commission.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: In regard to the excisions made by the Government, would my right hon. Friend state who is the Minister responsible for those excisions?
      An HON. MEMBER: You are.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is the Minister who accepts responsibility for those excisions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The excisions were made on the representations of, I think, three Departments—the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the War Office. The Cabinet is responsible for the excisions.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Then I understand that my right hon. Friend is the Minister who is going to deal with the question of the propriety of any of these excisions?
      Mr. BONAR LAWindicated assent.
      Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in any of these excisions there appears the name of any present Minister or any late member of the Government, or whether they refer purely to matters having no reference to them?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It must be obvious that I cannot answer a question of that kind, for it would be very easy to get exactly what the Report says.
      Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Statute constituting this Commission it is prescribed that the Commissioners shall make reports to the House of Commons forthwith? Is he also aware that those Reports are Reports in full, not bowdlerised Reports, edited by persons who have no responsibility for so doing?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will there be an opportunity for the discussion of this Report?
      An HON. MEMBER: After the War.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why one passage excised from the Majority Report is allowed to appear in the Minority Report?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is quite apart from the question on the Paper.

      IRISH WHISKY.
      Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether it is proposed to prohibit the sale in Ireland of three-year-old Irish whisky; in what way this will help to free tonnage for other commerce; whether this means practically the closing of all local public-houses in Ireland; and whether, seeing that the Government in the past got the major portion of their taxes from this trade, compensation of any kind will be given to publicans?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remaining part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES, IRELAND (WAGES).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to pay the Government employés in Ireland the same rates of wages and salaries as are being paid in England to Government employés doing similar work; if he is aware that the railway workers, postal employés, and Army employés in Ireland are not receiving the same treatment as those employed on the same class of work in Great Britain; if he is aware of the dissension which this exceptional treatment is causing; and if he will have the cause removed?
      Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The salaries assigned to permanent Civil servants belonging to classes common to the service are uniform throughout the United Kingdom; other employés are paid at rates varying, according to local conditions, not only between Great Britain and Ireland, but between different parts of Great Britain. The rates paid by private employers are, generally speaking, lower in Ireland than in Great Britain, and this consideration undoubtedly has some effect on the rates of Government wages in Ireland for persons other than permanent Civil servants. Railway servants are employed, not by the Government, but by the railway companies.
      Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state why railway workers and postal employés in Ireland receive on an average from 8s. to 10s. a week less than those in England doing similar work?
      Mr. DUKE: I am not aware that that is a fact.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must not have debates on this question. The question on the Paper is only asking for information.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Why is it that the payment of Irish employés of the Government is less than the wages paid to English employés of the Government'?
      Mr. DUKE: That is a matter I dealt with in the answer I gave.
      Mr. DEVLIN: If, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, lower wages are paid by private employers in Ireland, does that justify the Government in paying less, or is it not the function of the Government to show a good example to private employers in Ireland?
      Mr. DUKE: I believe it does.

      WAR LOAN (LANCASHIRE).
      Mr. HOLTasked what was the grand total of the amounts announced as local subscriptions to the recent War Loan in those towns in Lancashire for which the local authorities at his request, or that of the National War Savings Committee, compiled and published returns; whether any estimate can be given of the total amount subscribed in those parts of Lancashire not included in the above lists; and what is the approximate amount of the War Savings Certificates purchased in Lancashire?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that complete returns have not yet been received by the National War Savings Committee from those places which adopted their suggestion that daily or weekly returns should be obtained and published showing the local subscriptions for the War Loan. But when the returns are complete, I will consider the question of their publication.

      FRANCHISE AND ELECTORAL REFORM.
      Sir W. BYLESasked whether the changes in our electoral law recommended in the Report of the Conference lately presided over by Mr. Speaker are to be made the subject of legislation by the present Government, or whether the labours of that Committee are to be abortive?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottinghamshire on Tuesday last.

      IRISH ESTIMATES.
      Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can name an early day for the discussion of Irish Estimates; and whether he will arrange that the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland shall be put down first?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to arrange a day next week, and the salary of the Chief Secretary will be taken first.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give two days?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If any useful purpose could be served by giving several days I would like to give them.
      Mr. DEVLIN: I think that it would require several days to discuss the maladministration of the government of Ire-Ireland.

      ARMY PAY.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether, in view of the anticipated prolongation of the War into the year 1918, he will now take steps to increase the pay of non-commissioned officers and men?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the boast of the Minister for Labour that his men are getting £10 a week, which is so much more than is given to the soldier who is drawn out of the colliery?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is an argument.

      SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
      Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet come to any decision on the question of the earlier closing of shops, the Order in respect of which expires next month?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): No, Sir. I am making some inquiries, and
      714
      it may be some little time before I can come to a decision. The present Order does not expire till the 30th of April.

      COAL MINES (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
      Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increase of fatalities to underground workers in coal mines from falls of the roof and sides; and if he will say what steps are being taken to prevent this increased loss of life?
      Sir G. CAVE: The statistics issued by my Department show that there has been an increase in the total number of fatalities due to this cause, though I am glad to note that in the Durham and Northumberland Division the fatalities dropped from 122 in 1915 to 86 in 1916. Inquiries which I have made indicate that the increase is probably to be accounted for by the loss of many of the more experienced workmen, the general speeding-up of work, and other conditions arising out of the present emergency. The inspectors pay constant and close attention to the matter, and every effort is made to enforce compliance with the timbering regulations and the adoption of all possible precautions.
      Mr. WINGasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that at coroners' in quests on the deaths of miners arising from the falls of roof the verdict "death from natural causes" is becoming quite common; and are any steps taken to ascertain whether such verdicts are true in fact or is such merely a form of words to hide carelessness?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have made inquiry and cannot find there is any foundation whatever for the very serious allegation which is contained in the question. I imagine that the hon. Member has been misled in some way, but I regret that he should have given currency to this charge without first ascertaining the facts.

      CIRO'S CLUB.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state if Ciro's is now carried on as a club or otherwise, and, if as a club, whether it is registered; whether intoxicating liquor can be sold

      715
      there; what is the nature of the entertainments now given at Ciro's; and what are the hours during which these premises are open?
      Sir G. CAVE: Ciro's, Limited, is being carried on as a club, but not as a club which requires to be registered under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act. Intoxicating liquor cannot be sold or supplied there. I am informed that there are orchestral music and dancing, and, recently, cabaret entertainments. The premises open at noon, and entertainments cease at midnight on Saturdays and Sundays, and at 12.30 on other nights.
      Mr. BUTCHER: What is a cabaret?
      Sir G. CAVE: I think that is a question which is involved rather in the field of experience of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lockwood).
      Mr. BUTCHER: For those who have not the experience of my right hon. and gallant Friend, can we be told what is the nature of a cabaret entertainment?
      Sir G. CAVE: I must decline to give my hon. Friend any inducement to go there.
      Mr. HAZLETON: How many members of the present Government belong to this club, and will they be asked to resign?
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the right hon. Gentleman does not think the entertainment suitable for the hon. Member for York will he communicate with the military authorities and have it put out of bounds for young officers?
      Sir G. CAVE: I think that they are aware of their powers.

      DANCING IN CLUBS.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the necessity for stopping wasteful and useless expenditure of time and money, he will take steps to ensure that no dances or other entertainments shall take place in public rooms, clubs, or places other than private houses after the hour of midnight?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to No. 10 C of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, by which power is conferred on the Admiralty, the
      716
      Army Council, and the Minister of Munitions to stop public dancing or music if they prejudice military discipline or the production of munitions. I will consult my colleagues as to making a more general Regulation.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not right that civilians should be prevented from indulging in this wasteful and pernicious expenditure?
      Sir G. CAVE: I shall consult my colleagues.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be desirable to close all places of amusement for soldiers coming for a holiday to this country, and have prayer meetings conducted by the hon. Gentleman?

      KILLING GAME (FARMERS).
      Mr. KILEYasked whether game dealers will be prosecuted for selling hares, pheasants, partridges, and other game that may now be killed by farmers during the close time?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The Order extending in England and Wales the lawful period for killing pheasants, extended also the lawful period for selling pheasants to the 10th April. No Order has been made as to killing or selling hares, partridges, or other game.

      SUMMER TIME ACT (IRELAND).
      Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary why nobody representing Irish agricultural interests was asked to give evidence before the Committee which dealt with the renewal of the Summer Time Act; is he aware that the five witnesses which were summoned from Ireland are all representative of city interests; and whether, seeing that the question of food production is the vital one of the hour, he will see that the carrying through of the food scheme will not be made impossible by the penalising of those engaged in it and on no account have the Summer Time Act extended to Ireland until at least the War has come to an end?
      Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I am informed that Mr. Robertson, one of the witnesses from Ireland, was specially selected as having a wide knowledge of agricultural

      717
      conditions in Ireland, and did in fact bring fully before the Committee the view of those residents in the country districts who are opposed to the renewal of Summer Time. The fullest opportunity was also given to the representatives of the agricultural districts to communicate their views to the Committee and advantage was taken of that opportunity. On the last part of the question I am in consultation with the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
      Mr. DILLON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that in the West of Ireland, owing to the Act imposing Greenwich time upon Ireland, the Summer Time Act this year would put the clock an hour and forty minutes ahead of the sun, and in view of that fact would it not be desirable at least to repeal the Act imposing Green which time upon Ireland?
      Mr. DUKE: My attention has been called forcibly to that argument by the hon. Gentleman and forty-two other Irish Members last week, and I said that it would be considered by my right hon. Friend and myself.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the rural district councils in Ireland are against the Act and the county councils as well and have expressed their views on the matter?
      Mr. DUKE: I think it is true that a majority of the rural district councils are opposed to a renewal of the Act and a majority of the urban district councils are in favour of it.
      Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the Act will apply to that part of Ireland that wants it and will not be forced upon that part of Ireland that does not want it?

    NATIONAL SERVICE.

      ALLOCATION TO INDUSTRIES.
      Mr. BROOKESasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the Ministry of National Service, in what proportion the 500,000 men needed under the National Service scheme will be allocated to the various industries requiring their services?
      Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question.
      718
      The National Service Volunteers available for transfer to fresh employment will be distributed among the various industries in accordance with their requirements, judged from the standpoint of national importance. These requirements must necessarily vary from time to time.

      PERSONS EMPLOYED.
      Mr. BROOKESasked how many persons have as yet been placed in positions under the National Service proposals of the Government?
      Mr. BECK: No figures can yet be given as the machinery for effecting transfers of labour is only just being completed.

      RESTRICTED OCCUPATIONS.
      Mr. NEEDHAMasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle whether he is aware of the blow to the employment of disabled soldiers caused by the recent Order relating to restricted occupations; and whether a modification of the Order will be made to enable such soldiers being employed in these restricted trades until some effective alternatives are provided?
      Mr. BECK: A statement was published officially in the Press under date 3rd March, 1917, that the Director-General of National Service had decided that the Order relating to restricted trades should not be enforced in respect of any sailor or soldier who had been discharged, from the naval or military services of the Crown in consequence of disablement or ill-health.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSEasked whether the attention of the Director-General of National Service has been drawn to the effect which the restriction of trade orders will have upon printing and binding factories who already are engaged upon half-completed contracts and are in possession of considerable stocks of paper; whether he is aware that unless permits are granted to such factories to complete orders in hand the work already carried out by them will be entirely wasted, and the firms themselves placed in a position of financial danger; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. BECK: The Restricted Occupations Order only provides that certain trades shall not take or transfer into employment, whether to fill a vacancy or otherwise, any man who has attained the age of eighteen, or has not attained the age of sixty-one,

      719
      whether the man has previously been so employed or not. That provision is not expected to interfere with the completion of contracts which normally would not require the engagement of additional staff, Further power is given under the Order for the Director-General to allow men to be taken or transferred into employment on the ground that the employment is expedient for executing a Government contract, or on the ground that the work on which the men are to be employed is of national importance. The Director-General is always prepared to consider and deal with any case of hardship when the particulars are placed before him, and he has made temporary arrangements for permits to be issued by the managers of Employment Exchanges in such cases, under certain conditions.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how any man employed in any of these trades can obtain an increase of wages if by the Order he is prevented from obtaining any alternative employment?
      Mr. BECK: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put his question down.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not quite obvious?
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that power to restrict employment in those trades is to be conferred on the managers of Employment Exchanges?
      Mr. BECK: I require notice of that question.

      ORGANISED WORKERS (INCREASED WAGES).
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle whether the Orders recently issued by the National Service Controller will prevent organised workers from demanding an increase in wages; whether they will prevent the employers from increasing hours of labour without mutual consent; whether such men as the hot-water fitters and other skilled men can be sent to any kind of unskilled labour at a minimum rate of 25s. per week; and whether girls and boys and old men can be put in the places of workmen who may be removed under the Order at a reduced wage?
      Mr. BECK: There is nothing in the Restricted Occupations Order recently issued by the Ministry of Munitions at
      720
      the request of the Director-General of National Service to prevent organised workers from demanding increase in wages wherever they could otherwise do so; or to enable employers to increase the hours of labour without mutual consent. It is not proposed to send hot-water fitters or other skilled workmen to any kind of unskilled labour. Such men, if qualified, would be enrolled as War Munition Volunteers; and, if not. will, so far as possible, be drafted to occupations in which their skill can be fully utilised. The wages and conditions of service of workpeople introduced to take the place of men who are transferred under the Order to work of greater national importance will continue to be a matter for agreement between them and the employer.

      NUMBER VOLUNTEERED.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many men have already volunteered for National Service, and of that number how many are engaged in essential employments; and how many men who have been enrolled have been moved from un essential to essential employments?
      Mr. BECK: The number of men who have already volunteered for National Service is approximately 125,000, of whom about 30 per cent. are engaged in employment regarded as being of national importance. With regard to the second sentence, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have already given to the hon. Member for Mile End.
      Mr. HOGGE: What is the use of stating 125.000 are enrolled if 30 per cent. of them are already doing work?
      Mr. BECK: That is a matter of opinion.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many compulsory volunteers there are?

      CIVIL SERVANTS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the Ministry of National Service, what is the total number of Civil servants who are to be compelled to volunteer for national service; and what is it intended to give them?
      Mr. BECK: Enrolment under the National Service scheme is not compulsory upon anyone, and Civil servants who

      721
      volunteer will only be transferred to fresh employment for which their experience fits them.
      Mr. HOGGE: Who will do their work?

      PROFESSIONAL MEN.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what is the total number of professional men who have volunteered for National Service, and what work are they doing?
      Mr. BECK: Over 4,000 professional men have volunteered up to the present time, and they are distributed over all the principal professions. Special arrangements have been made to deal with volunteers of this kind, to ensure that the services of as many as possible are used in employment which will, it is hoped, give scope for their professional abilities.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: How many of them have really been employed in national work since they volunteered? Has a single man in that class been employed?
      Mr. BECK: I must ask for notice of that question. I have no responsibility. I am merely answering the question for my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Lord Northcliffe has volunteered yet?

    MESOPOTAMIA.
      BRITISH OCCUPATION OF BAGDAD.

        STATEMENT BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.
        Mr. ASQUITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House any information to give to the House as to the operations in Mesopotamia?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: As has already been announced, Bagdad was occupied early yesterday morning by the forces under the command of Sir Stanley Maude. This is the sequel to a series of brilliant operations which have been carried through by our British and Indian troops, with a dash and determination for which no praise
        722
        can be too high. The House will remember that after severe fighting, especially on the right bank of the Tigris, in which very heavy losses were inflicted on the enemy, Lieutenant-General Maude crossed the Tigris above Kut-el-Amara on the night of 23rd-24th February, and by this operation imperilled the safety of the Turkish Army in Mesopotamia. The enemy immediately retired on Bagdad, and was pursued by General Maude with the utmost energy. Not only were large numbers of prisoners and quantities of material of all kinds captured during this pursuit, but we have good reason to believe that nearly two-thirds of the whole of the enemy's artillery either fell into our hands or was thrown by him into the Tigris.
        On the 5th of March our Cavalry came up with the Turkish rearguard at Lajj, twenty-seven miles from Bagdad, and, after an action, the Turks retreated during the night, abandoning the position which they had prepared at Ctesiphon.
        On the 7th of March the Cavalry found the enemy in position on the Diala River, eight miles from the outskirts of Bagdad. The Diala River, which is an affluent of the Tigris, is a formidable obstacle over thirty yards in width and unfordable. General Maude, therefore, withdrew his Cavalry and brought his Infantry into action. The Turks had, in the meantime, received reinforcements from Bagdad, and both offered a stubborn resistance on the Diala, and occupied positions covering Bagdad from the south-west on toe right bank of the Tigris.
        On the night of the 7th-8th General Maude threw a bridge across the Tigris, below the junction of that river with the Diala, and crossed his Cavalry, supported by other troops, to the right bank of the Tigris. In spite of great heat and dust these troops made a brilliant march of eighteen miles towards Bagdad, and found the enemy strongly posted six miles south-west of that town. He was at once attacked and driven back to his second position, two miles in rear. On the night of the 8th the troops fighting on the Diala had established a footing on the northern bank of that river.
        During the 9th and 10th our troops on the right bank, in spite of blinding dust storms, pressed their advantage, and drove the enemy on this side back to within three miles of the outskirts of Bagdad, while at the same time our

        723
        troops on the Diala forced the passage of that river and drove the enemy back on the town, which was, as I stated, entered early on the morning of the 11th. General Maude's troops have in these operations completed the victory of Kut-el-Amara by a pursuit of 110 miles in fifteen days, during which the River Tigris was crossed three times. This pursuit has been conducted in a country destitute of supplies, and in spite of the commencement of the summer heats. Apart from the skill and vigour of the leadership, and the valour and endurance of the troops, both British and Indian, which are self-evident, such operations can only have been carried out in such country if most careful and elaborate arrangements for the supply of the troops had been thoroughly and systematically prepared. The fact that General Maude has not only been able to feed his Army, provide it with ammunition, and to assure proper attendance of the sick and wounded, but is able to report that he is satisfied that he can provide for the necessities of his Army in Bagdad, reflects the greatest credit upon all who have been concerned for the due provision of his needs.
        This statement was sent to me by the General Staff. Perhaps I might add, what I know is the opinion of the House, that the whole operation reflects the greatest credit on our General Staff.

        Plague of Rabbits (Ticroghan, County Meath).
        Mr. SHEEHYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether any complaint has been made to his Department by the tenants living in the townland of Ticroghan, county Meath, of the damage inflicted on them by a plague of rabbits which come in from the neighbouring farm of John H. Nicholson, of Balrath; whether he is aware that these rabbits destroy all the corn and green crops raised by these tenants, who have no redress because the landlord, who is an absentee, allows them to grow without restraint on his farm; whether the Department of Agriculture have any power to compel the destruction of pests of this kinds; and, if so, will he utilise his powers in this case?
        Mr. DUKE: The Department do not appear to have received any complaint on the subject referred to, and they have no powers in regard to the destruction of rabbits in such a ease.
        Mr. FARRELL: Did not the Department receive a complaint fourteen days ago?
        Mr. DUKE: The reply I have here was given me this morning. There is some discrepancy.

        Undeveloped Land Tax.
        Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Undeveloped Land Tax under the Finance Act of 1909 has not been levied during the last two years by order of his Department; if so, will he say why this action has been taken; and will the amounts due but not levied be considered by his Department, arrears to be gathered in at a later date?
        Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 28th March and 11th April last respectively.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
  As amended, considered.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision us to Orders and Regulations.)
  Before any Order or Regulation made under this Act whereby any trade, occupation, or industry is to be restricted or suspended comes into force, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than ten days during which the House is sitting, and if either House before the expiration of those ten days presents an Address to His Majesty against the Order or Regulation or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new Order or Regulation.—[Mr. Pringle.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of the Clause is to secure in respect of Orders, with regard to trade and industry issued by the Ministry of National Service, that there shall be at least some modicum of Parliamentary control. This question of Parliamentary control was raised on the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse), and he proposed an Amendment, the object of which was the same as that of the Clause I am now submitting. The Home Secretary was good enough to say that the matter would receive consideration, and that he would see whether it was desirable that it should be done. As the Government have failed to put anything on the Paper on this subject, we are driven to the conclusion that, after consideration, they had decided that this matter of dealing with industries is to be left to the uncontrolled action of the Director of National Service, without any check or any supervision on the part of the House of Commons. I think there is an ample case for some such provision. We have already had two extremely important Orders issued by this Ministry. The first was a list of trades, described as "nonessential," and there was great consternation in many business quarters in the
  760
  country owing to the omission of certain trades from that list and trades which those in them regard as absolutely essential to the national welfare. In addition, there has been issued a further list since the Committee proceedings, indicating trades in which it will be illegal in future for employers to engage men between the ages of eighteen and sixty-one. That Order has probably caused greater disturbance than the earlier Orders, because it affects alike the interests of the employers and the interests of the workpeople. In many cases employers are, as it were, in an indirect way threatened with total extinction, and, on the other hand, there is an almost complete check on freedom of contract between employer and employed.
  A question was put this afternoon as to the effect of the Order upon any movement on the part of workpeople to obtain an increase in wages. The hon. Gentleman, who for the time being was replying on behalf of the Ministry, indicated that it was the opinion of the Department that nothing was being done which would check increases of wages on behalf of workers in those trades. But when the specific question was put to him as to whether, if a man was prevented from obtaining alternative employment at his own occupation, he was not thereby prevented from obtaining any increase in wages, the hon. Gentleman was unable to reply. I hope that the Home Secretary, being in a position of greater responsibility, and, presumably, being in the secrets of the Department, will be able to deal with that very simple and interesting problem. I think the fact that such questions should arise prove how important such Orders are, both from the point of view of the workpeople and of the employer. If further evidence were required as to the attitude of the employers on the matter, it would be found in the fact that to-morrow a very large and influential deputation, representing, I think, nearly every association of employers in the country, is coming to meet the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary for War, and the Director of National Service. One of the subjects upon which those employers desire to make representations to the Ministers is this very question of the scheduling of essential and non-essential trades. Those gentlemen seek to obtain from Ministers an assurance that no trade will be scheduled without consultation with the

  761
  employers affected. I do not think that it is a satisfactory way of obtaining control. I think the only way in which those gentlemen can hope or expect to have their interests properly represented to the Government is to secure control on the part of the House of Commons.
  4.0 P.M.
  The only method by which that control can be obtained, and the regular method which has been followed in the past, is to insert a provision in the Bill, such as that which I submit, and which is identical, I think, with a Clause in the National Insurance Act, with one exception—namely, the length of the period during which the Orders are to lie on the Table. We have purposely limited the length of the period to a period of ten days, because if a period of a month, or two months, had been inserted, it might be said by those representing the Government that all these Orders are matters of urgency, and that to insert a provision causing such prolonged delay would be contrary to the public interests. I think no case can be made against a delay which only involves ten days of Parliamentary time. Surely these matters are long enough under consideration as it is to enable them to give this period, during which Parliament may have the opportunity of giving a decision on the matter. Certainly no more drastic powers have ever, by Statute, been placed in the hands of any Minister. They mean economic life and death to vast interests and industries in this country. They involve also, indirectly, the power to reduce large numbers of workmen to a servile condition. In view of these things, this House will be abdicating its trust as the representatives of the people of this country if it does not insist by this method upon a certain amount of Parliamentary control and Parliamentary supervision over these matters.
  Mr. WATT: I desire to second the Motion.
  As the House is aware, the effect of this Bill which is under discussion is to set up a Director-General of National Service. This measure confers upon that gentleman most drastic powers, and amongst those drastic powers is the extraordinary one of being able to declare, off his own bat, which industries in the country are essential and which are nonessential. This will be a very difficult thing to do, and it will lead to great dis-
  762
  satisfaction throughout the country. That is evidenced by a recent speech made by Mr. Neville Chamberlain himself in the City of London, in which he said:
  "The workman very often himself does not know whether he is doing work of national importance or not—"
  that is to say, whether he is engaged in an essential or non-essential trade.
  "At the same time as we call on the man we are going to send notice to the employer, and it will be open to him to make an appeal that the man shall not he taken from him on one ground and one ground only, namely, that he is already doing work of national importance. These appeals will he sent in batches to a sub-commissioner who has no bias one way or the other, and his decision will be final."
  It is clear from this that the sub-commissioner is to get the cases remitted to him in batches. It will be for him to decide what non-essential trades are to be restricted or suspended. Now, I represent a trading community, and many of my Constituents will fall within the category of non-essential traders. These men will have to close their mills, and they will be economically ruined on the ipse dixit of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, or the sub-commissioner to whom he may depute that particular branch of his work. The object of the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend is to set up a Court of Appeal for these men who are engaged in what Mr. Chamberlain may call "nonessential trades." That Court of Appeal will be this House, and before the Director-General of National Service can suspend or restrict any trade in the country the Regulations under which he proposes to do so are, it is suggested, to be laid upon the Table of the House in order that hon. Members may have an opportunity of considering them. I venture to assert it is my duty, under the circumstances, to second this new Clause—my duty as representing many traders who will be in the unfortuate position of having their businesses either restricted or suspended upon the ipse dixit of one man.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I do not think it would be right for me, in dealing with this new Clause, to follow my hon. Friends into a discussion of the questions of wide policy which they have raised in their speeches, or to go into the desirability or the effect of the other Clauses of the Bill. I would, however, suggest to my hon. Friend who has contended that those he represents are to be at the mercy of a sub-commissioner, that that bears no relation whatever to the actual intention of the Bill. My hon. Friend

  763
  knows that before a man gets to the sub-commissioner he will be a volunteer; he will have undertaken to serve the country in any way that may be thought best under the provisions of the scheme, but until and unless he is a volunteer he will not go before the sub-commissioner. I do not think I ought to go into the more general questions which have been raised. I will, therefore, only deal with the new-Clause, and, in regard to that, I have to say this: The procedure which is embodied in this proposal has, of course, been familiar to us in times of peace. But Parliament has provided, under the Defence of the Realm Act, no such procedure as is here set forth, because the very purpose of any Order under the Defence of the Realm Act is to take immediate steps in the public interest if so desired, and the whole of that intention would be defeated if this proposed new Clause were inserted in the Bill. I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle) that his proposal would not merely involve a delay of ten days. He proposes that the Regulations shall lie on the Table of the House for ten Parliamentary days, and that, under our present system of sitting, would mean from two to three weeks, while should the Order be issued during the Parliamentary Recess the whole of that Recess would be lost and the operation of the Order would be postponed. I cannot accept a proposal of that kind. I think the House may trust the Director-General of National Service not to misuse his powers, and I am sure it will not desire to hamper his action. The Regulation to which the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark referred was made not under this Bill at all, but under existing Acts, and nothing in the hon. Member's Clause would prevent the making of Orders of that kind. The Clause, in fact, would not effect his object, while it would seriously hamper the operation of the Bill.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just replied to my hon. Friends very wisely, from his point of view I think, confined himself to points of detail, and avoided dealing with the larger issues of policy which were raised by my hon. Friends. There is no more effective answerer of the interrogatories in this House than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but on this occasion he hardly did himself justice. Let me recall the arguments he put before the House. He said. "I will not deal with
  764
  questions of wide policy," "let us look at the Amendment as it stands," "the time is not ten days, but the new Clause will unduly delay the operations of the Director-General of National Service," and so on. But the object, I am sure, of my hon. Friends was not to interpose a fixed period of delay between the issue of an Order and action being taken upon it, but was to ensure that there should be Parliamentary control over an officer over whom, at the present moment, there is no such control. Therefore, whether it be ten days or five days, my hon. Friends do not care. What they desire is to secure an opportunity to discuss the proposals of the Director-General. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say he was sure the House could trust the Director-General not to misuse his power. To that I can only reply that it is not in the mind of any Member of this House that the Director-General will misuse his power, but we feel that he, like everybody else, may make mistakes, and it is against mistakes and not against the misuse of his power that we wish to guard.
  Let me give the right hon. Gentleman an example of what has been happening since the Minister of Munitions instructed or gave power to the Director-General of National Service to restrict industries. I think it would be well worth our while examining this matter. Among the trades to be restricted is the brush-making industry, a very simple and harmless undertaking one would imagine. On the day it was announced that restrictions were to-be put on that industry I got a letter from a Constituent pointing out that German interned prisoners in the Isle of Man were being instructed at the cost of the British taxpayer in the art of making brushes; so that you are restricting on one hand British traders and operatives engaged in the brush industry and at the same time, entirely without the knowledge of the Director-General of National Service, somebody is teaching interned Germans to make brushes which are being put on the market by a firm which, in days gone by, was a large importer of German brushes in competition with the British industry. That is the information which was given me.
  Sir G. CAVE: It was denied in this House the other day.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I accept, of course, what the right hon. Gentleman states. When I get an answer to my question,

  765
  however, we shall be able to judge of the view which the right hon. Gentleman takes on this matter. There is another point with regard to the restriction of these industries. You can either restrict or you can suspend industries. But that is not all for without suspension you can by mere restriction suspend an industry entirely by taking away from it one or two essential men and by preventing the employer engaging fresh hands to take their place. You can absolutely paralyse the industry in that way. You have no control in this House over the matter. You cannot touch the action of the Director-General by moving the Adjournment of the House. You cannot get at him on the Vote for his salary, because it docs not appear on any Estimate, and, as I am reminded, he is not a Member of this House. I understand, however, that one of the Labour Members is shortly to be appointed as his representative here, and then, perhaps, we may, by that means, be able to get at him. There is no machinery under which you can get at the mistakes of the Director-General. It is not at all a question of his doing anything from malice, or trade rivalry, or that sort of thing. It is the pure and honest mistakes of a man who is overwhelmed with a task which he has to do, and who is dealing with it through a class of subordinates left after the really competent men have already been swept up into some other Ministry. This Ministry is going to affect trades injuriously. British trade and British commerce is going to be left to the rag-tag and bobtail of such supervision as is still available. There is one remaining point with which I shall deal. It arises from an answer given to me this afternoon. I understand, in respect to those persons who leave their work, or who volunteer for National Service, and who come under the direction of the National Service Ministry, that if there is, in the eyes of the sub-commissioner, no employment of greater national value open to them, that the sub-commissioner for the district may say to them: "We do not want you for the work of National Service; you may go to this or that industry." I understand that that is the process.
  Sir G. CAVE: Or stay where you are!
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Or they may stay where they are. That is a power which I do not think ought to be in the hands of an official of the grade of a sub-com-
  766
  missioner. We do not know who these gentlemen are going to be. So far, we do not know what their powers are to be. It may be provided for in the official machinery. We do not know. There is no appeal from their decision. They will,. at their own sweet will, be able to favour one of these so-called non-essential industries at the expense of another. There is no sort of appeal from their control or their judgment. Practically you are going to hand over to their disposal a very great number of workmen, and the continuance of a great number of trades—this to the unregulated judgment of a sub-commissioner of this Ministry. I do not think that that is the kind of attitude this House ought to take up. We ought to have better-regulated machinery for dealing with this labour. In my judgment, there ought to be either a local tribunal or a local commission of more than one person— —
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled, on the proposed Clause of the Bill, to discuss the administrative way in which the powers may be used. We are concerned now with what general powers should be allowed.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Quite so. I beg your pardon for straying from the strict path of virtue in this matter. I am afraid, however, I was carried away for the moment, and I would apologise, Mr. Whitley, to you. What I wish to emphasise is this, that there is no machinery provided in the Bill for Parliamentary control. I do not complain because the right hon. and learned Gentleman told me that he would give serious consideration to this matter, and then finds that he is unable to put down an Amendment in accordance with my wishes. I do believe that if the House passes these powers, and there is no supervision of actions of the Director-General, the latter may be landed in a mess. For that we may not care. It may, however, also-land British commerce and industry in a mess. For that we care very greatly.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am sorry you appear to deprecate any wider discussion in regard to policy under this Clause. I suggest that these questions of wider policy are germane to the whole discussion, because it is dependent upon that as to whether there should or should not be some measure of Parliamentary control over the administration of this

  767
  Department. So far, both the principles and details of this scheme of National Service appear to be entirely uncontrolled so far as this House is concerned. Mr. Neville Chamberlain has the power to do anything he likes, to fix a wage for this section or that section as he likes, to carry out a scheme which is going to involve ruin to this or that business—it may be—and it is all going to be entirely outside the scope of this House to discuss and control. I say that that is not a position that this House ought to accept. We know very well that Parliament is particularly servile at the present time. Parliament is losing a large part of the self-respect that it had in the country, and until Parliament begins to assert itself a little more it will not win back that respect. Mr. Neville Chamberlain told us in a speech he made at Westminster the day before the opening of this House that it was not the Press and it was not the public who were being asked to work out this scheme. It was he. He had been asked to put it together by the Prime Minister. I dare say that that rules out the House of Commons as well as the Press and public.
  We are asked not to have any control if the scheme passes. We are asked under this Bill merely to set up a Ministry of National Service, and having done that we give practically a blank cheque to the Director of National Service to do what he likes, and to act as he likes. He has got the very widest powers even under this Bill. He has got powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. In addition he can call to his aid Orders in Council. I believe personally that this present measure is but the prelude to something more, and that Parliament will find it is as unable to control the wider measure when it comes as it is to control the smaller measure. That is bound to have very wide effects upon industry, upon employment, upon labour, and upon small businesses. Parliament is entirely abrogating its functions if it is going to have all these powers taken out of its hands and decided by someone outside, no matter how able or how efficient he may be. My own view is that bureaucracy is growing far too rapidly in this country. We are more and more approaching the position of a servile State in which our whole lives are to be governed by controllers and directors, or the representatives of controllers or directors. I believe already
  768
  there is a real feeling of reaction growing in the country against this kind of thing, and I am convinced that it will continue growing as time goes on.
  It would not matter so much if the bureaucracy were efficient. But we seem to have Prussian methods without having anything of Prussian efficiency—for very often bureaucracy is very far from being efficient. Even this scheme of National Service is now being attacked in all sorts of quarters, because those concerned see that there is nothing but mess, muddle, chaos, and confusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will not, I know, accept that because he is very closely identified with National Service; but one has heard that matters have gone sufficently far that some of those most responsible for the scheme are actually contemplating resignation. At any rate, I do say that this matter of trade restriction is a matter which ought to be under the control and review of the House. It is going to affect the liberties and the industrial rights of hundreds of thousands of workpeople. It is going to affect any number of businesses. I am convinced that this power is far too vast to entrust to any one mind, or any one Department, unregulated and not controlled by this House. The Director of National Service, under this scheme, is going to be given control over the entire industry of the country.
  My own view is that, despite all the pledges which we have received about compulsion, that although compulsion is not being brought in by the front door, compulsion will be brought in by the back door. It has often been, usually been, in the past that Ministers and the Government have at least allowed a few weeks to elapse before they turned their back upon the pledges that were made. I feel very strongly in regard to the question of restricted trades. I believe that seventy have already been listed, and that the Director-General of National Service has power to add more; that in regard to all these trades an employer who for any reason loses a workman is not able to engage a new employéunless that employé should be a woman, or a lad of less than eighteen years of age or a man over sixty-one. If any workman leaves his trade or is discharged by his present employer, that workman will not be able to get another job in the same industry except he gets the special consent of a certain special commissioner.

  769
  He will not be able to apply of his own free will for a job in the same trade. That is carrying things much too far. These are very, very wide powers to give to anybody. I do say that it is a menace to labour, a menace to industrial labour, a menace to the standard of labour, and it is at all events, now a weapon of very great power in the hands of an unscrupulous employer who cares to use it.
  Take the case of an active trade unionist—a man who is something of a thorn in the side of his employer, a man who is always standing up for the rights of his fellows and trying to secure good or better conditions for them. If the employer dismisses that man, he can turn him out of the entire industry in which he is working. That man will not be able to get another job in the town, or, indeed, another job in his own trade from one end of the country to another. As an alternative, he will perhaps gravitate to some place where, instead of working as a skilled workman in a less essential industry, he may have to become an unskilled labourer in another industry at a guaranteed wage of 25s. a week. Judging by pre-war prices and conditions, that 25s. is worth about 16s. at the present time. If the Government wants to cause trouble they are going the right way to produce it by allowing arrangements of this kind. We were told to-day from the Front Bench that it would not be in the power of the employer under this scheme to enforce wage reductions. So far as I know there is no law to prevent an employer, if he so desires, from reducing the wage of a workman by 5s. per week. If the man resists it and leaves his employer as a protest against that reduction he would not be able to get employment in his own industry; he would have to go and apply for special permission to an official before he could even apply to go back to his own trade. I suggest that that is the beginning of tied labour, of forced labour in this country!
  I have no doubt in my own mind that it will be strongly resented and resisted by organised labour when they understand what it means. The scheme will also hit the employer. He will find it very difficult to get rid of a man even whom he desires to get rid of, unless, of course, he is covinced that there is nobody else to take his place. So you will have the two, employer and employed, chained together by a common galling chain, which, so far from promoting good rela-
  770
  tions between the two, is going to bring about the opposite. I can imagine nothing less likely to promote good relations between capital and labour than what I have just been putting forward. I oppose this strongly because it is class legislation of the very worst description. It can only affect workpeople too, and certainly workpeople most of all, for the employer, restricted in ways which will be obvious to those who have studied the matter, can at least call to his aid women or youths under eighteen; but a workman who is restricted in this way cannot go into the same industry at all, and cannot apply for another job.
  Under these circumstances I insist that the House of Commons should exercise some measure of control. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I am quite sure the Mover of this Clause is not particular about the ten days, or about the precise way in which control is established. All that the Clause stands for, as I take it, is that the House of Commons should have some form of control, and I suggest that that is a case which ought to be answered far better than it has yet been by the Front Bench. Following the answer, I take it, it is the duty of this House to carry the matter to a Division. You are bringing in compulsion of a most one-sided and most unfair character, and I protest very strongly against it. I think that labour is having too much of the iron heel. Labour is getting tired of the iron heel of bureaucracy, which seems to be growing and growing all the time; and I am convinced that the Government are walking along the wrong road if they are going to continue on this road of compulsion more and more towards industrial compulsion. I suggest that it is the business of this House to assert itself more strongly, and to get back to more reasonable ways in our arrangements with regard to industrial life.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am personally very glad that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) has moved this new Clause, and, in supporting it, I desire to refer to the china and earthenware manufacturing industry. The great district of Stoke-on-Trent, with a population of about 350,000 people, is dependent upon this industry. The mines, of course, support many people, but the coal is largely mined for potting purposes. The people of that district have been

  771
  patriotic to a degree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Exactly. Why should I not say so? I think it is necessary that the House should appreciate that they have taken this attitude with regard to the War. I say that to a degree they have supported the Government in every possible way, and I desire to make this statement because I wish to go on to say that I have no doubt they will make all necessary future sacrifices. But I do not believe that they are desirous of making the final sacrifice of the destruction of their industry at the dictate of some Government official. They would be willing, I have no doubt, to accept anything the Government and this House might say was necessary, but not what some sub-commissioner, or even Mr. Neville Chamberlain himself, might say. It is because this Clause brings the fate of this industry before Parliament that I support the Clause.
  I would point out already one instance that I see has arisen in this district in connection with the provision of men for the Army. I was reading the local paper this morning—I did not read it with the care I would have done if I had known this Clause was to be moved—and I saw there was a case brought before the tribunal in which the military representative claimed a man of military age from one of the great works in the district. The employer pointed out that he was a most essential man, and that all other men doing that particular kind of work had gone. They put forward this particular plea for the retention, that, if he were surrendered, owing to the Order classing the industry as a non-essential one, they would be able to get no other man, not even of military age, to take his place, and this argument so impressed, I think, the military representative, that an extension of some two months was given to this man. There is a case in which this measure for the revision of industrial service is preventing your getting men of military age, because this man could not go without the ruin of the industry, as men of non-military age cannot be got to take their place. It is very obvious to see what is going on throughout the country. While some industries have been promoted by war, and their profits increased, and they have been bolstered up by war expenditure and war demands, there are other industries which has already suf-
  772
  fered tremendously, and it is just those industries which have suffered so much in the past, which have been most depleted of their manhood, that are now being scheduled as non-essential, and to whom a final blow is to be given by this Bill.
  There is the other point—I think, perhaps, a more important point than the profits and position of the manufacturer—and that is, as the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) has pointed out, this Bill will really make the employé in a non-essential industry the bondman of the employer. Take this particular industry of pottery. If a man is objectionable to an employer and he should be discharged, he is not to get work in any other pottery in the district. He is to be driven out of the trade altogether, though it is the only one he knows, and consequently any subsequent employment he may fall into will probably be one of which he has no knowledge, and in which he will get, therefore, a lower rate of pay, and have to abandon his home. So where it be a case of the closing down of a great industry, or where it be a question of the liberty of the individual employed in that industry, in either case the matter should not be determined by some bureaucrat. The Director-General, however able he may be, can never keep up with the work that is being thrust on his Department, and therefore must pass it on to subordinates. I say, therefore, where it be the question of the liberty of the individual, or the profits of the employer, these matters should be decided by Parliament, and not by a bureaucrat or his subordinates.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am sorry the Government has taken the short and narrow view in regard to this proposal. The Debate has shown that the House of Commons is quite ready to brush aside the technical objections to this new Clause which has been put, forward by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, so far as I followed his speech, made two main objections to this proposal. He said, in the first place, that it would involve great delay, and, of course, if that were true, I think it would be a very strong argument against this proposal. But those who have made the proposal have made it clear to the House that that is not by any means an essential part of it, and that all they want to do is not to cause delay, but to have some sort of control by the House of Commons over the proposals of this new Department. Again, the Home Secretary

  773
  told us that the procedure which is involved in this new Clause is a peace procedure, and he said that if we look at the Defence of the Realm Act no proposal of this kind was contained there at all. That is just the very point which I think the House of Commons, with its experience of two and a half years, has a right to insist upon. The case for this new Clause has been overwhelmingly made by the blunders and the mistakes which have been committed under the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act. We know perfectly well the circumstances under which the Defence of the Realm Act was passed through this House, practically without discussion or consideration of any kind, and I say it would have been a far better thing for the conduct of the War, for the position of the Government and the administration of the affairs of the United Kingdom, if some such provision as this had been included in the Defence of the Realm Act. I would urge the House not to be led astray by past practice on these grounds, which experience has shown to be an utterly wrong and erroneous practice.
  We are told that one of the great objects of the Government is to carry the country with them in their proposals for the carrying on of the War. We see that from the way the newspaper campaigns are conducted, from the way in which Ministers go up and down the country addressing public meetings and influencing public opinion to the utmost extent within their power. I have nothing to urge against that. I think that is a perfectly proper procedure, because everybody must recognise that the Government, no matter how strong individually they may be, must continue to carry public opinion behind them. But whilst they adopt that attitude towards public opinion, they adopt an entirely different and opposite attitude towards the House of Commons. They do not seek to carry the House of Commons with them in their proposals, and so, from the very first day practically of the outbreak of war, the whole tendency has been to ignore the House of Commons more and more, and to reduce its importance and significance. We see this not only in the case of the Government to-day resisting this Clause, which asks that these Regulations shall be laid before the House of Commons before they are put into operation, if it is only for twenty-four hours, but we see
  774
  it in every other direction as well—from the ostentatious refusal of the Prime Minister ever to put in an appearance in this House unless he is driven to do so on some important occasion. That is the principle of this new Clause, which, I think, the House of Commons will regard of value and importance. We know—the point was made on the Front Opposition Bench—that without charging malice at all against a Department like this new Department, grave mistakes and blunders have been made in the past. Have we any guarantee that similar, or perhaps even graver, mistakes will not be made in the future? Is there any guarantee in this Bill to prevent such mistakes in the future? I say that what this Clause does is to provide, where mistakes are made, for the speedy remedy of such mistakes by bringing them under the review of the House of Commons.
  Let me illustrate just one point in our recent experience where it would have been very valuable and important if we had had a provision of this kind under the Defence of the Realm Act. The Government issued several Orders lately with regard to the price of potatoes. The result, as an hon. Friend says, is that there is not a potato to be had to-day. What happened? This Order was promulgated to the public, and it resulted in so much confusion and misunderstanding that the great War Cabinet itself had to spend a whole day discussing the question of potatoes. They had to make sweeping alterations in the Order made by the Department. The result of their deliberations upon it has not been by any means to improve that Order. Was there not delay there? Was there not confusion? If the Government had put the Potato Order upon the Table of the House of Commons for twenty-four hours they would have got the common sense of this House to point out its blunders and absurdities, and you would not only have had more efficiency in the Government, but you would have had an efficient Potato Order, no delay whatever, and there would have been potatoes for the public both in Great Britain and Ireland.
  I say that from every point of view the case that has been made out for this new Clause to-day is overwhelmingly in its favour, and if the Government want to improve their efficiency—and goodness knows there is plenty of room for it!—the

  775
  Home Secretary would be well advised to reconsider the determination of the Government upon this point, and give way in some little degree to what is evidently the strong opinion of the House of Commons. Not one single speech has been made in support of the rejection of this proposal, and really to flout the opinion of the House of Commons in this way when the Proposer and Seconder of this new Clause are quite prepared to meet the Home Secretary on the question of delay, is an extraordinary proceeding which I do not believe the Government can attempt to justify. I would like to say in conclusion that I have only one objection to this new Clause, and it is this: I am very sorry indeed that the Proposer and the Seconder of this new Clause have limited it to the object they have put down, because I believe it would be eminently desirable in the interests of this country that all these Orders, no matter with what branch of this subject they deal, should be placed upon the Table and brought under the review of hon. Members of this House. I have an Amendment to a later Clause with regard to the case of Ireland, and I hope the Chief Secretary, when that Amendment is reached, is not going to follow the bad example of the Home Secretary, but will give it some reasoned consideration, which so far this Amendment has not received from the Government.
  Sir GEORGE RADFORD: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend opposite for proposing this Amendment, and I feel sure that the House will be well advised in continuing to give it serious consideration. It is only a proposal to impose some minor measure of Parliamentary control upon the Director-General of National Service in a matter of restricting and suspending industry. That is a matter of grave importance, and it ought to be carefully considered. I make no attack whatever upon the Director-General of National Service, and I am willing to give him credit for high character, acute intellect, and beneficent intentions. But we must remember, as was said of Falstaff, who was not only witty himself, but the cause of wit in others, so the Director-General of National Service is not only omnipotent himself under this Bill, but he can confer omnipotence on the Sub-Commissioner. We have to consider what kind of power
  776
  we are conferring upon gentlemen who are not very eminent, or perhaps of the highest administrative ability, and we should exercise some caution in the way those individual powers are conferred. As has already been suggested, the matter would be of no importance if these powers were conferred on the Commissioner himself, but we have found in the Ministries that have been set up during the last few weeks, and which, in fact, are-being set up almost daily, that although there is every good quality inherent In the Ministry, such as intelligent capacity and other good qualities, these qualities do not reach the extremities. I have reason to doubt whether in the War Office the great intelligence which dominates that Department does not appear always to extend to the lowest extremities, and it is a grave danger we incur when we set up a Ministry which has power to make regulations in regard' to which we should be denied the opportunity of considering them for ten days, or even for forty-eight hours, in this House. I hope the Government will give some attention to this matter, and I believe that in doing so they will be gratifying not only hon. Members of this House, but they will also be doing their duty to the country.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I would like to ask what is meant by a non-essential trade. Has any definition been given of an essential industry? I have in mind not only the interests of labour and large industries like those in the Potteries, but lots of little industries throughout the country whose existence may depend upon the word of this new dictator. Because an industry is small it is not necessarily unessential, and who is there amongst the business men of this country with such omniscience and such a wide and intimate knowledge of one business and another who would be capable of giving a just judgment on a matter of that kind? I can understand that certain luxury trades could be dispensed with without any loss to the country, but it is almost impossible to lay down a schedule of industries which are not essential one to the other even in connection with armaments and munitions upon which we depend to carry on the War. We have had already some experiments in the scheduling of trades. We have had a number of lists issued, and there has been no list which has not required revision within a few weeks after

  777
  it has been issued. That means that mistakes were discovered almost as soon as the list was issued. Under this Bill you are proposing to put this power into the hands of one man—I admit, that he is a capable business man to whom we wish success, and he may be able as well as any other man to judge the relative merits of these various trades, but he only knows his own. trade and perhaps one or two others, and he cannot possess the wide knowledge of all the industries of the country which would enable him to prevent immeasurable hardships and injustice being done to many of the smaller industries of this country. If an archangel were made Director-General of National Service he would not be capable of doing this work properly. All this new Clause asks is: when a schedule has been published this House shall have an opportunity, if it is only twenty-four hours, of pronouncing judgment upon it before it comes into operation.
  We have amongst the members of this House someone connected with almost all the industries of the country, and by our collective knowledge and experience we may be able to check mistakes which may otherwise pass unobserved. This Bill is an attempt to carry still further the process, which has been adopted ever since the War broke out, of undermining Parliamentary control. It is a further attempt to facilitate and accentuate the process of destroying the little man and building up the big man, and making it almost impossible for a man to get a livelihood at all if he does not happen to be a millionaire; a process of undermining the rights and liberties of the working classes themselves by forcing them out of their present employment in order to force them into some other employment which they do not desire under the pretext that it is necessary to carry on the War. This kind of interference with industries, so far from facilitating the progress of the War, tends to create chaos throughout the industrial world, and does not eliminate unnecessary employment which would release men for necessary employment. In this way you are creating confusion and employing men in a lot of unnecessary work which might easily be avoided. We have instituted bureaux, and these have been drawing men from other useful work. May I appeal to the Home Secretary to give us this small concession which this Clause asks for, even if the period is reduced, so that we may
  778
  have some opportunity of correcting the mistakes which no man is infallible enough not to make.
  Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: I hope the Government will consider this proposal, because it is evident that there is some anxiety in the House about giving these very large powers to one man. After all, I think I am justified in saying that the best opinion which has been given on this subject says that already Mr. Neville Chamberlain has made very great mistakes. There is going to be a very important deputation to-morrow to three of the great Government Departments, asking that an industrial council should be consulted before these Regulations are enforced. I think, therefore, it is necessary that the Government should make some concession on this point, and it should be taken out of the hands of one individual, however able, to make these Regulations, which are bound to have enormous consequences upon all sorts and kinds of people.
  5.0 P.M.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: It appears to me that the reason given by the Home Secretary for resisting this Amendment is not quite germane to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Defence of the Realm Regulations in regard to a matter upon which it was necessary to act suddenly and promptly. That was quite true. When the Defence of the Realm Act was passed at the beginning of the War the things people were doing which it was necessary to provide for was in order to prevent some enemy alien making arrangements to blow up the people of this country, and the Regulations were intended to enable the Government to do something quickly or take a decision in order to do something for the, existence and support of our troops. In such circumstances, clearly, you do not want things to lie on the Table for a week or ten days and you want to be able to act at once. What we are dealing with, however, is a different case. What you are doing in the case of this Bill is you are giving a man the power to declare that a particular industry is not essential. You do not say that the particular industry concerned is doing any injury, and you only say that it is non-essential. Under these circumstances, what harm can it possibly do to delay for a day or two the question whether it is non-essential or not? If you are going to close a dressmaker's shop or a small industry, what

  779
  does it matter whether you do so on Monday or on Monday week? You have two objects. One is to save money, and the other is to give you extra men for other industries. Anyone who has any knowledge of business knows that one is just as likely to lose money by acting in a hurry as by taking another week or ten days to think the matter over. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the question. I do not say that he should necessarily do it in this particular way, though it has always seemed to me that one of the best and most effective and valuable means of obtaining the opinion of the House on questions of this kind is by leaving these Orders to lie on the Table of the House; but if the Government do not like the plan, let them adopt some other method. I would at any rate appeal to them to make some arrangement other than giving to some individual whose knowledge of the circumstances must necessarily be small uncontrolled power to close particular small businesses without any appeal to this House, which, as was rightly said by the hon. Member who spoke last, contains in it someone connected with almost every industry in the country, some 670 Members who are in constant touch with their constituents, and who have been sent here by their constituents with the definite object and instruction of protecting them from improper Departmental action. If my right hon. Friend would think over the points of this Debate, he would realise that the Government and the Director-General of National Service would be wise in their own protection, and in order to ensure good results, to take some means of this kind to prevent the Director-General from making the very serious mistakes which he may otherwise make, and cause the very greatest injury to the industries of this country, and particularly to the small and often rather unprotected though very valuable industries which exist throughout the small towns and country districts.
  Major HAMILTON: I have listened with great interest to the very large number of speeches which have been made in criticism of this Bill. The last speaker was somewhat refreshing to me, for his argument appeared to be that it was much better to delay any action under this Bill by ten days or a fortnight than to do anything in a hurry.
  Sir C. SEELY: I said rather than, make mistakes in a hurry. I have had some experience of business, and gentlemen who act in a hurry usually make mistakes.
  Major HAMILTON: If my hon. Friend had allowed me to finish, possibly I should have convinced him that I had also had some experience. I stated that the hon. Member appeared to think it was better to delay a matter for ten days or a fortnight than to do anything in a hurry which might result in a mistake. That is the opinion of the Director-General of National Service. If he has been criticised in the country and in the Press for one thing more than another it is because he has not done things fast enough. He has been rushed from every quarter, pressed and urged to get on and to do things, while, if I may say so with all respect of my chief, he is a man who will! not do things until he has taken counsel of all the experts, and until he feels that he can do so without making mistakes. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce) also made a most unfair attack upon the Director-General. He said that he had already made many mistakes Possibly, but as a proof of this the hon. Gentleman went on to say that a large-deputation was meeting several heads of the Government to-morrow7 with a view of adjusting the mistakes of the Director-General of National Service. Those may not be his exact words, but I think it is a fair interpretation of what the hon. Gentleman meant.
  Sir W. PEARCE: It is not what I meant. The deputation to-morrow has nothing to do with any mistakes that I think the Director-General may have made. It is quite independent of them.
  Major HAMILTON: If the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I think he will see that his words as near as possible were these: "The Director-General in the opinion of many responsible persons has already made many mistakes, and in point of fact a deputation is meeting several heads of the Government to-morrow."
  Sir W. PEARCE: I am sorry if I put it in that way, and I withdraw. I did not intend to lead the House to suppose-that the deputation to-morrow had anything to do with any mistakes that I consider the Director-General may have-made.
  Major HAMILTON: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for that concession. The deputation, I happen to know, is to four heads of the Government, one of whom is the Director-General, and it is on the general question of the restriction both of labour and material supplied to the engineering and kindred trades. An hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chancellor) asked a very pertinent question—What is an essential industry? The Director-General of National Service is particularly anxious that there should not be this talk about "essential and nonessential industries." He has himself on more than one occasion said that it is most difficult to define an essential industry. Both in speech and in print he has over and over again referred to industries as "industries of primary importance" and "less essential industries." There has been a list published of industries of primary importance, and there has also been published a list of less essential industries. Between these two there must be some which are neither the one nor the other, but which are important industries in this country. The whole object of this Order which has been issued about less essential industries is to prevent as far as possible them taking on more men. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) made a most eloquent speech, which I am sure quite convinced many Members that the result of this Order was going to be chaos in industry. It was going to give the Director-General power to limit wages. There is nothing in the Order about wages.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I did not say that.
  Major HAMILTON: To fix wages.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Yes, he has already fixed 25s. per week for the agricultural labourer.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite plain that we are diverging into a Debate on the administrative functions of the Director-General. Provision has been made for that in an Estimate, and it should be discussed in Committee of Supply. We must restrict ourselves now to the legislative proposal before us as to what powers he is to have and not how he is to exercise those powers.
  Major HAMILTON: I am sorry if I have transgressed, but with great respect I have only been endeavouring to answer
  782
  questions which you have permitted to be raised in this House. I have not gone on any new ground of my own. Of course, I will abide by your ruling. As I understand it a certain Order, the Restricted Industries Order, has been issued, and hon. Members have enlarged on the fact. They prefer that such Orders should be laid on the Table in future. The Order, however, has been issued without this Bill. It has not been issued by the Director-General, but under powers which are now vested in the Government. It has really been issued by the Cabinet, after consultation with and consideration by all the Government Departments. I believe it was actually issued by the Ministry of Munitions. It must be quite clear that this Bill does not extend the power of the Government a single inch. All it does is to say that certain powers now possessed by the Government may be entrusted to the Director-General, and the chief object of the Department of the Director-General is to prevent any individual hardship, both to employer and employé, resulting from any such Order as this Restricted Industries Order. This Department is really set up for the adjustment of labour here and labour there, and for the putting right and working of these Orders which are necessary in these critical times.
  Mr. THOMAS: I submit to the Home Secretary that he has heard sufficient this afternoon to convince him that on all sides of the House there is a general desire for Parliamentary control in this matter. We are not at the moment discussing the merits of the National Service Bill, but we are asking, before any new Orders are issued, that Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on those Orders. Whatever may be said about Parliamentary control, the letter bag of every Member proves after all that our constituents do appeal to us above everybody else, and we must admit, if there is a real hardship or a grievance, or if the people want to ventilate their feelings, that they do look to Members of Parliament as the best people to apply to. We ought in this connection to consider one important fact. Some of the Orders apply, not only to the least important employers, but to the worst organised class of men. You have to remember that the people affected by these Orders are the least organised. The large trade unions are quite capable of taking care of themselves. The largely organised bodies have already shown that they can deal

  783
  with these questions, but the people affected by the questions which we are now discussing are the worst organised. I would rather put it to the Home Secretary in this way. He must remember that if his scheme is to be a success—and I hope it will be a success—it will depend entirely upon the reception that is given to it in the country and upon the way people will approach it. As a matter of fact I am addressing a meeting myself in a few hours on this scheme, and I would be bound to say, unless some guarantee is given, that Parliament has absolutely no control over this matter, and, as the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson)has said, the latest Order issued is a direct violation of the promise of the Home Secretary. There was a specific and definite guarantee that no industrial compulsion was contemplated or intended, but in the application of this latest Order you cannot avoid it.
  Sir G. CAVE: The Order is not a violation of the promise which I made.
  Mr. THOMAS: In the application of it what the right hon. Gentleman intends cannot be given effect to. I know he is anxious to avoid it, but let me put it to him—and I think I raised the same point on Second Beading. A number of men apply for an advance in wages owing to the increased cost of living -quite a legitimate application. Their claim could be established on merits, but the employer says, "No; I refuse to accede to your request." The men then cannot say, "Very well, we will strike," because, if they strike, by this Order it is impossible for them to obtain employment in any other industry, because it says no man shall be employed under eighteen or over sixty. I am dealing, of course, with the particular industries that will be affected by this Order, and I have clearly pointed out that they are the less essential industries; but because they are less essential that does not dispose of the fact that under this particular Order you are penalising these men. I do submit to the Home Secretary that he need not accept the Amendment in its present form, and that if the period of ten days is too long and will seriously interfere with it, the Mover of the Amendment and those who support it are not anxious for delay or merely to upset the arrangements. It is moved with a genuine desire that if an Order is issued Parliament at least shall
  784
  have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Upon these grounds, and having regard to the anxiety that I have personally for the success of the scheme, and to the fair and legitimate criticism that has been applied this afternoon, I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider his position, and, if not accept the Amendment in its present form, do something to meet the objections that have been raised.
  Mr. DILLON: I think it is a great pity that this Bill has not been reprinted, because the Bill we have before us now was that which was originally introduced, and in Committee we put in a most important Amendment, and therefore hon. Members are now at a great disadvantage. But that is not all. I think it is a very bad treatment of the House that the Orders which we are now discussing, and which are part and parcel of this Bill—really the main part of it—should not have been left in the Vote Office along with the Bill, because the hon. and gallant Member who addressed the House a few minutes ago on behalf of the Controller (Major Hamilton) put forward this amazing defence: He said there was nothing in the Bill, and, in fact, he almost said we did not need to discuss it at ail, because it adds nothing to the powers of the Government. Then he went on to say that the Order to which reference has frequently been made in the course of this Debate, and which I cannot lay my hands on, was issued, not by the Controller and not under the authority of the Bill, but by the Cabinet, through the Ministry of Munitions, and out of the powers vested in them under the Defence of the Realm Acts or the Munitions Act. AH I can say is this, that already in this Debate we have had an illustration in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member of the extraordinary mass and tangle of confusion into which the whole administration of these new Departments has been thrown. If anybody seeks to make me believe that any advantage has been gained by issuing this Order and carrying on the operations which have been carried on under it before the Bill was passed, then I say you could not possibly have a better illustration of the injury which precipitate haste is doing in these matters.
  The whole country is laughing at these proceedings, and the overlapping and confusion occurring between these different Departments has become a perfect danger to the country and a laughing-stock. This

  785
  Order, which has already, I believe, been amended more than once, when it was first introduced undoubtedly aroused the utmost possible alarm amongst large sections of the population. We got up one morning and found in the "Times" newspaper a list of essential trades, and in that list the cotton trade was not included. The consequence was that throughout the whole of Lancashire the following day there existed the utmost alarm, and the proceedings of the Government in relation to the cotton trade since then will intensify that alarm; in fact, there was a good deal of ground given in the Debate which subsequently took place for doubt as to whether, when this Bill is passed and the Controller has full power, he will consider the cotton trade of this country an essential trade or in the first rank of essential trades. There are a variety of other trades that are seriously alarmed, and I may say that, now the Bill is being extended to Ireland, there are many trades in Ireland that are seriously alarmed.
  Take the woollen trade. Is the woollen trade of this country essential? Who will answer that question? I never heard a more interesting Debate in this House than that which took place in regard to the woollen industry on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. A great many men in this House who are experts in the woollen industry, and who rarely address the House, made speeches of the most extraordinary interest, in which they showed that before this Bill is passed the Controllers already in possession of the industries of this country have so hampered and harassed and annoyed the great woollen manufacturers of this? country, who are one of the main sources of its wealth, that they are threatened with the gravest possible injury, and that they have done that precisely because there was an army of young inspectors who, without the smallest atom of knowledge, were sent down from London to range about and lay down the law for one of the most technical industries in the whole world, which it has taken centuries of invention and labour to bring to its present state of perfection. Young fellows from London, knowing nothing about it, came down and undertook to instruct the woollen manufacturers of this country what yarns they were to use and how they were to make their cloth, and they put the most preposterous questions. For instance, they
  786
  were going to close down or restrict certain materials because they wanted the woollen manufacturers to declare whether certain manufactures were devoted to foreign trade or to home trade, and they proposed to allow those who were making for the foreign trade to go on manufacturing and to stop those who were making for home trade. As several hon. Members explained to us, nothing could possibly be more idiotic than such proposals, because the manufacturer, as a matter of fact, very generally does not know whether his cloth is going to the foreign or to the home trade, and every manufacturer in the country—or at least many of them—manufacture for both trades; and yet these young gentlemen, with whom the whole country is now swarming and who are more conceited and more dictatorial in proportion to their ignorance and inexperience, are to be let loose in fresh swarms on these most delicate questions as to what trades are essential and what trades are non-essential, without allowing the House of Commons to have a voice. What about the Irish linen trade? Is it essential or not? I defy any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to answer that question.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We really might roam the whole day if we were to enter into the administrative side of the question. We must keep strictly to the question of the power which is to be given under the Bill.
  Mr. DILLON: But, surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am entitled to illustrate what may be the result of passing the Bill without this control?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is so, and the hon. Member gave a very effective illustration, if I may say so, but he takes it too far.
  Mr. DILLON: I will not continue giving individual illustrations, but, in my opinion, the hon. Member who spoke just now—one of the Members for a London constituency (Mr. Chancellor)—pointed out that one of the great dangers that this power of issuing these lists of trades to be restricted opens up is this, that undoubtedly the great millionaire wealthy companies, who have, many of them, many shareholders in this House, and, at all events, have great resources and powerful influences, may be able to protect themselves, but the small struggling industries of the country will not be able to protect them-

  787
  selves, and the one and only hope they have is their Member of Parliament. If they are driven out of existence and their industries destroyed, which is exceedingly likely, without any consideration, and perhaps quite unjustly and unreasonably and without any regard to the real interests of the country, their only resource is to write to their Member of Parliament and direct his attention to the list; and from our experience of the form of the new Government every day, the power of Parliament is being restricted and handed over to the control of the enormous bureaucratic machine that we have set up to rule over us. Therefore, I think, the Amendment is one that deserves our warmest support, in order that we may endeavour to maintain some sort of protection for the people of this country, for a system which, in my opinion, is full of danger and of oppression, through the fact that bureaucracy all over the world, even the most perfect and trained bureaucracy, such as that of Prussia and of Germany, is open to great mistakes, and a bureaucracy such as we are setting up, which is wholly untrained and must be composed of ignorant and inexperienced men, is sure to make an enormous amount of blunders. I can only say, in conclusion, that we ought to learn from the enemy. We had the whole Press of this country in full chorus a short time ago declaring that we must imitate Prussia. Prussia had then started universal service, and therefore we must imitate it. As a matter of fact, it has been a dismal failure in Germany. The whole country is in revolt against it; and you had better take care, if these safeguards are refused by the Government, that you do not largely increase and render formidable for the first time the peace party in this country.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry that the Bill has not been reprinted, because the Committee stage was finished a few days ago and it undoubtedly is very awkward. With regard to the Clause before us, I would point out to the House that the Government have already made a concession to the House inasmuch as they have given an undertaking that the salary of the Minister of National Service shall be put upon the Votes, therefore the House will have an opportunity of criticising and reviewing his action when the Estimates come before it. That is a very valuable concession, for which the House ought to thank the Government.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is not a concession. It is an elementary right of the House of Commons.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Quite so; it is only the right of the House of Commons, but the rights of the House of Commons have been infringed very often, and no one has said so more than myself. It therefore gives me pleasure to find that the powers that be are awaking to the fact that the rights of the House of Commons have to be recognised. When I first saw this Clause I was rather inclined to think it was one that the Government might accept, but on further consideration I have come to the conclusion that they could not accept it, if only for the reason which I understand has already been given by the Home Secretary, that when the House is not sitting nothing could be done under the Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: The House could sit oftener.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That may be. Last year we adjourned from the middle of August until the middle of September, and then from the middle of December until the middle of February. That would leave an interval of two months during which nothing could be done. In the circumstances the House would be well advised not to accept the Clause. I am not in favour of all these new offices which are going to compel people to do all sorts of things, nor am I in favour of putting the power into the hands of one man, and I have not hesitated to say so. I do not believe that these new posts will answer. That, however, is an objection on principle, and, as we have already admitted the principle on the Second Reading of the Bill, possibly wrongly, it would not be wise to hang it up and say that when the House is not sitting nothing can be done under the Bill.
  Mr. WATT: There is nothing in the way of restriction.
  Sir F. BANBURY: In these circumstances I shall support the Government.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I am quite certain that the Home Secretary and the Government will acquit me of any hostility to the Bill, because I have frequently addressed meetings in the country in favour of it, and have now just returned from my own Constituency, where I have been speaking in favour of National Service. But speaking, as I

  789
  must, for one particular non-essential industry, I would urge the Government to accept this Clause. The district which I represent in this House is one preeminently associated with the manufacture of pottery. That manufacture is one of the less essential industries in wartime. The manufacturers and the workpeople in that industry are prepared, if necessary, to close down that industry in order to win the War, but they first want to be convinced that it is necessary and to be able to argue their ease on the floor of this House, because action may be taken by some more or less irresponsible individual who has it in his power to strangle an entire industry. That industry has managed during the three years of the War to keep going. Their exports, particularly to the United States of America, have kept up to, if not exceeded, pre-war standards. That is an industry which is finding the sinews of war for this country. I maintain that the export trade, helping as it does the American exchange, providing as it must the money which is being so lavishly spent on the War, is, if not as essential as munition making, almost as essential as those trades which are directly interested in carrying on the War. If this Clause is not carried, this industry will be absolutely in the hands of Mr. Neville Chamberlain and his office. Honestly, I do not feel inclined to entrust an industry like that to one man without there being any power of control over him. It is all very well to say that his salary will be put upon the Estimates in future and that when those Estimates come on who shall be able to discuss his action. That will be too late. If these industries are closed down, discussion cannot effect anything.
  I should like to put before the House one or two arguments respecting this particular trade which probably affect other trades of similarly nominal non-essential character in much the same way. If under this Bill you are going to take away potters of forty-five to fifty years of age, skilled men earning 45s. to 50s. per week, who have volunteered under this scheme or who are brought in under any subsequent compulsory scheme, if you take away these men, who are good men and irreplaceable, and put them to agricultural work, it is a waste for the whole of the community. It is far better that these men should be making goods which can still be sent to America in the empty ships that return to that country, goods
  790
  which will bring financial resources to the country. A man kept at work at a trade which he knows and in receipt of good wages is better for the country than a man at work at a very low rate of pay in a trade to which he is not accustomed. That argument applies, not only to the pottery trade, but to dozens of trades in this country. It is of vital importance that, moved by the clamour of the agricultural interest, men who have volunteered under this National Service scheme or who are brought in under a compulsory scheme should not be taken away from the trade they know and put to a trade which is very much in the limelight at the present time, but which cannot contribute so much to the strength and soundness of the country's finances and the well-being of the country as a whole.
  Again, if you are going to take away men who are classed as A, I think the industry can stand it, but when you are dealing with men under forty-one years of age, men in B 2, B 3, C 2, and C 3, men fitted for Home defence it is true, men fitted for garrison duty at home, or even garrison duty abroad, it is far better, in the interest of the industries concerned, to leave those men making goods which produce money for the country than to take them away from their trades. We can just carry on without the A men. If all the men passed as fit for active service abroad are taken, that industry can carry on I believe, but if you proceed to take the other categories of men only fit for garrison duty you will automatically closedown an industry which at the present time is employing over 80 per cent. of women and boys. It would be disastrous if, acting on the powers given him under this Bill, without any consultation with Parliament, the Director-General of National Service should step in and take away men from these less essential trades, whether they be under military age and of the lower categories or over military age and volunteers, and apply them to agriculture or to munition making, at which they are novices. It is because I fear that taking place that I feel bound to support my hon. Friend in regard to this Clause 1 can assure the House that I am as anxious to see industry organised and to see this Bill passed into law as any Member on the Government Bench. I have proved that by speaking at meetings, by volunteering myself for service, and in every possible way. But to trust a Govern-

  791
  ment as implicitly as this Bill would have us do at the present time seems to be impossible.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): We have had now about two hours' Debate upon a very important Amendment. May I appeal to the House to bring this discussion to a termination pretty soon? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. HOGGE: Accept the Amendment!
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill has already said that he cannot accept the Amendment. My right hon. Friend and I have listened to every speech from every quarter of the House. It is impossible for me or anyone else not to have a great deal of sympathy with the general arguments that have been addressed to the House. After all, this is an emergency measure. Does it involve greater hardship than many of the processes under the Military Service Acts? We have heard a great deal to-day of the destruction of the one-man business. Who knows more than I do at the Local Government Board of the hardship created when the one man was taken from his business, which was often destroyed by that process? Why has that had to be done? Solely because of the necessities of the War. The necessities of the War are the only defence I can make either for this measure or for not accepting the Amendment.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is not the House the best judge?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I listened to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I know with what zeal he has prosecuted the War in every possible way. He has said that he is in favour of this measure, that he desires the organisation of industry, and that he believes this Amendment would have some practical effect in protecting the particular industry with which he is more or less associated and which he thinks he ought to champion in this House. My right hon. Friend, at the beginning of the Debate, while he could not accept the Amendment, said that this was an emergency measure. It is perfectly useless to bring in measures for organising industry or restricting industry unless you can bring them into effect almost immediately, or unless they have
  792
  a swift operation. That is the opinion of the Government and it is the opinion of the Director-General of National Service that these powers must be exercised quickly and swiftly if they are to be of any value.
  Then my right hon. Friend said if you carry this Amendment it will mean that sometimes for a period of as much as three weeks or a month the Director-General of National Service would be able to take no action of what he would think a highly valuable character in organising and restricting our industries. During a Recess it might be longer still, possibly as much as six weeks or two months, and during that time it might be futile to attempt to put these restrictions in force at all. I do not know exactly why the House should grudge to the Director-General of National Service powers which it has already given to the Director-General of Food. No Amendment of this kind will apply to measures which he concerts in the interests of the War and of our country. I sometimes hear it said that the Director-General of National Service after all is only one man, and one man can ruin individuals and can ruin industries. But so can the Director-General of Food Control, and so can others. If he wishes to use his powers harshly he can use them harshly. But after all, why should the Director-General of National Service desire to ruin industries'! He has especially stated that he does not even wish to suppress them; and although he may have to take measures which will deprive them of a certain portion of their labour, in no case does he desire to abolish them, but in every case he desires to try to keep a nucleus of those industries, so that they may be revised when the War is happily over. But, after all, the Director-General of National Service has advisers, and he is hardly likely to interfere and to restrict the industry of which my hon. and gallant Friend spoke without consultation with them. After all, these great interests and industries can approach the Director-General by means of deputation. Their spokesmen in this House will put questions. There are such things as Motions on the Finance Bill, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and various Motions for Adjournment on which these questions can be raised. If there were any very wide action taken which deeply and prejudicially affected any large body of industries— —
  An HON. MEMBER: Cotton!
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: We are going to debate cotton on Wednesday. I do not take the same view as my hon. Friend of the powers of this House. I believe the powers of this House—I wish they were better, but they are very extensive and very formidable, and I believe if any large body of industry is likely to be affected by any restrictions proposed by the Director of National Service they will make themselves heard through Members in this House who have the ear of this House.
  Sir C. SEELY: They are small industries of which we spoke.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: If they are small in the aggregate their interests will be shared by a great number of Members and there will be a volume of voice in the House which I believe will reach the Government, and it will have some operative effect upon orders issued by the Director-General of National Service. No one desires more keenly than I do to preserve as far as possible the rights of the House. I have sat for far more years on a back bench than I have on the Front Bench, and I have the deepest possible sympathy with ordinary Members of the House. I have heard no suggestions this afternoon of any Amendment to the Amendment. I think there has been a general admission that if it were carried it would tie the hands of the Director-General of National Service in a way I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend would desire. The Home Secretary is unable, although he has carefully thought the matter over, to devise any other method by which this House could be enabled to raise a question which they desire to raise on the Orders of the Director-General of National Service, and therefore I think we must put our trust in the Director-General and in such processes as are still left to the House of Commons by which they can ventilate their own grievances and the grievances of those whom they represent.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I am certain the whole House sympathises with the Front Bench. We know perfectly well the position in which it is placed. It is asking for very special powers, and it finds it impossible to defend its request in such a way as to convince the House that the request is reasonable. That is the difficulty of the situation. I should like to meet them, but in such a
  794
  way as would be satisfactory to the House and to the interests outside, because it is not enough merely to come and say, "We are in a war and we want exceptional legislation." Ministers must prove that the request is a necessity and not merely say that it has occurred to them as being desirable. The hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that there is no power being given to the Director-General of National Service by this Bill which is not enjoyed by some other Minister occupying the same status as he does himself. That may be so, but we have had experience, and as every new Department is created the experience we have had of the old is sufficient to make us a little suspicious of the power we are asked to give to the new. Further, the powers which Mr. Neville Chamberlain is going to exercise are very much more important than those which the Food Controller, for instance, is going to exercise. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has visualised what the meaning of this authority is in terms of actual fact. At any rate, he has not shown it by what he has said this afternoon. What is going to happen is this: One man is going to be put in absolute control of the industries of the country. He is going to be allowed to say this is necessary and this is not, this is primary and this is secondary, and he is going to be allowed to issue Orders under this Bill which mean that every man engaged in that industry,. first of all the employer and then the workpeople between the ages of eighteen and sixty, is going to obey any Order issued by the Director-General of National Service. He is going to be kept on, if he is a workman, if the Director-General thinks he ought to be; he is going to be discharged if the Director-General thinks he ought to be. The employer can take no one on unless the Director-General thinks he ought to take him on. As a matter of fact this one man, sitting in a central office in London, is going to be able to say regarding every factory and workshop in the United Kingdom, "This can be kept on, full steam ahead, with complete staffs and complete productive efficiency," or he can say it has got to be reduced to a nucleus. The hon. Gentleman used the word "nucleus" for the purpose of giving us confidence in the Director-General. Really when I read that statement that showed me that the Director-General did want controlling. For any man to have an idea that he by his obiter dictum can say, "This industry

  795
  can be reduced to what I call a nucleus and still go on, still keep its market, still keep its effective use of the capital sunk in it and used up in it, still keep its machinery going and its labour supply in operation, "is a proposition so absurd that no one who has thought about it would ever have used the idea at all. Therefore, from that point of view, the case for control is absolutely unanswerable.
  6.0 P.M.
  But there is another point. The nature of the work that is going to be given to this Director-General is such that it is not enough for him to consult his expert advisers. Who are those expert advisers? Civil servants. The Civil Service is a very admirable body, but Civil servants ought never to be put in the position of a legislator, and all these lists and all these Regulations referred to in the new Clause are of the nature of legislation and not of the nature of administrative Orders. For a responsible man to remain outside this House and consult members of the Civil Service regarding the fate of those industries, regarding the use of their capital and labour, is really a demand made upon the credulity and blindness of this House far greater than has been made in respect of any Department that has been created hitherto. Therefore, this House ought to retain its control. It is said this new Clause cannot be worked. I should be far more ready to accept the force of that? objection if some steps had been taken to retain the control of the House in a different form. There is a very obvious form. Why not create a Committee of the House to advise the Director-General—a Committee which shall have a statutory standing, a Committee of Members which will not merely be called in as the Director wishes, but a Committee which will be charged with Statutory authority to revise its Regulations. I quite admit that if we are going to compel the Director to come to us here before he could issue anything it would not be effective and it would not toe efficient, but surely in this House, where there are simply scores of us wanting work that we can do—scores of Members with that grip of the general mechanism of the industries of this country which is necessary—it is not merely enough to put a man who knows cotton, a man who knows wool, a man who knows the production of pottery, and so on; we must also have men upon this Committee advising the Director-General who knows the whole of the mechanism and the
  796
  interlacing and interlocking of the various processes of industry in this country. Get them represented. Get your practical business man represented, who is also a Member of the House. Get a sufficiently large Committee which should be really representative of the constituencies, so that letters can pour in to its Members when any Order is about to be issued, so that all the interests of the nation will be carefully considered, and see to it that the Committee is one of experts—not merely of Civil Service experts, but of legislative House of Commons experts—and then I think, at any rate, that would be a fair means of meeting the demand that my hon. Friend has made. Unless something is done which will retain the control over these Regulations with the legislative authority, and not merely with the administrative authority of the country, I shall support my hon. Friend if he carries his new Clause to a Division.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: We have just head a speech from the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). If anybody were capable of persuading the House that it ought to pursue a certain course I am sure the sauve and gentle manner of the right hon. Gentleman could succeed in that. He begs the House not to pass this Amendment, but to give the power demanded by the Government, and in his own persuasive manner he endeavours to convince us that no harm will follow. But if we look at the second Clause, Subsection (2) we see that it proposes to confer upon the Government extraordinary powers. It says:
  "The Director-General of National Service shall, for that purpose, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise."
  That is to say, they will have all the powers conferred under the Defence of the Realm Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider for a moment that under the Defence of the Realm Act the Government has power to imprison people without trial? Is it possible that it would be conferred upon any Government, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, that they should have the power which caused a revolution in my country—the power of lettres des cachet in France, a power which was exercised in a general manner in quite recent times in Ireland. Those

  797
  great powers are conferred by this Clause, yet, forsooth, we must not ask for any defence against the excessive exercise of any such powers. I know very well that the Home Secretary may be relied upon. I know his gentle nature. I know how large-minded he is, but I have seen other men in his place. I have seen other men who, when they have tried to get laws passed in this House, have assured the House that if they had to administer the Act they would never consent to the excessive use of any powers that were given. I remember the late Mr. W. E. Forster say to a friend in the Lobby once, when the Coercion Act of 1881 was before the House, that he would never dream of proposing such a measure to the House of Commons only that he himself would have the administration of it. We know how fatal were the results of that administration. He ruined Ireland, he ruined this country, and he ruined his own life. I know the right hon. Gentleman assures us that he will not exercise these terrible powers that have been given under the Defence of the Realm Act, but I submit that the right hon. Member for Fulham could hardly have contemplated the enormous power about to be conferred by this Bill when he made his speech. Therefore, on that ground and even on that ground alone, I will support the Amendment to whatever extent the hon. Member who has proposed it proposes to go.
  I was very pleased to hear some of the speeches which have been delivered; for example, the speech of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson). The hon. Gentleman has made an established position for himself in this House. He has shown great ability in the discussion of the various subjects to which he addresses himself. I was pleased with his speech for another reason. He inveighed against the proposal to further establish the principles of bureaucracy in the Government of this country. Knowing well that the hon. Gentleman is a representative Socialist, I was very pleased to find that he has abandoned, so far at all events, that dreadful principle of Socialism of which I have a most wholesome fear. I remember years ago reading in that wonderful work of Bellamy's, "Looking Backward," how we were to be organised into armies of industry; how we were to be navvies, or engineers or something of that kind, and I looked with terror at that state of society being organised, because I knew very well the very humble position
  798
  I should occupy in such a State. Being a man who is not assertive, or in any way a man who pushes himself to the front, I knew I most certainly would not be one of the captains of industry.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): I would remind the hon. Member that we have passed the Second Reading stage of the Bill, and are now dealing with a new Clause on the Report stage. Will he confine his remarks to the new Clause before the House?
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I thank you, Sir, and I shall endeavour to make my observations relevant to the Amendment. The Amendment is for the purpose of establishing some control, or at all events of conserving the control of this House over the rules and regulations that are made under legitimate authority. That being so, I will not indulge in the diversion of expressing my gratification on finding that we are not to have such an organisation of labour as I feared under the state of things to which I was referring. Having it on the authority of the hon. Member for Attercliffe, I am perfectly well satisfied. The hon. Member resisted the bureaucracy idea, and that is where my relevancy comes in. I also resist bureaucracy, and I was pleased to find such an able exponent of the principles I have always professed. The hon. Member is looking forward, and not looking backward, nor is he arguing upon the principles that are to be found in some other volume of that character which I read—"News from Nowhere," I think it was called, by my old friend William Morris. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), in his very useful remarks—for he always speaks with knowledge of the House and knowledge of the general principles that should govern the House—maintained that the House had sufficient control and sufficient power of examination by the ordinary means. He said that we could discuss these rules and regulations when we discussed the salary of the Home Secretary or whatever Minister will have to answer for and defend the Minister of National Service in this House, and that we should have that opportunity for discussion on the Estimates. That is utterly inadequate. That would be once a year, when the rules and regulations had been in operation for perhaps ten or eleven months. All the practices possible under those regulations may have been exer-

  799
  cised before we have an opportunity of opening discussion. Much as I respect the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet, I respectfully submit to him and to the House that that process of discussion would be entirely inadequate. It may be that before we have an opportunity of discussing the rules and regulations on the Estimates under the head of salaries, the War may be happily over.
  HON. MEMBERS: "No!"
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I was presiding last Friday at a meeting outside this House, and a very eminent gentleman—a former Member of this House—who has devoted considerable time and great ability and knowledge to the discussion of the conditions under which the War is being carried on, stated it as his opinion that the War would be over by next October. I allude to Mr. Hilaire Belloc, who once adorned this House. If that is so, the claim made by the Home Secretary, and I think by the hon. Member for Fulham, certainly by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City, that we can sufficiently discuss the rules and regulations once a year by discussion on the Estimates, would be utterly inadequate. The answer of the Government is entirely insufficient. I think that the new Clause now before the House, or something like it, is absolutely necessary, and if the hon. Member who moved it goes to a Division, I am determined to support him in the Lobby.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: After listening to this Debate I feel myself in considerable difficulty as to the action that I should take on the new Clause now before the House. On the one hand, I think we must all agree that these are matters which may require swift decision. It is difficult to say to the Director of National Service, "If you have any measure which you desire to take, you must wait until the House has had it before it for ten days; and if the House happens not to be sitting, and is in Recess, you must wait until the end of the Recess before you take the measure which you are convinced is in the national interests." On the other hand, I think there is a widespread feeling in this House that these matters affecting closely the interests of a great body of people ought not to be left to the sole untrammelled discretion of one man. The problem is to reconcile those two objects
  800
  which I imagine all sections of the House would equally desire to see done. The new Clause which is before us appears to me to not quite satisfactorily solve the problem, because it does undoubtedly tend to prevent that swift decision that is necessary. Therefore I should be very reluctant to go into the Lobby in support of it. I want to sec the national organisation effective and working smoothly, but the Home Secretary has not made any suggestion with a view to meeting the feeling, which is widespread in the House, that there ought not to be purely autocratic control in a matter of this kind.
  I addressed some observations to the House on the Committee stage of the Bill. I was dealing then with the point that it was possible that more vigorous and more definite action might be taken by the Director of National Service than has hitherto been taken under the voluntary scheme which he has launched with so much energy. I then suggested that the restriction of employment of labour in non-essential trades should not be left to a single individual, but that he should have associated with him something in the nature of an advisory council. The Home Secretary replied that it was not really being left to a single individual because the schedule of non-essential trades had been decided upon by the Cabinet, but one cannot readily believe that the War Cabinet, charged as it is with an overwhelming volume of daily business, could possibly consider the details of these measures. It would not be reasonable to expect them to do so. I am convinced that they could not undertake such a task. So in effect it is left to one man to decide by a stroke of the pen whether any particular trade is to be regarded for the purpose of labour restrictions as essential or non-essential, and that according to the decision at which he arrives, sitting privately at his desk, the fortunes of large bodies of men, both employers and working people, are to be determined. I think that that is excessive power to entrust to any individual without any recourse elsewhere and without any appeal.
  The Secretary to the Local Government Board has pointed out that under the Military Service Acts frequently there is considerable hardship to the individual, and frequently persons are compelled by law to do that which they would not wish to do, and he says that the same thing must be satisfactory in this case. But it

  801
  is not left under the Military Service Act to any individual to decide the fortunes of another. Parliament has specifically provided that it is not to be a matter merely for the War Office, or some military officer representing the War Office, to determine whether this man or that has a good case for exemption. It has erected by legislation a whole hierarchy of tribunals, representing the general body of public opinion, containing no military representatives at all, and representing the views of the nation as a whole, so far as they can be locally represented, and a man has a right to go to a local tribunal, and if he is aggrieved by their decision he has a right to go to an appeal tribunal, and with the leave of the Appeal Tribunal he can go to a third party in order to have his case decided. Again, under the Defence of the Realm Act, when there is a question of acquiring property, it has not been left to any Department which wishes to have the use of the property to determine by its own fiat whether it should acquire the property, but there is a Commission, which was known as the Duke Commission, which inquires into the matter. Therefore I urge on the Home Secretary the views which I expressed on the Committee stage, that before these matters are decided they should be considred by an advisory committee. It appears to me that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester that this Commission should be as far as possible made representative of the various classes of persons selected by the nation and by the constituencies—I do not say necessarily that they should be elected by the House of Commons formally, but that they should be chosen among Members of the House of Commons—is a proposal which is well worthy of the earnest consideration of the Government.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would not have taken any part in this Debate had it not been for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. The House knows that I have often advocated the setting up of Commissions in this House, and as my hon. Friend has made the suggestion in connection with this Bill I desire to say a few words. I hope that the Home Secretary will not dismiss the suggestion without serious consideration. I will not go into the general question. The Home Secretary is already conscious of the fact—I dare say his mail bag has told him so—that there is a very widespread amount of apprehension which this
  802
  Bill has created in the country among people engaged in the industries of the country. I already have received very strong representations with regard to some of the trades which I shall do myself the honour of sending to the Home Secretary for consideration. But the fact that the Director is not a member of this House I think adds enormously to the argument that his power is, to a certain extent, much more absolute than that given to any other Controller-General. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has established the clear difference between these powers and the powers of the Director-General of recruiting, which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who spoke lately, as an argument in favour of this Bill.
  I can see the objections which may be made to the Amendment now before the House. I can only vote for it myself because we cannot get any better, and as a protest against what I think is unduly autocratic power. Then take the other proposal. I personally am in agreement with the opinion of the Home Secretary, which I think is the opinion of everybody in this House, that everybody ought to be doing something to advance the vigorous prosecution of the War. Therefore it is not from that point that I find objection to this proposal, and I find it still less from the point of view of the personality of the Controller, who is a gentleman of ability and experience; but if an archangel were appointed Controller I think that that would be undue power to give to him practically to put any man he liked out of business in the country. I do not say that he would do it capriciously. I am sure that he would do it considerately. But it is a risk which we ought not to ask the great and the small industries of this country to incur. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken has recommended an Advisory Committee. I dare say that the Home Secretary would not in principle be opposed to that. Therefore the point at issue, I take it, at this moment is the particular form which the Advisory Committee should take. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester proposes a Committee of this House. I put it to the Home Secretary—could there be devised a more practicable, a more defensible, and a more efficient council to aid the Controller-General than a council consisting of Members of this House? In the first place, on that council you can get representatives

  803
  of all sections and of all the great industries of the country, men who are more intimately associated with the Labour party and trained Parliamentarians of all kinds. But the proposal of my hon. Friend is not as I understand it, that this Committee of the House of Commons should have the right to interrupt the procedure and the action of the Controller-General. This proposal is that this Committee of the House of Commons should have the right to watch the Controller, and question him and, if necessary, object to the administration of the Act.
  I will not go into the general question of Commissions of this House. My views about them are well known. They have often been expressed in this House, and probably it would be out of order for me to go into the matter now, but I attach great importance to another argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. Everybody, I have said, ought to do something. The people in the whole Empire who are, more than any other body of men in the Empire, precluded from doing their share of work in the War, are the Members of this Assembly. It is a fact that many of them are on Committees, and many of them are doing excellent work. But I do not think that the Home Secretary, owing to his official position, is so well acquainted with what I may call the green room of the House of Commons, where private Members meet, as I am at this moment, and I am sure that he will not contradict my statement that you will find men wasting time in the smoke room, in the library even, in the news room, and in the tea room—some of the finest brains in this House wasting time there when they are both able and willing to do service to the country. That is the main argument which I have always urged for Commissions, but I think that now the Home Secretary has an excellent opportunity of getting out of what may appear to be a difficulty by accepting this proposal.
  Sir G. CAVE: It is only with the indulgence of the House that I can speak again. I would like to do so in order to meet the suggestion which has been made quite recently in the Debate by the hon Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), the right hon. Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel), and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I think that I am entitled to point out that hon. Merabers appear to agree with me that
  804
  the Clause in its present form is unworkable and the appointment of an Advisory Committee to work with the Director-General has been suggested. The hon. Member for Leicester made the suggestion in this form, that it should be a Committee of this House, having certain definite powers, so that its decision should be binding upon the Director of National Service. I could not possibly accept, and I do not think that any Government would accept any proposal in that form. A Minister must be responsible for his acts, and to suggest that he should submit his action to a Committee of this House, and be absolutely bound by their decisions, I believe would make the administration of his office absolutely impossible. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for the Scotland Division refer to a room outside the precincts of this House as the green room of this House. It looks as if our proceedings partook of a theatrical nature.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I merely meant that that was the place where you heard the truth.
  Sir G. CAVE: I will not comment on that. That means that there should be appointed by the Director of National Service an Advisory Committee, which I take to be a Committee to advise him as to the exercise of these powers. I feel the force of the suggestion on which I have had an opportunity of consulting with Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who thinks it well worthy of consideration. He proposes to appoint a Committee to advise him on these matters, a Committee on which Members of this House will serve, while, at the same time, I do not think he should be debarred from appointing persons who may be experts in these matters although not Members of this House. I trust, therefore, that the appointment of such an Advisory Committee, to which the Director of National Service intends to submit proposals before taking action, will meet the case, and that the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have listened throughout the whole Debate, and, while I do not deny the difficulties raised on the other side, and the doubts and fears expressed, yet I feel that we must consider the exigencies of the present situation. For myself, I look upon the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

  805
  as one offering a very fair compromise, and I recognise the spirit in which the Home Secretary has met it. I regret it in some respects, however, because I think that in the administration of an important new function like this there should be absolute individual responsibility in regard to any vital step that is taken. I clearly understand the Home Secretary when he says that it would be impossible for a Minister to submit to a Committee of the House of Commons. That would really mean government by committee and not government by the Minister at all. On the other hand, however, an Advisory Committee might be appointed, to whom the Director of National Service could submit his proposals and hear their views. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not in the least intend to break our long-standing traditions by diminishing the final responsibility of the Minister himself. Of course, the Director of National Service must hear the views of the Advisory Committee; he must allow them to express their opinion on the matters in hand; but the final decision and the final responsibility, according to all the traditions of Government administration heretofore, must rest with him. That is the case with the Secretary of State for India, who consults his Council, but on him alone rests the final decision. It would be an absurd, impossible, and unheard-of thing if you had any committee or advisory body which could be in a position to order the Minister to take some steps which they thought proper or refrain from taking some steps which he thought proper. Some such Committee as is now suggested would, I think, be of use to the Director of National Service, and I do not think that any Minister would act without some such Advisory Committee. I do hope, therefore, that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the Cleveland Division is one which the House will accept. It would not diminish in the least degree the personal responsibility of the Minister or subject him to a chance of being out-voted by the Committee. With that compromise, I think the Home Secretary has gone a very long way to meet the case which has been brought forward by those who have doubts in the matter, doubts which I do not share. But even if they have some foundation surely the proposal adumbrated from the Front Bench and accepted by the Home Secretary is a fair compromise which the House might adopt.
  Mr. FIELD: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has reminded the House that the Home Secretary has accepted a compromise, but in my view there can be no compromise in a matter of this sort, for it is a question as between whether this House is to have control of a national matter or an individual will be allowed to control it. The very essence of the constitution is that you cannot have in the same person jurisdiction and administration. It is proposed that the Director of National Service in his own person must unite both a jurisdiction and administrative function, and the House of Commons will practically have no control over his action. I for one am not at all prepared to accept that, though I will not reiterate the arguments from all sections of the House which support my view. I would remind the Home Secretary that not one independent Member of this House has advanced an argument in support of the new proposal—whether Opposition or supporters of the Government, or independent Members of the House of Commons, not one Member has coincided with the view of the right hon. Gentleman. We live now, in the House of Commons, under a Cabinet of coercion. That is absolutely so. What is called a Government under a Coalition system is really an oligarchy which governs the House of Commons according to its own will. It is a kind of personal dictatorship, and Members of the House of Commons are just cyphers sitting behind their leader. I believe myself that the common sense and democratic feeling of the community are being directed more and more to the proceedings of this Government, which is assuming a position that is really not Parliamentary at all. The Czar of Russia probably has not the powers in his hand which the Coalition Government are exercising every day. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the common-sense proposal made by the hon. Member for Leicester. None of us wants to interfere with the proper working of a system which will utilise to the best advantage the resources of the people and of the country; at the same time I hope that hon. Members who support the Amendment, will, if necessary, go to a Division, and I think the Government will be surprised to find how considerable is their number.
  Mr. HOGGE: I cannot, on behalf of my hon. Friend, accept the suggestion which

  807
  has been made by the Home Secretary, in order the meet the criticism in the House by agreeing, to agree to the appointment of an Advisory Committee. What one feels about it is simply this: First of all, the House of Commons had no choice in the appointment of the Director of National Service, and he, having been appointed, is to be put into a position of being able to choose his own Advisory Committee. This is the first illustration of the Prime Minister's method, which was suggested to the House of Commons when he became head of the Government, namely, to set up in this House the French system of committees. We were told that powers were to be delegated to this House of Commons and that all our services, whatever they were worth, were to be used in various Committees in association with Ministers. The very first opportunity that has presented itself to this Government of having an example of how that can be worked has been turned down by the Home Secretary, and in its place, forsooth, we are to have an Advisory Committee of co-opted Members, chosen by the Director of National Service, who is not in this House, and who will surround himself with all the tame cats who have not yet got places on Advisory Committees. Recollect what happened on the Front Bench to-day, at Question Time, when we had a statement from the Secretary to the Food Controller to the effect that if we had any ideas about sugar, or any suggestions to make about sugar, the Food Controller would be very glad to see us in some Committee Room in the House of Commons. The Food Controller was ill about a fortnight or so ago, and we had to wait until he was better before he could address himself to the question of sugar. Then the hon. Gentleman, who represents him in this House, comes with the suggestion that if we have any ideas on sugar, we can meet the Food Controller in a Committee Room. That is the value that is placed upon the advice that may be given by Members of this House to any of those particular Ministers. This Advisory Committee would not be anything else than a shield to protect the Director of National Service from criticism; it would remove the responsible man from any criticism which is left to this House. For that reason I am against it.
  808
  The whole of the proceedings this afternoon and the whole of the replies that have come from that Front Bench have been farcical. This week the Director of National Service is summoning to London a Conference of the Trade Unionists from all over Great Britain. I do not know whether he has included Ireland or not. All those trade union delegates who are to meet the Director of National Service will have their railway fares paid, and their living expenses paid in London; and the reason that is alleged for bringing them to London is that the Director of National Service wishes to modify some of the provisions of his Regulations, but thinks he had better consult them—that is to say, the Director of National Service is prepared to consult with trade unionists at the House of Commons, paying their first-class fares and their hotel expenses, while at the same time there are trade unionists in this House who could give him help that would not cost anything. The whole thing is a farce. I do not want any Advisory Committee; I do not want any Dictator of National Service; the Dictator of National Service is interfering with things that he knows nothing at all about. But over and above all this, there are questions which must be considered by this House of Commons, and the Director of National Service knows that himself. The Director of National Service in a Committee Room upstairs told us that any sudden destruction of capital was bound to disturb credit, and the probability was that it would injure a wider circle than the trade affected, and that even trades which seemed most nonessential and the manufacture of luxuries were concerned with exports which enabled them to pay for munitions, and affected other things which they imported from foreign countries, and they must not lose sight of the fact that after the War we shall want to build up our industries as quickly as possible in order to recover from its effects, and that that would not be possible if there were no nucleus of their trades left. I think I know, and other hon. Members know, many business men who may be designated successful business men. I have never known a successful business man yet who did not achieve his success in business by attending to his own business and devoting his energies to the business and concentrating upon it. It is absolutely impossible to get either a Director of National Service alone or with an

  809
  Advisory Committee that could have adequate and full enough knowledge to determine which trades are essential and which are non-essential. Therefore, to prevent the Director of National Service doing infinite economic harm to this country, this House of Commons ought to keep within its own hands the control, and in order to find out how many Members of the House agree that the House should be supreme in a national matter of this importance we intend to go to a Division.
  Sir G. CAVE Sir G. CAVE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. BILLING(seated and covered): Is it in order that a Division should be called before every Member who wishes to take part in the Debate has the opportunity of doing so?
  The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 80.

  Division No. 6.]

  AYES.

  [6.49 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nuttall, Harry

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Forster, Henry William

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Gretton, John

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Philippe, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

  Barton, William

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Beale, Sir Willian Phipson

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E,

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Holme, Sir Norval Watson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Rowlands, James

  Bird, Alfred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen}

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hills, John Waller

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

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Boyton, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Stanier, Captain Seville

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gershom

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Swift, Rigby

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe)

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Klley, James Daniel

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Chatoner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

  Tootill, Robert

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  M'Calmont, Lieut.-Col. Robert C. A.

  Turton, Edmund Russberough

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hen. Sir J.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wardie, George J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J.M. (Falk. B'ghs)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wilson, Lt.-CI.Sir M.(Beth'l Green.S.W.)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Dougherty. Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Younger, Sir George

  Edge, Captain William

  Newman, John R. P.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ferene, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Nield, Herbert

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Primrose

  NOES.

  Anderson, William C.

  Boland, John Plus

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Arnold, Sydney

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Byrne, Alfred

  Billing, Pemberton

  Buxton, Noel

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Klldare, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cosgrave, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Cullinan, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Malley, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Shaughnessy. P. J.

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Donovan, John Thomas

  Lundon, Thomas

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Doris, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Redmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Field, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Maden,—

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Snowden, Philip

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meagher, Michael

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hackett, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim N.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Molloy, Michael

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Mooney, John J,

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Muldoon, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  O'Brien

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 162.

  Division No. 7.]

  AYES.

  [6.58 p.m.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hinds, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Anderson, W. C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)i

  Billing, Pemberton

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roland. John Flus

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Dowd, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Buxton, Noel

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Byrne, Alfred

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  King, Joseph

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R,

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Cosgrave, James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cullinan, John

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rowlands, James

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  McGhee, Richard

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

  Donovan, John Thomas

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Duffy, William J.

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Snowden, Philip

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomas, J. H.

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Molloy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Glanville. Harold James

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morison, Hector

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  Muldoon, John

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Mr. Pringle and Captain Donelan

  Hazleton, Richard

  NOES

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brunner. John F. L.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

  Bellairs. Commander C. W.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  CeciI,Rt.Hon.Lord Robert(Herts.Hitchin)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Bird, Alfred

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Bliss, Joseph

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Boyton, James

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Barton, William

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Cornwall Sir Edwin A.

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pratt, J. W.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Edge, Captain William

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Fell, Arthur

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L.

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  M'Calmont, Col. Robert C. A.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Stanier, Capt. Beville

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Stewart. Gerhom

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Grant, J. A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Maden, —

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Gretton, John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Tickler, T. G.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Munro, Rt. Hon- Robert

  Turton, Edmond Russborough

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  . Newman, John R. P.

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Harres, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.J

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Wilson, Lt.-Cl.Sir M.(Beth'l Green.S.W.)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Hon., S.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Young, Willian (Perthshire, East)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Younger, Sir George

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Hills, John Waiter

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hodge. Rt. Hon. John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Philippe, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

  Primrose

  Howard. Hon. Geoffrey

  NEW CLAUSE-:.—(Extent of Act.)—This Act shall not extend to Ireland.— [Mr. Farrell.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. FARRELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  We have had a Debate extending over three hours on the Clause which has been disposed of by the Vote just taken, and during that time we have listened to a great number of grievances, and a good many expressions of desire that the House of Commons should have a controlling voice over the Director-General of National Service. Most of the Members who have addressed the House have referred to the effect which this Bill would have on the industries of the country. I wish to deal with its effect on the industries of Ireland, and especially on the small industries. No doubt the larger industries will be affected, but then we in Ireland stand in a position altogether apart on this question. There we have no large industries unfortunately, except one, and that is the industry of the land. It will be conceded by every fair-minded Member of this House that, particularly at this time, when a claim is being made for more
  814
  tillage and more food production, it would be an extremely dangerous thing to entrust the fate of agricultural Ireland to a gentleman who practically knows nothing whatever about it. I do not wish to reflect in any sense on the gentleman who has been appointed Director of National Service, but I do not think that he himself would claim that he knows anything of the special conditions which govern either our principal industry in Ireland or the minor industries, and for that reason, if for no other, we should claim exemption from the operation of this Act.
  But there are special reasons this year why this Act should not apply to Ireland. Before I state some of those reasons, however, I would venture to offer a few observations on the general methods of the present Government in Ireland in relation to the War and in relation to the production of articles of food, and of other articles required in connection with the War. Here in England you have consented to a system which places every article practically in the hands of some Controller. You regulate the food supply, the coal supply, the beer supply, and the labour supply, and now I believe you are going to tackle cotton. You have inter

  815
  fered domestically with every industry in the country, and, while the people may be very willing to assist you in every possible way in the prosecution of this unfortunate War, all these interferences are creating a very bitter feeling in the country. Do not let there be any mistake on that point. I spent the last week-end in the county of Norfolk. I met a number of people who have been hard hit by their sacrifices directly for the War, and they have been even harder hit in their businesses by the Regulations drawn up by your several Controllers. I do not think you have any special claim, therefore, at this time to impose what I would describe really as another form of coercion to Ireland. You have certainly bungled affairs as regards Great Britain. That cannot be denied. The overlapping of Departments and the complete want of sympathetic administration as between those Departments have produced chaos and confusion of the most extraordinary kind in England.
  I am glad to see the Chief Secretary in his place. What I wish to point out is that if what I have stated is the case as regards England, it is much worse as regards Ireland, where nobody knows who is responsible, where one order given by one Department is upset by another order emanating from another Department. Let me take one little instance which alone will show how things are being bungled in Ireland. A few days ago a potato Order was issued by the Department of Agriculture, and enforced under the Defence of the Realm Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and his advisers the British Government, directed that potatoes were to be sold at £8 a ton in February, £9 per ton in March, and £10 per ton in April. You could not have had a better incentive for anyone who had potatoes to hold them up and not to sell them, for the longer they held them the more certain they were to get, by law, a better price. This was quite right from their point of view. What, however, was the result? The result was very much the same as we find to-night in the House of Commons, where there are no potatoes for the dinners of Members. The result was that there were no potatoes in the markets of Ireland, so that the remedy for the failure of the potato crop was infinitely worse than the disease. So far, then, from this action, which was no doubt well-intentioned,
  816
  having any real effect in the direction desired, it had the very opposite effect. That is one little administrative bungle in Ireland. There are others, which no doubt show how utterly at sea is the right hon. Gentleman in his dealings with our country. I am one of those who do not wish in advance to dispraise the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I believe he is well-intentioned. But he is surrounded by some of the old Castle gang, who have always in the past brought to naught the efforts of even the best-intentioned of Ministers who ever came to Ireland. So long as he leaves himself in their hands and does things according to their order he will not make the administration any better than did any of his predecessors.
  We have a peculiarly strong case for asking the Government to assent to the elimination of Ireland from the operation of this Act. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to questions today, pay a tribute to the manner in which the whole of Ireland had responded to the demand for increased food production. I myself come from the centre of the country, but I know that in every direction, and on the part of every class, from the humblest labourer to the richest landowner, everyone is doing all he possibly can, weather permitting, to put down a record crop in Ireland. The labourers in the towns have their little allotments, and in the country they are getting seeds from the district councils. The farmers, so far as it is humanly possible, are engaged in largely increasing their agricultural output. Under these circumstances how would it be possible to apply the operation of such an Act as this to Ireland? Suppose, for example, the Director-General of National Service sent over an order to Ireland to transfer to this country 5,000 or 10,000 agricultural labourers, which, I believe, under this Bill he would be empowered to do. Does anyone think that that could be accomplished, assuming that it was agreed to by the people—which it would not be—without dislocating the entire labour services of the country in all directions] The people have good reason to doubt the bona fides of the British Ministry. Labourers who have come over here in large numbers to enable you rear your harvest were seized by the military in defiance of Parliamentary promises, and were forced to join the Army. They were treated as though they were resident in this country. Three of

  817
  them came from my own Constituency. On appeal, two were released. One is still serving. They were treated as though they were liable to be conscripted in this country. The feeling is strong in Ireland that if you impose this compulsory service on the country for labour that it means, in some way which at present is not defined, but which will be more clearly shown by and by, that you will impose other conditions than that of mere labour service for the production of food, or matters of that sort. That is the feeling of the country.
  Apart, however, from that feeling there is another side to the question which I wish to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. We have very few local industries in Ireland. Such as we have merely exist. They do not turn over enormous war profits for the Chancellor to take excess from. For years, perhaps, these industries have been struggling along under very great difficulties. If the Director of National Service comes along and interferes to the extent of two or three men, perhaps, in any of these industries, it strikes a blow at it which will undoubtedly cripple, if not destroy, that industry. If men who are trained to a particular industry are taken from it and put to something else, their capacity as labourers on the one side is lost, while if they commence training a new man is needed in their place, so that the injury will be in the smallest as well as the largest of our industries. It will, too, have no compensating effect on anything in this country, or on the progress of the War, or on other things in which you are interested. Therefore, I say that it is not alone the duty of us who represent Irish rural constituencies, such as I do—and who, in this matter, I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman, am speaking the direct sentiments and wishes of my Constituents—it is not alone a duty cast upon us to protest, as we do protest, against our country being placed under the operation of this National Service Act, but, if need be, by something beyond mere verbal protest, by carrying it into the Division Lobbies.
  If it were possible to find a way of aggravating public opinion—and heaven knows you have done that most successfully, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford told you in his speech last week—it would seem almost as if you were striving to upset the work of the constitutional movement, and to put
  818
  in its place, for you and for us, a less desirable form in every way of public agitation. I say it will aggravate the position, which already is bad enough, if you insist upon enforcing this Act in Ireland. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will, as many of his predecessors have done in times past, refuse to take advice from Ireland. Whatever advice was given in the earlier stages of the War fell upon deaf ears, because, I suppose, it came from these benches. I most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider well whether any compensating gains he will get by imposing this Act on Ireland will make up for the loss of good feeling, and for the creation of bad and bitter feelings which this imposition will undoubtedly create in Ireland. This is the first time I have addressed this House since the beginning of the War. There was a time when I took a more active part in these Debates. None the less have I been filled with resentment at a great deal of the conduct of the Government towards our country; at the manner in which they have thwarted the efforts of the Leader of the Irish party, and other members of the party, to bring about a better feeling between the two countries; of the total disregard they have shown for Irish sentiment, and at the system of exaggerated attention which they have paid to the opinion expressed from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway representing Irish seats. These men are they who protest all the loyalty, and display a great deal of the old Tory malice against not alone their own countrymen here on these Benches, but against the very soldiers who are fighting for their countrymen in the trenches in France. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman takes stock of the position in Ireland before he decides to impose this Act upon the country. I tell him emphatically that the Irish people will not have it. The Irish people will not be driven either as conscriptionists for the Army, or as conscriptionists for labour; they will not be driven like slaves at the behest of any Minister or any Dictator, no matter who he may be. We believe we are doing, in our own way, in producing by our own labours in our own country the food that is requisite for the support of this country, as well as of our population at home—a national duty. It is a duty as much for the Empire as for our own country. You can lead an Irishman, but you cannot drive him. That is the last word I would say to the right hon. and learned

  819
  Gentleman, in moving a Clause which I how have the honour to submit to the House.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: I beg to second the Motion. Members of this House have for some time past been looking on at the vanishing of the democratic character of the Government of this country. They have seen the development of the tendency to a system of Prussianism in the Government and in departmental control. Members on these benches have looked on. When, however, it is proposed, as it is in this Bill, to apply such a system to Ireland, Irish Members are determined to resist it by al means in their power. We object to placing all our industries in Ireland under the control and absolute mercy of a dictator, who very probably knows nothing whatever of Irish circumstances, and who will be compelled to fall back on the permanent officials in Ireland for any information he requires regarding that country. As has been pointed out previously in the Debate, on how many occasions have our suggestions and our recommendations in many matters been turned down by these permanent officials' This aspect was elaborated by the hon. Member for North Galway, and I, therefore, do not intend to keep the House except merely to emphasise what was said at an earlier stage of the Debate. I wish to tell this House that the people of Ireland do not want this National Service Act applied to Ireland. We are here tonight to voice the opinions of the people of Ireland and to ask this House not to apply the Act to Ireland.
  Why should this measure be forced on Ireland against its will? Why force one measure on the majority—on the whole—of Ireland when you are unwilling to force another measure on a small minority in Ireland? I ask the House, when considering this Clause, to take into account the principle that was laid down on Wednesday last by the Prime Minister, a principle with which I entirely disagree, but a principle to which I say the Government must pay due regard if they intend to persist in forcing this particular Bill on Ireland. The people of Ireland do not want this Bill, and we, as representing the vast majority of the Irish people, are determined to oppose it at every stage in this House, and to press it to a Division. I would appeal to the House, in conclusion, to remember that, although
  820
  during the course of the War the Government has not been carried out in as democratic a manner as it ought to be, that although the voice of Ireland has been stifled on many occasions, this is not an occasion on which the voice of Ireland, as reflected by her representatives, should be ignored, and if the manner in which we have been treated on many occasions lately is persisted in in this, it will not be for the good of this country, or for the good of Ireland, and will probably have an effect on the Empire and the conduct of the War for which those who will advise the Government as to their action with reference to this matter will probably afterwards be very sorry.
  Captain GWYNN: I just want to say in a word why I personally am anxious to oppose this measure. It certainly is not that I am against National Service but National Service which I have helped to invite Irishmen to render in the shape of military service, has been essentially voluntary service, and I am against this measure, because it is essentially the framework for industrial conscription. I say that conscription, whether military or industrial, is not a thing that one nation has the right to impose upon another nation. It is a thing essentially that every nation must settle for itself. This House would never think of imposing by a vote conscription, whether military or industrial, on any of the self-governing Dominions, and it is because I feel that the question is practically raised, although not actually raised, here that I shall vote against it. That is, in one word, the attitude of an Irish Nationalist who is a soldier, and who is against any conscription and against any imposition of National Service upon Ireland which does not come from an Irish Legislature.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I do not pretend in any shape or form to speak on behalf of Ireland, or to put an Irish point of view. I leave that to the very able representatives of Ireland who are here. But there are one or two points in regard to this question of the extension of this Act to Ireland which are worthy of consideration from a British point of view. It may be asked: How can any Irish Member object to a purely voluntary arrangement in Ireland which is going to try to secure a better organisation of the industrial and agricultural resources of the country? How can any Irish Member object to a

  821
  volunteer scheme, by which a certain Director and certain commissioners in Ireland would be able to make better use of the available supplies of Irish labour? That, I am quite sure, is likely to be the question that will be asked by the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he rises. I say in reply to that, first of all, that this measure is undoubtedly an extension arising out of the Military Service Acts—that but for the Military Service Acts this question in this form would not have arisen in this country, and, therefore, it seems to me that the question of military service must be settled in Ireland first before this second question in regard to industrial service can arise. There are Members, I know, who are anxious to impose compulsory military service in Ireland, even against the wish of the great majority of the Irish representatives. That is a matter which, at any rate, will have to be settled, and, in my opinion, ought to be settled before the second question arises. I will give very practical reasons in support of that, not from the Irish point of view, but from the British point of view. Suppose, for example, this new scheme is applied to Ireland, what is going to happen? The moment the Irishmen become volunteers they are entirely at the disposal of the Director of National Service and can be sent anywhere he cares to send them. I can imagine nothing that is going to promote worse feeling between Irishmen and this country than that young men from Ireland who are not subject to military service themselves should be brought over under this scheme of National Service to this country in order to release men from this country who are going to the trenches. I say that is going to put Irishmen and Englishmen in an absolutely false position, and that is a point of view which ought to be very strongly taken in hand, and ought to be strongly faced by the Irish representatives as well as the members of the Government.
  I think that, apart from that, as one who claims to be a democrat, it is very difficult indeed to impose a measure of this kind upon Ireland in face of the opposition of the great majority of the representatives of Ireland, and indeed, if we defer so much to one small part of Ireland—Ulster in regard to legislation, how can we in logic pretend to override the wishes of the remainder of Ireland on a matter of this kind? I will ask this question of the Chief Secretary, because
  822
  it is one to which he will have to speak. This measure is going to begin on voluntary lines, but we have the definite assurance of the Prime Minister that if tins voluntary scheme does not succeed industrial compulsion is going to be introduced. If this voluntary scheme breaks down, is the same measure of compulsion going to be applied to Ireland that we are told is going to be applied to this country? That seems to me to be a matter that is entirely germane to the discussion, and I do not see, once you begin, how you can draw a line of distinction between Ireland and this country. Therefore, are you going to face the fact that this scheme is going to break down? I do not believe for a minute that, if you are looking for 500,000 effective male workers to act as substitutes, you are going to get them, and that for one very sufficient reason, which is that they are not there to be got. Therefore something else will follow. I have no doubt at all that compulsion will follow. Indeed, it will not matter very much what happens, because if there is a very small number of recruits brought in under this scheme the cry will be that the scheme has failed because of the smallness of the number, and that, therefore, we must have compulsion. If there is a very large number of recruits brought in the cry will be that, seeing that everybody has come in except the few shirkers and slackers, they ought not to be left out, and we must have compulsion. That will undoubtedly be the argument whatever happens, and therefore Ireland has a right to know now how much further this scheme is going to apply in case of failure. This is my last point. Heaven knows, in our dealings with this country, we are bungling sufficiently at the present time, and in certain directions we are creating a dangerous state of feeling in the country which seems to be appreciated everywhere except on the Front Bench opposite. If we bungle in our dealings with Britain, how much have we bungled in our dealings with Ireland? How much more have we failed to solve the difficult problems of Ireland? Therefore, from all those points of view, I think the Irish representatives, unless they get a far more definite assurance than they have got now—if they attach very much importance to Government assurance, which I very much doubt—I say they are absolutely justified in the attitude they are taking up.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Hon. Members from Ireland and the hon. Member who spoke last have been discussing two entirely different measures. The hon. Members from Ireland discussed a measure which they described as a gross piece of compulsion amounting to enslavement of Irish labour. That view was enlarged upon with a good deal of picturesque variety of phrase. We were told that men were going to be transferred against their wills to this country in thousands. We were told it was a conscription of labour. We were told it was an enslavement of labour. We were told that you might coax and persuade the Irish people, but you could not drive them—[An HON. MEMBER: "You try it on!"]—and that they would not have this system of conscription. Then the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) gets up and throws them all overboard, and says, "This is not a compulsory measure at all, but I want to warn the people of Ireland that there will be a compulsory measure some day if this is introduced." Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. There are some states of political opinion in which nothing satisfies men, in which neither a boon nor a disadvantage is accepted, and when one has gone recently into pronounced political opposition one may come to that state of mind. I do not believe that that state of mind exists among the people of Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER;"HOW do you know?"] I will tell hon. Members why. When the people of Ireland have a view about matters of this kind they take care to make it known to this House, and by every means. So far as I have been able to learn, the view of Ireland at present is that if a man wants to come to England for work and can get good wages he ought not to be prevented from doing it. That is one view I have found very prevalent in Ireland. Another view I have found prevalent there is that it is desirable, in the interests of Irish agriculture, that the recruitment of labour in Ireland, and the removal from Ireland of what might be surplus labour, should be so conducted that it did not deplete the supply of labour which is available in Ireland. I find both those views very definitely represented in places where politics have far less effect than in this House, and to both those views the Government is ready to give the most absolute effect.
  The view which is presented that this is some piece of oppression directed
  824
  against the people of Ireland is the view of politicians, and it is not the view of the people of Ireland, nor is it the view of the rank and file of the people who have labour to dispose of. Hon. Members from Ireland have presented that false view which is condemned by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Anderson). This is not a Conscription Bill or a measure which compels any man to work anywhere against his will. It does not call upon any neighbour in Ireland or any man engaged in any industry in Ireland to leave Ireland or remove from one part of Ireland to another if he is not so disposed. The hon. Member for Sheffield has made that perfectly apparent in his speech. He deals with realities in these things, and he has presented views on this matter which have to be deal with. He has dealt with the real Bill, and has not set up an imaginary measure to be used as a bogey, and as a means of unjust condemnation and censure of the Government in Ireland which has sufficient difficulties without the creation of artificial and imaginary grounds of condemnation.
  Now as to the Bill in its true effect. It will enable men in Ireland who are ready to volunteer on terms which will be made clear to them, either to migrate in Ireland to earn wages which they want to earn, or to migrate to England for labour to render service which they are willing to render and for larger wages which they are willing to earn, and which will enable those two classes to do what many of them prove to be anxious to do. To the extent of thousands the transfer of labour goes on, and no Member from Ireland proposes to put his fellow-countrymen under the statutory disability to prevent them coming to this country to earn the wages which may be got during war time On the contrary, during last summer it was a constant reproach against the Government that it placed obstacles in the way of the transit of labour from Ireland to England because a few men who came over here for temporary labour found themselves drawn into a compulsory system of military service.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce any quotation from any Member of the Irish party which would justify in the least the assertion which he has made.
  Mr. DUKE: It is not necessary to produce quotations upon the subject. When I became Chief Secretary that was the

  825
  daily topic of cross-examination of the Chief Secretary and the daily topic of censure of the Government. The proposition I make is that hon. Members do not take upon themselves to dictate to their, countrymen and say, "You shall not migrate upon profitable terms and you shall not come to work in England upon profitable terms." They would not do it, because their fellow-countrymen, who have as much sense of independence as any other body of men I have become acquainted with, would tell them to mind their own business and that they were going to get the best earnings they could. With a Bill which takes accounts only of existing processes of migration of labour and existing machinery for the recruitment of labour, which is designed only to organise the existing ordinary processes so that they are withheld from being the cause of damage in Ireland and so that they produce a maximum of benefit to labour in Ireland, where is the ground of objection in anything that has been said against it by any hon. Members from Ireland who have spoken?
  It will be time enough to discuss the aspect of compulsion and conscription and alleged enslavement of labour when any such proposal is presented to the House. No such proposal has been presented, and so far as I am aware no man who is not ready to introduce in Ireland compulsory military service would take upon himself to introduce in Ireland compulsory civil service. That is the answer to everything that was said in condemnation of the Bill by hon. Members from Ireland, and it is also the answer to the first of the objections made by the hon. Member for Sheffield. The two things are independent. The hon. Member for Galway (Captain Gwynn)—who has rendered services for which every one of his colleagues in this House is proud of him, military services of the greatest value, and who has set a most beneficial example—repudiated and opposed this Bill, and promised to vote against it because he had been an advocate of voluntary military service. I think I never came across a stronger condemnation in terms. The hon. Member is going to oppose this Bill, which provides for the organisation of voluntary civil service, because he is an advocate of voluntary military service. That is a strange state of things, and, apart from the circumstances of the hour, I should not have expected an argument of that kind from
  826
  my hon. and gallant Friend. But there it is, and it leads me to suppose that there is a good deal more in this opposition than the benefit of the labourers of Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Let us be frank. Hon. Members can be frank with one another here. There is a great deal more in this than opposition to the organisation of voluntary labour in Ireland. It is an opposition upon political grounds, and let it be justified on political grounds. Let hon. Members say to their constituents, "For political reasons we intend to deprive you, if we can, of an organisation which will protect your right to emigrate in pursuit of your own interests; which will protect your right to go to England and be withheld from military service, and to earn wages which will be advantageous." Let hon. Members tell their constituents that this is what they desire. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have that right now!"] They have not the organisation, as I have pointed out. We have an organisation, a great active and comprehensive system against which the lack of organisation in Ireland will prove a fatal detriment to the interests of Irish labourers and to the immediate substantial and pecuniary interests of Irish labour.
  What is the state of things now? Men are withdrawn from districts and this causes difficulties in local industries. Numbers of men are taken which under a properly organised scheme you would not take. What is proposed by this Bill? It is proposed that in Ireland there shall be a system operating side by side with the English system in co-operation with the operations of the Director-General of National Service. The first object of that organisation will be to secure men for that increased tillage of which the hon. Member for Long ford (Mr. Farrell) spoke, and to secure that the best possible supply of labour shall be forthcoming where it is wanted and when it is wanted, and that it shall not be depleted in advance by operations on this side, which are intended to procure enormous numbers of men for the special labour which has been spoken of by one or two hon. Members. How can that be anything but a benefit to Irishmen? It involves no conscription, but it provides a safeguard of the material interests of the individual labourer, and for the general interests of the community on the one great national industry in Ireland—that of agriculture. What more is there in it?
  Mr. FARRELL: What about the increased food supply in Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: I was referring to the increased food supply. I recognise with the hon. Member that increased tillage in Ireland necessitates some organisation to provide not only labour for the larger tillage, but for a larger harvest; in fact a bumper harvest—the largest harvest obtained within the memory of man, and considerably beyond the memory of the average man now living. If you get such a harvest, is it wise to leave the labour supply in Ireland in its present state in view of these facts'? My view is that the common interest and the interest of individuals require a better organisation, and when the hon. Member for Sheffield tells me that I must settle first the question of compulsory military service, I answer that that is not a question of practical politics at present. When he tells me that I create difficulties in this country and possibly difficulties in Ireland because this scheme will provide for the transference to England of men who will take the place of soldiers who have gone to the front, I say that you are transferring men here at the present time, but under this Bill you will transfer them upon a regular system which will be as advantageous to this country as may be and which will be no detriment to Ireland. As far as my interest in this Bill goes, the object I have in view has been, first, the well-being of Ireland and its industries and the Irish labourers, and, secondly, the well-being of the United Kingdom. If I am right in the view I have taken, and I put my view forward with considerable confidence that I am right, hon. Members are mistaken in their opposition, and as I have already pointed out they are opposing an imaginary measure which is not before the House, and they are opposing it upon entirely unsubstantial grounds and to the best of my belief the result will be if they succeed they will produce not benefits but detriment to their fellow countrymen.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. SCANLAN: The House has just listened to as ill-informed and as insulting a speech as has ever been delivered to the representatives of Irish opinions from the Front Opposition Bench in this House. The Chief Secretary has had the audacity to say to this House that my hon. Friend below me, who has moved this Clause, and those who have supported him—and in that he must be taken to include the whole of the Nationalist representatives of Ireland
  828
  —are actuated in proposing this Clause, not by any consideration for the well-being of the labourers of Ireland, but in order to achieve some political end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He also has the assurance, which in his case I must characterise as a piece of unblushing English ignorance of Ireland, to say that my hon. Friend who proposes this Clause, my hon. Friend who seconded it, and my hon. Friends who support it, do not understand what we are discussing here tonight. My right hon. Friend may think himself the prototype of English intelligence, and he is a man of considerable attainments, but surely none of his best friends will say that he is justified in saying to us on these benches that we no not understand the main underlying principle of a measure of this Kind. I will let that pass, because I think a reflection of that kind falls not so much on the Nationalists of Ireland as it does on a Gentleman occupying the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland, responsible for the Government of Ireland, and answerable in this House for the Government of Ireland to the overwhelming majority of the representatives of Ireland. He says that in moving this Clause and in objecting to the application of the Bill to Ireland we are not representing the feelings or the views of the people of Ireland. The views of Nationalist Ireland, forsooth, are hereafter to find their expression in this House, not from the elected representatives of Ireland, but from any casual Englishman who happens to be sent to Ireland and who occupies himself in misgoverning that country. He finds it consistent with his honour, with his sense of dignity, and with the respect which he has often expressed for the feelings of the people of Ireland to say to us that the views of Ireland are not represented by mere politicians. Who is he, the Member for Exeter by a majority of one, to refer to us the representatives of the great majority of the Irish people, whose elections for a quarter of a century have been unchallenged by any opposition in Ireland, as mere politicians? What is he but a mere politician—and an English politician at that—whose rights to speak for Ireland or for anybody in Ireland I emphatically deny?
  The Chief Secretary for Ireland has said to us, "Oh you simple people, you simple Irish Nationalists, you have entirely misread this measure. Why, this is a volun-

  829
  tary measure." Unless the Clause proposed by my hon. Friend is carried we are asked to link Ireland with England in this measure of compulsory service—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not compulsory"]—in this measure of National Service. I assert without the slightest fear of contradiction that there is not an honest man on the Treasury Bench who is not convinced, and who has not stated publicly, that it is the intention of the Government, if this alleged voluntary measure does not produce for Mr. Neville Chamberlain the quota of men he thinks necessary, or that may be thought necessary by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister to supply what they consider to be the needs of industry in this country, to follow it up by a measure of compulsion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), who is at least as high and important a member of the administration as the Chief Secretary, and who has a much more important position in the Government, because he is in the Cabinet and the Chief Secretary is a long way outside the Cabinet, has told the people of this country frankly, whatever pledges the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet may have given either in the House of Commons or the country, that unless the men considered necessary for industrial purposes are forthcoming the Government will not hesitate to translate this into a measure of absolute industrial conscription and compulsion.
  This is an English measure, and we are asked to adopt it for Ireland. It is a bad English measure, and we do not want English measures, good or bad, for Ireland. A large number of Members considerably underrate the amount of compulsion which is already contained in this measure. If Irishmen volunteer under this Bill and sign the forms sent out by the Director-General, it will certainly be open to the Director-General to send them to any industry in any part of England or Scotland. If it is thought necessary in the interests of the industrial concerns of this country engaged under the direction of the Government to make National Service compulsory, what is to protect Irishmen who may be brought over in those circumstances? I am not sure that even the Chief Secretary does not in his own mind believe that this measure already means compulsion, because in his last speech on this subject
  830
  in the House he stated that there might be much stronger means adopted by the Government to attract labour from Ireland than by means of advertising through the agency of the Labour Exchanges in Ireland. I have no doubt in that speech he contemplated that the Government might at any time in the near future make this measure compulsory in its application to Ireland. We will not have military compulsion in Ireland, and we are certainly as much opposed to industrial compulsion. Apart altogether from the employment of men in particular industries, what is to happen to Ireland if the Director-General of National Service, appointed under this Bill and exercising the power conferred upon him, decides to shut up Irish industries? Ireland is a country whose main industries have been killed by its unfortunate connection with this country. Ireland has few industries except the industry of agriculture. Are we to be asked to submit the few industries we have to a gentleman from Birmingham who knows nothing about Ireland, perhaps even less than the Chief Secretary? We object to any interference with the industries of Ireland.
  The best way in which Ireland can make a contribution to help this country to win the War is to make the scheme for increasing the food production of Ireland an efficient scheme, and to produce more food which will be available not only for the maintenance of the people of Ireland but for exportation to this country. How is our food scheme organized? It is very badly organised by the Chief Secretary. At the various meetings which we have had with him it was pointed out to him with absolute clearness that he had gone about the formation of his scheme and the preparation of his machinery in a way quite different from the method adopted by the Secretary for Scotland or the Minister in charge of the food production scheme for England. The Chief Secretary just consulted a few of the permanent officials in the various Departments of Government in Ireland. He decided on a scheme without taking any account of the needs of the country, the possibilities of the country, and the help which he could have got from the people of Ireland if he had taken the best means of consulting the views of practical agriculturists and those, responsible for county government. He did nothing of that kind. He launched his scheme without consideration, and, if it is successful, it will be so on account of the

  831
  good will of the people of Ireland under a great desire to increase the production of food in Ireland rather than on account of any advantage that belongs to the scheme itself, or on account of any trouble which he took to make it popular in Ireland. Are we in the same way to have to submit all the industries of Ireland, every manufacture, every trade, every business, to the supervision and direction, not of the right hon. Gentleman whom, to a small extent, we have educated in regard to Irish matters, but to a gentleman from Birmingham, who does not know near enough to regulate the industries of this country, in accordance with the powers conferred upon him by this measure, and who, I assert without fear of contradiction, is absolutely in ignorance of the industries and the needs of Ireland. If my right hon. Friend wishes to make this measure a success in England, I would advise him to keep his hands off Ireland.
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I would really appeal very earnestly to my hon. Friends below the Gangway not to press this new Clause, which, in spite of the protestations of the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), I do not really feel they have very much at heart. I do not know whether it is indiscreet of me to remind the House of what took place earlier in the evening, when a Division was called by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). There was a very small Division Lobby in favour of the new Clause then moved. I took particular care to observe those who voted in favour of that Clause, and not much more than half of the Members represented Irish constituencies. I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member for North Sligo refer in terms less than affectionate to the Chief Secretary. He talked of his ill-informed and insulting speech. He spoke of his unblushing English ignorance. He represented him as a casual Englishman misgoverning Ireland, but from what I know of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he has been a more frequent visitor to Ireland during his tenure of office than almost any Gentleman who has occupied it in past times. But I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) really does not entertain these sentiments about the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I believe everything I said about him, but I have nothing against him personally.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I know that, and I have a sufficient knowledge of Ireland to know that my right hon. Friend opposite is quite the most popular Chief Secretary for Ireland—
  Mr. SCANLAN: No, no: nonsense!
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Amongst all sections of public opinion in Ireland that has visited that country for some considerable time past.
  An HON. MEMBER: The Chief Secretary is never popular.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Coming to the serious aspect of the question, a great deal of complaint has been made about the question of compulsion. If I may respectfully represent it to my hon. Friends, there is nothing in their arguments whatever unless this measure either is compulsory in itself or inevitably leads to compulsion. I am prepared to say that this House, whether the Members belong to Irish constituencies or to any other, would never submit to this measure being transformed or translated into a compulsory measure without its full sanction. I cannot conceive that even the present Government—and I am glad to have the assurance of the Chief Secretary on this—that even the present Government, charged as it is with prerogatives that have never belonged to any Government in this country before, would dare to impose compulsion on this country in the matter of labour without the consent of the House of Commons.
  May I refer once again, and I say it with great respect, to the extreme undesirability of excluding Ireland from what I may properly describe as Imperial measures. There are measures that in my judgment, having regard to the present position of Ireland this House should not seek to impose upon Ireland against the express wish and opinion of those who represent the majority of the people of Ireland. But I venture to submit that this is not a case in point. And I venture to remind my hon. Friends that it would be very greatly to their disadvantage—I was going to say very much to the discredit of Ireland, and of Irishmen in England—if they seek to exclude themselves from this measure. I said the other evening that, for the first time in my life,

  833
  a feeling of some resentment was growing up in this country against Irishmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) corrected me by saying that in this House Irishmen were so unpopular at one time that there was only one Member of the House, the late Mr. Labouchere, who would speak to an Irish Member. But I was not speaking of politicians. We have our squabbles in this House, some of them very often of a somewhat histrionic character, but I am talking about an ill-feeling that might arise as between the mass of the people of Great Britain and the mass of the people of Ireland. I venture to think that if Irish Members of their own motion try to exclude themselves, and much more if they succeed in excluding themselves, from this measure, it might tend very largely to ill-feeling as between the Irish people and the people of Great Britain, and I venture to submit that that would be a misfortune of the gravest character.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I only propose to intervene for a few moments to strengthen the position, or to add to the strength of the case which has been made by my hon. Friends against the application of this measure to Ireland, and incidentally, perhaps, I may be permitted to say that I regret that we cannot find ourselves in agreement with my hon. Friend who has just sat down. No one knows better than I do the long and consistent and generous and unselfish support which my hon. Friend has given to all the causes for which we stand in this House, and, therefore, I am quite sure he will agree that in any observations I may make upon his speech I quite recognise the sincerity of the position which he occupies. But, if he will permit me to say so, I cannot regard the application of this measure to Ireland as the great boon which he conceives it to be. In the first place, I may say that, broadly speaking, apart from Ireland altogether, I regard this National Service Bill as one of the most indefensible proposals ever submitted to any democratic assembly. We are told that it is for the purpose of organising the industrial forces of this country. I have not examined its development very closely, but I can say this, that in my opinion it is the greatest jumble that was ever known in the history of any country. You introduce a system for the purpose of organising and coordinating industries in this country, and the first thing you do is to draw men away
  834
  from their employment, and you do not know what to do with them when you have got them away. You get them to proffer their services in that spirit of unselfishness which has guided so many of the citizens of this island in the great task in which they are engaged in the prosecution of this War, and you leave them there. I do not propose to enter into the merits of the question at all, though if I cared to address myself to the matter itself, I would say that any ordinary untutored Member of Parliament could tear this measure to tatters.
  I come, then, to the question, Is it for the good of Ireland? I am quite sure that my hon. Friend believes that it is for the good of Ireland, but are you imposing it upon us because it is for the good of Ireland? Is that the spirit that inspires any of those who constitute the present Government of our country? You can keep your boons and you can reserve your favours until you give us the liberty which will enable us to be partners in your glory as well as being victims of your administration, and I, for my part, as a Member of this House, must state here, representing my Constituency, that even if this measure were a measure tending to materially improve Ireland, given to us without consideration of Irish needs and necessities, I would not regard it as any boon at all. There was a discussion in the House to-night to which I listened with very great interest, and I tried to intervene in it, upon the question of an advisory committee to the Director-General (Mr. Neville Chamberlain). It was proposed by English Members that a Committee of the House should be appointed to be an advisory council to Mr. Neville Chamberlain. I am afraid you are getting to a position in England similar to that to which we have got in Ireland. You have repudiated all constitutional government in Ireland, and you are seeking now by the same methods to rob the people of England of all those democratic rights and constitutional liberties of which this House is the symbol and the authority.
  Let me take a case in point. When first the question of food production was raised in this House and on the platforms of this country—the necessity for larger food production—a number of my colleagues and myself were formed into a committee of the Irish party, of which I was the chairman, to endeavour to secure larger food production in Ireland. We sat from

  835
  day to day for four or five hours, in the House when the House was sitting and outside the House, in Dublin, when the House was not sitting, and I venture to say that the report which we drafted, containing the proposals we made, was the result of careful and well-considered and well-informed opinion. It was approved of by the "Irish Times," the organ of the Unionist party in Ireland. Our conclusions were based on opinions gathered from the representatives of the farming and labouring classes and of all sections in Ireland. We put forward those results of our deliberations with experienced men in Ireland, by which we could have obtained a large increase of food. We sent our report to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, no doubt, considered it. But he brought it over to Ireland to one of the most narrow of the Irish bureaucracies that guide and control the destinies of Ireland, and they practically rejected all our proposals. What happened a fortnight afterwards? The Prime Minister of this country stood at the Treasury Box, before a large House, which was moved and impressed by the wonderful genius he displayed in dealing with the food problem, and five-sixths of the proposals contained in his statement were proposals that might have been taken holus bolus from the report of the Irish party. Yet our report was turned down by one of the bureaucracies that run Ireland, giving us another indication that if everyone of us were a Solomon and gathered together to give any advice or information or assistance in any matter affecting our country, because it came from the representatives of the people it was despised and trampled upon. These are some of the considerations which ran through my mind when I came here shocked, pained, and bewildered at the conduct of the Government in refusing to transfer to Ireland the responsibility of guiding and controlling her own affairs. There are some minutiae and detail which were mentioned here which are of no consequence and make no impression on the public mind in Ireland.
  We are now as a party in opposition to this Government. We want no favours of the character described by my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Harmsworth). We offered you friendship, co-operation, union, patriotism, vitality, strength, and Irish heroism, and you rejected them all. You sent us, first cajoled and then dis-
  836
  appointed, back to our country. Now you ask us to be further partners in whatever schemes you choose to devise for this country, while you treat us like helots and, in your persuasive and dulcet tones, adopt the attitude of the late Lord Salisbury, that we are not freeborn citizens but Hottentots. That is my position in regard to this measure, which you have proposed in a patronising way to apply to Ireland. We are not going to be dragged at the chariot wheels of any system that is built up to despise the Irish nation. We will vote against the application of this measure in order to let English people see what has been hidden from them already, that you do not want Irish help, that you would rather see the Empire at the bottom of the sea than give to Ireland the right which Ireland has longed for and the satisfaction of whose aspirations would alone give you strength and power where you are weak and defenceless in your Imperial armour. I for one helped, as I did for nearly a year, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) and other of my colleagues. We were good enough to help you, or you thought that we were good enough to help you, but now you think you are free enough not to reciprocate what we did. All I have to say is that if the good will, kindness, generosity and desire to co-operate are to be despised, then we will try those other methods with the strength and vitality of our own race here and in Ireland.
  Colonel M'CALMONT: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) in what he has just said to the House, because I do not think it would do any good. To add bitterness to this or any other Debate is not going to help us to win the War. It is a pity that it should go forth that the views which have been expressed by my fellow-countrymen on the other side of the House are those of the whole of Ireland. It has been clearly stated on previous occasions that the position of Ulster in regard to this measure is one of contentment in that, I hope, the vast majority of her citizens are anxious to do what they can to win the War. I should like to refer to one point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Gwynn). I am one of those who have the greatest admiration not only for him, but for others, including the hon. and gallant Member for East Clare (Major William Redmond) who have sacrificed

  837
  themselves and entered His Majesty's service, and are still, so far as I know, serving His Majesty in France. It was a great disappointment to me as an Irish soldier, also and as one who has had the honour of commanding for something like eighteen months, a battalion composed almost entirely of fellow-countrymen coming from those parts of Ireland represented by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, to find that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway should get up in this House to oppose this measure. What is the object of this measure? It is to win the War, and win it as soon as possible. He has left behind him in France thousands of Irish soldiers, his own friends, whose great desire is to get the War finished at the earliest possible moment. Despite that, he elects to tell this House that he is against the measure, and to do his little bit—I do not say it is a very large thing, but rather a small thing—to delay the Government in bringing forward the measure, which we believe is likely to bring about a successful and early conclusion of the War.
  I am not able to speak with intimate knowledge of the views of my own Constituents, because I have only found it possible to go there once in the last eighteen or nineteen months, therefore I cannot voice their opinions with the strength I should be able to command if I had been in close contact with them. I can only voice the opinions, and I think I am entitled to do so, of Irish soldiers, whether they come from the North or any other part of Ireland. I am perfectly satisfied, despite what the hon. and gallant Members for East Clare and Galway say, that the Irish soldier is just as determined to see this War through as any other soldier. If those hon. Members who, as they so often tell us, represent the vast majority of the Irish people, are determined to prevent and delay the Government on every possible occasion when they bring forward and pass measures designed to win the War and which the vast majority of hon. Members of this House believe to be conducive to winning this War, then I contend that the best of the manhood of Ireland is not being represented in this House. I know that many hon. Members opposite have taken great pride in the doings of Irish soldiers. Many of them have assisted in recruiting. They believe they represent these men, but I contend that in this and in all matters connected
  838
  with the winning of the War they are doing not only a disservice but insulting not only the soldiers themselves but the memories of those who have been killed in this War by opposing measures which after all are nothing more or less than war measures. I was a little surprised to hear the Mover of this new Clause say there were no important industries in Ireland, and I was very surprised not to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) correct him in that statement. I should have thought he would be the first to claim that even in West Belfast certain industries were represented.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I was not in for my hon. Friend's speech, but most of my Constituents, who were engaged in industries in West Belfast, have gone to the front.
  Colonel M'CALMONT: I am well aware that a great many of the hon. Member's constituents have gone and I am very glad to hear him infer that he would disagree with his hon. Friend if he had been in the House at the time. The munitions question is an important question in Ireland just as it is in this country. It is important in my judgment that this Bill should apply to Ireland and, apart from any other point of view, from the munitions point of view. There are most important industries, mostly in the North of Ireland, and I believe this measure, as it is designed to do, will assist very materially in the proper distribution of labour in those important industries, and that in that way, as well as in other ways, it will assist in carrying on the War, which ought to be, and which I honestly believe is, the great desire of the mass of Irish opinion.
  Mr. DILLON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has once more made a strong appeal to us on this matter. He recalled to the House the small number of Irish Members in the Division Lobby when I moved an Amendment in Committee similar to that which we are now discussing. I will ask him to examine the Division List to-morrow morning. That Bill came on without due notice to the Irish Members and most of our party were absent, but every Nationalist Member then in the House voted with me. I think, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman examines the Division List to-morrow he will find that the vote of Ireland will be given somewhat in the following proportion: about 65 in favour of this Clause, and 4 against. I think that will satisfy him at least as to

  839
  what the view of Ireland is. It has been said that we do not represent Ireland. That is a common thing nowadays. I have always endeavoured to be very frank on this matter. We do not represent Ireland as we used to, but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harmsworth) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel M'Calmont) I do not think can draw very much comfort from that.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I did not suggest for a moment that hon. Members below the Gangway did not represent the majority.
  Colonel M'CALMONT: I do not think I said so either. I said in this matter. I certainly did not intend to say that Nationalist Members did not represent the opinion of Ireland. If I said so, I withdraw it.
  Mr. DILLON: I think we do represent Ireland in this matter. I know the very honourable reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been able to visit his constituents, but I think when he has leisure to visit Ireland he will find that we not only represent Ireland, but those whom we do not for the moment represent go far beyond our views. It is not really in this and other matters that we have recently been taking action in the House and that we do not represent Ireland, but that we do not go far enough for Ireland, and that is a very common criticism. But really when the hon. and gallant Gentleman made the appeal that he has just made, and said we did not, at all events, speak for the best manhood in Ireland, he alluded to the gallant regiment of Ireland of which we are just as proud as he is, because the rank and file come from our constituencies and it has covered itself with glory from the very outset of the War. He seems to assume that our views would be condemned unanimously by the soldiers at the front. I think he is going a little too far. I would ask him to recall this fact, that when a similar assumption was made in regard to the Australian soldiers the Australian Government met with rather a strange surprise, because when they put the vote for Conscription to the Australian soldiers in the trenches a heavy majority was recorded against it. That shows that men may be fighting gallantly at the front and differ from this all-wise Government.
  840
  Our objection to this measure being applied to Ireland is two-fold. In the first place, we object to it because we have been fully and frankly told that in the course of a few weeks it would be turned into a compulsory measure, and we should be false to our position as representatives of Ireland if we submitted, or gave the Government to understand that Ireland would submit, to compulsion in this matter any more than to military compulsion. The feeling in Ireland on this subject is intense, and any attempt to inflict compulsion on Ireland in the matter of labour or employment or business will be resisted almost as bitterly as any attempt to inflict military compulsion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman assumes, as if it were an axiom in mathematics about which there could be no difference of opinion, that because this measure is introduced by this all-wise Government therefore it must be a good measure and good for the country. I do not accept that at all. I am convinced that it is not a wise measure. I am convinced that this country is rapidly drifting to that view, and that even for this country it will be found that this measure of National Service is a failure and has been conceived in ignorance of the true condition of the country. I do not believe it will be a success, though I am sure we shall be told it is a success. But if you take up the Press of this country, even already the most vehement, frantic, violent, almost hysterical pro-war Press is already beginning to throw cold water on the scheme and to ridicule Mr. Chamberlain, against whom I do not want to say a word, because my own opinion is that, in his zeal for the public service, being asked to undertake this job he undertook it without sufficient thought. It was not his task, but he felt called upon to undertake it when the Government put it on his shoulders. I believe from all I have been able to hear that Mr. Chamberlain himself by this time is thoroughly sick of the whole thing, and would give anything in the world to get out of it, because I believe he is already up against the realities of the situation and is beginning to realise that it is going to be not only a very troublesome job, but very unproductive of results. That is our first reason for objecting to having this measure applied to Ireland, because we are informed, and we know it is only the preliminary to a compulsory measure. Coming to the second objection—that is, to its merits as a voluntary measure—I traverse

  841
  absolutely the whole position taken up by the Chief Secretary, as it has been reported to me by my colleagues. I did not happen to hear his speech. I cannot conceive that this measure is necessary in Ireland or is likely to be productive of good results. Labour is scarce in Ireland to-day. There is abundant occupation for all the labour in Ireland. You have obtained a considerable quantity of labour from Ireland for munition works, building and dock works in this country. I stated frankly when you commenced recruiting for this work in Ireland that we were prepared, as representatives of the Irish people, to take either one course or the other. We were prepared to advise our people to come over here if you wanted them, but if you did not want them we asked you to tell us, so that we could frankly tell them to stay at home. You told us, you told me, and gave me positive pledges, which I had not only across the floor of the House, but in private from the right hon. Gentleman who was then President of the Local Government Board, and from other Ministers, that if Irish labourers came over here they would not be interfered with. You broke that promise. They were not only interfered with, but they were arrested and hauled up, and several of them forcibly put into the Army. They were also grossly insulted, and in some parts of the country they were pelted with mud, because they came over to work. We did not want them to come over; they were invited and urged to come.
  Not only is that a fact, but in order to try to bring home to Members of this House the persistent stupidity with which these things are worked in Ireland, and to enable hon. Members, if I can, to understand the jealousy with which we look upon all these proposals, I would point out that in the autumn of 1915 the then Lord Lieutenant, who is Lord Lieutenant at the present time, and Captain Kelly, who was then at the head of the Recruiting Department in Ireland, set about instituting a new recruiting campaign for the Army, which was strongly supported by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. Captain Kelly came to me two or three times and complained bitterly, saying, "How am I expected to get Irish recruits when I go down to the country to get Irish recruits at a shilling a day to fight in the trenches, and I find another Government agent across the road recruiting men and offering them £2 10s. a week for work at Gretna, with the assurance that they
  842
  will not be asked to serve in the Army?" That is the condition of things which prevailed in Ireland for a long time, so that from the very beginning you were carrying on this kind of incredible stupidity, attempting with one hand to get recruits, and, on the other hand, doing everything you can suggest to defeat your own purposes. You have taken away from Ireland thousands of labourers. I do not complain now, because, although I made the suggestion a year ago, we have, after a long struggle, succeeded in setting up a system by which these Irish labourers get passports on the production of which the military cannot touch them. You are bringing them over now in thousands. I believe there are 8,000 or 10,000 at Gretna, and 8,000 or 15,000 in various other places throughout the country, whore they are so numerous that no one dares to molest them. They are getting exceedingly good pay, and, of course; it is a great attraction, because they are much higher wages than they get at home. The consequence is that at the present time one of the great obstacles to any food scheme in Ireland is the scarcity of labour, just as it is in this country. Now you propose to apply this system of National Service to Ireland. I want to know for what purpose? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel M'Calmont) said there were great munition works there, and it was desirable to have National Service for the munition works. Has he considered the nature of the work in those works? Although there are a few munition factories in Ireland there are not half as many as there ought to be.
  Colonel M'CALMONT: Ships.
  Mr. DILLON: You can get plenty of women to work there, and they are the best women workers they have been able to get in any part of the United Kingdom. So munition experts have reported. There is an abundance of female work in Dublin, but the wages are perfectly disgraceful. The munition works can get all the labour they desire. We have comparatively little munition work in Ireland. What are you going to do with National Service in Ireland? The people of the country are employed, labour is scarce, everybody is at work, and, in my opinion, in Ireland, which is not a country much addicted to what are called luxury trades or nonessential work, nine-tenths or nineteen-twentieths of the people of Ireland, are employed in very essential work. There-

  843
  fore the whole of this scheme is, in my opinion, not likely to have a beneficial application in Ireland. If there be extra labour at the present moment you want it exceedingly badly in England, and the worst way you can get it in England is to attempt to put pressure upon the Irish people or to attempt to bring them over by force. If you attempt that you will get no more labour. You are getting more labour now than we can well spare. So long as you treat them decently, as they are now treated decently, we raise no difficulty. You are getting them freely now, and there is no need to have this great machine applied. One thing I object to about this Government is that it appears to make quite a fetish of departments and of bureaucracies and of machines. They are not content if everything is going on well to leave well alone and to leave people to find out their own department of employment and do it. They must create enormously expensive machines and take everybody by the scruff of the neck and drive them into some employment, not the employment that the person naturally selects, but the employment which the Department or the officials think is best for him. I honestly do not believe that this plan of National Service will produce any real and practical results in Ireland.
  Now I come to a point I raised the other day by a question in the House. Supposing you do decide to apply this Bill to Ireland or supposing you persist in applying it to Ireland, how are you going to work it? That is a point we have a right to be perfectly clear about. I did not hear the Chief Secretary, and I do not know whether he dealt with that matter. You cannot for a single moment—and I am sure the Chief Secretary knows enough about Ireland to know that I am speaking the truth—dream of allowing Mr. Neville Chamberlain from Birmingham to rule the Irish people.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member did not hear my speech. I tried to make it clear that there shall be a separate organisation in Ireland, planned in Ireland and controlled in Ireland, merely working in co-operation with the organisation under Mr. Chamberlain's control. That is the intention. The precise constitution of that body must be a matter to be adjusted as nearly as possible to meet the wishes of the population or the sections of population in the different parts of the country,
  844
  and with the object of securing that the control is Irish control and that the work is done in such a manner as shall meet with the approval of the whole body of Irishmen.
  Mr. DILLON: Is it to be independent? Is it to be controlled from England, or is it to be thoroughly independent? Is it to be a new department of the Irish Government, and if so, will it be introduced by a separate Estimate? Is the Irish Controller to be a salaried officer, and is he to be represented in this House, and if not, why not? Are we to have no one whom we can catechise and criticise in this House just as the English will have? Is the Controller to be a wholly separate Minister? If not, is he to be subordinate to Mr. Chamberlain? Are Mr. Chamberlain and his representative the Parliamentary Secretary to be responsible for the control of the Irish Department?
  Mr. DUKE: The intention is that the Chief Secretary, or sombody speaking on his behalf, shall answer in this House for the Irish Department of National Service.
  Mr. DILLON: Presumably, from that, the Irish Controller will be totally independent of Mr. Chamberlain, because otherwise there is no meaning in it. Therefore, what you propose to do is not to apply this Bill to Ireland, but to set up an Irish Department wholly separate, and therefore you ought to put this on the Irish Estimates and start an Irish Ministry of Control, as otherwise the Irish party will be under the impression—and I do not see how they can get rid of it—that this man in Ireland is to be a subordinate to Mr. Chamberlain. That is a matter which I commend to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, because it is a very serious matter indeed. I need hardly say that before this Bill passes out of the House he ought to inform us who is to-be the Irish Controller. The Irish Controller is a gentleman whom I do not envy in any way. I think he will find that he has got a difficult job. I am told that Mr. Chamberlain has already come to the conclusion that he would have been a much wiser man if he had not tackled his job. But his job is much lighter than that of the Irish Controller. So, before this Bill passes its Third Reading, the right hon. Gentleman should state who is to be the Irish Controller, and give us an opportunity of expressing our views on this

  845
  gentleman. I do not make any suggestion, nor do I intend to make any, but we are entitled to express our views before this Bill goes further. I take it as quite clear that what is intended to be done in Ireland is to set up a separate Department. Ireland is, unfortunately, overridden by a multiplicity of Boards and Departments, and we are now to have a new one, and the powers which that gentleman will have, as they have been elicited in the course of this Debate, are extremely formidable. That makes it all the more important that he should be a man upon whom the mass of the people can place some reliance, because he will have the power of turning down any Irish industry or struggling small trade.
  9.0 P.M.
  For instance, a good many people in Ireland say that the shopkeepers of that country are a public nuisance, and that there ought to be some method, particularly in war-time, devised for distributing goods all over the country without the intervention of what are called middlemen. There is nothing to prevent the Irish Controller closing every shop in the whole country in order to set free all the assistants in the shops under this system, which is merely a system of concealed compulsion, and turning all these employés on to the streets, and saying, "Now you must go and look for your daily bread in some other industry, and I, as Controller, will tell you what you have got to do for the good of the country." If the man were an absolute despot, no man's property or living is secure once you set up the system even under the Bill as it stands, and without any compulsion at all. And you are inviting us in Ireland, a country which heaven knows is torn enough already with faction and trouble of every kind, to set up a despotism which may add immeasurably to the disturbance and bitterness which exist in that unhappy country, and create fresh trouble and fresh disorder, and the Chief Secretary may yet live to curse the day that he ever set it in motion. I am not one of those who have any feeling of bitterness whatever against the Chief Secretary. I sympathised deeply with him when the Prime Minister settled on him to offer him up on the sacrificial altar of the Irish Office. I cannot imagine a more horrible task for any man than to govern Ireland at the present moment under the present system of government, and to take up the fatal legacy of that
  846
  system which the Prime Minister himself stated, only six months, ago had hopelessly broken down.
  I should imagine that the Chief Secretary, even after the short experience which he has had, would have said to himself, "Ireland is sufficiently torn, sufficiently lacerated with passions and contentions, and I will not introduce into that unhappy country any fresh cause of disturbance." But instead of that, under the absurd idea of helping this country to carry on the War, you are going to force upon us, against the almost unanimous verdict of the representatives of Ireland, a system which is not wanted, which is wholly impracticable, which can do no good, and which may do a vast deal of mischief. That is a good illustration of how the affairs of Ireland are administered. An hon. Member made an appeal to us which moved me, coining from a genuine friend of our cause, and our country. He appealed to us not to separate ourselves from this country, and stand apart as it were, and refuse to aid her in this terrible hour of her trial. My answer is that we did our best to aid her, and that they struck down the hand which we held out. I myself, although I have been held up as an extremist, and a man who above all others represented the aloofness of Ireland, was the man who on the eve of the declaration of war pressed on my colleagues to go up to Lord Kitchener at the War Office, and offer the whole of our influence, and all the enthusiasm of our people, and we were turned out of the War Office, and the offer we made was treated with contempt and scorn. And yet in spite of that for months we struggled to bring the strength of Ireland to your back in this struggle. You despised and scorned us and met every effort we made with insult Our power is now paralysed, and my advice to you once more to-night is the same as I gave you the other night—In God's name let Ireland alone. Let the wounds you inflicted on her and the insults which are festering in her soul to-day heal, and perhaps time will bring a remedy.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we find ourselves in a very extraordinary and, indeed, unprecedented position. In view of the statement of the Chief Secretary, during the Committee stage of this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo-moved that Ireland should be excluded from its operations. The Chief Secretary,

  847
  in his speech on that occasion, though he lectured the Irish members, and pointed out the errors of their ways, did not say-one single word with regard to what the plans of the Government were concerning Ireland. We have now been debating upon this Amendment since the start of the dinner-hour, and the Chief Secretary replied to the speeches that had been made in respect to the new Clause, but from the start to the finish of his speech he did not say one single word to the Irish Members of the House of Commons that gave them the smallest indication of what the proposals are with regard to our country. It was only in an interruption in the speech of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Mayo that he got up at that box, and in two words tells us that we are now to have a separate Controller and Director of National Service in Ireland. It is apparent that he has been revolving the whole subject in his mind, and that he has got a plan for Ireland cut and dried up his sleeve. I want to know why he has not produced that plan to Irish Members, why has he not produced it to the House of Commons, why has he allowed this Bill to be brought in here on the Report stage, knowing that this question was raised in Committee, knowing that it would be raised on the Report stage again, and why has he not put down his Amendments to make this Bill apply to Ireland according to the plans he has in his mind, and so give some indication to the House of Commons of what he has in view? In view of the extraordinary way in which we are proceeding, and of this Government muddle, we have the right to a postponement of this measure until the Chief Secretary comes down and lays his Amendment on the Table of the House.
  It is all very well for the Chief Secretary to sneer at the Irish party and their opposition to this Bill, and to say that it is the opposition of politicians. If I may make a rejoinder to the Chief Secretary, I will tell him straight to his face that his speech to-night on this Bill is the speech not even of a politician or a statesman, but of a lawyer. My hon. Friend who moved the omission of this Clause and the exclusion of Ireland spoke about your driving Ireland in this direction. The Chief Secretary got up and said that all these speeches were wide of the
  848
  mark, that there was no single inch of compulsion in this Bill at all, and that such speeches were outside the scope of the Bill before the House; yet he knew perfectly well that it was not to the terms of this Bill that those remarks were addressed at all, but to the action of the Government in forcing this Bill upon Ireland, in spite of the fact that Ireland does not want it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke from behind the Government Bench, while his language was of a most conciliatory character, adopted what I cannot help thinking was that attitude of eternal ascendancy towards Ireland that has prevailed for so long in this House. He spoke of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway City, and said he was sorry he had joined with his Irish colleagues in doing anything which would hamper, or injure, or delay the progress of the War. It is not we who are doing anything to hamper, or injure, or delay, the progress of the War; it is the Government, who are forcing this measure upon Ireland. I admire that extraordinary attitude of mind of the hon. Gentleman and his friends upon the Government Bench and in the Cabinet which thinks that everything which is done upon the Irish Benches is done to obstruct, to interfere, and delay the War, whilst they know in their own hearts and conscience that it is their own failure to deal straightly and fairly with Ireland which is the great bar to the progress of the War at this moment. I think the obvious duty of the Chief Secretary, in view of the conditions which prevail in Ireland, is to table the Amendments that will make this Bill apply to Ireland according to his intentions. I hope that he will be able, on the further Amendments that are to come up for discussion, to make his position in this respect perfectly clear. If he does not, I am afraid it may be necessary for us to ask the House to postpone the further consideration of this Bill until he is in a position to do so.
  Mr. LARDNER: I am sorry I cannot congratulate the Chief Secretary on the manner and method of his speech. According to my view of that speech, I do not think that he ever in his professional career, marked his addresses to the jury with that policy of the strong hand which we have seen to-night. While we believe in his good intentions as regards Ireland, any attempt, any endeavour to adopt the policy of thrusting on Ireland a measure which has absolutely no enthusiasm

  849
  whatever in that country will be a mistake. The right hon. Gentleman said the opposition was a political opposition. I make him a present of that argument; but, so far as this Bill is concerned, the policy underlying this Bill is doomed in Ireland by reason of past experience. One of the most dangerous things in this House is legislation by reference, and another most dangerous thing is the application of British measures to Irish conditions. We have had experience of that in social legislation in recent is years, connected with objects which were popular and which were desired and wanted in Ireland. Will anybody dare to suggest that the system established in this House for purely English conditions, even with the best will in the world, has been the success in Ireland which it ought to be? The Chief Secretary says, "Here is a Bill for Great Britain which establishes a. Director-General for National Service." I understand that he means there shall be a separate Director-General for Ireland. But that would not meet the conditions at all, for whoever is appointed as Director-General in Ireland will have to take his orders from the English Director-General. I cannot help thinking that the shibboleth of the party dealing with this question in Ireland is a very dangerous one, not only to that country but also to England, in regard to winning the War—and, of course, we all want to win the War. But we are determined to resist the passage through the House of unreasoned, ill-considered gimcrack legislation, and if you want to win the War it must be by good will, consideration for, and trust and confidence in, the Irish people.
  There is no enthusiasm for this measure in Ireland, and I will go further and say in England. I am told that there is to be a meeting in the Albert Hall to consider the whole question after launching this measure. Will the Chief Secretary call a meeting in Ireland? The other day in connection with the Summer Time Bill he was very solicitous about the fact that he had got varying views from different Irish bodies in regard to that measure. Has he consulted various Irish bodies with reference to this Bill or the principle which underlies it? I think if he does that he will get a practically unanimous reply against it, for the reason that your Bill is a British measure for British conditions. It is not for a country which has been depleted of its skilled men, of its artizans, and of its tradesmen. Yet you
  850
  are going to apply the same policy and the same principle to a country where, under the Old Age Pensions Act, there is a larger proportion of people over seventy years of age than in any other part of the three Kingdoms. In talking of the proposal to regulate labour in Ireland, I was surprised that the Chief Secretary should speak of surplus labour in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman pays many visits to Ireland, but it would be better if he spent more time in that country and if he did not cross to and fro so frequently. Does he not know that in the principle industry in Ireland—the agricultural industry—there is a shortage of labour? He talks about a well-regulated scheme. The conditions that now obtain of poor wages are by reason of a system to which the Prime Minister himself gave the go by, so far as this country is concerned, in his speech on food production. Why is it that you have got such a population of Irish people in America and Australia, and that Ireland is to-day depleted of labour, so that we cannot talk about surplus labour there? It is because of the policy you have pursued and the legislation you have passed with regard to Ireland, in spite of the opposition of the members of the party with whom I have the honour to sit and act. The Chief Secretary has sprung this proposal on the House of a separate Controller of National Service in Ireland. I suggest to him that he will be doing the best service possible to Ireland and to his own administration there by accepting this Motion for the exclusion of Ireland. If he can make out a case for this Bill and produce a well-reasoned scheme, which has been submitted to the people in Ireland and accepted by them, then he will have some hope of doing something to win the War.
  I may tell the Chief Secretary, if he goes on with the present scheme under the cry raised by an hon. and gallant Member that we want to win the War, he will only be making trouble for himself and his own administration. All of us are anxious in Ireland to do what is best for Ireland and what is best in the interests of this country too, but I think the answer to his whole argument to-night is to be found in a reply which he gave to a question in regard to the 10 per cent. tillage scheme in Ireland. He said he expected to have a very big margin. That is not because the Government scheme is a good one. Everybody admits that, and even some of the Government officials are

  851
  willing to admit that it is not workable. That great increase in agriculture will be produced by the good will of the Irish people. I ask the Chief Secretary if he persists in his refusal to accept this Amendment, how does he think he is going to compel workmen and tradesmen of all kinds in Ireland to wear badges? Does he think he will succeed in organising Ireland on those lines? He tells us this a purely voluntary scheme. If it is so, and if it is not the forerunner of something further at a later date, in view of the results which he has obtained from purely voluntary effort and good will with regard to tillage, what reason can be found for pressing on this Bill with reference to Ireland? I urge on him that he ought to take into consideration Irish opinion and Irish conditions. The same principle which applies to this country cannot possibly apply to Ireland, and Ireland will on its merits resist this proposal by every means in its power. Ireland has had experience of other measures of social legislation, which were brought in by this country and applied to Ireland, and which were carried out and directed in Ireland by officers appointed from outside, wholly out of touch with the Irish people and out of sympathy with their conditions, their needs and wants. I am certain of this. If a case can be made out, and I do not thing it can, for the establishment of some system of organised labour in Ireland by reason of her conditions, and a scheme prepared and submitted to the Irish people and to the local authorities, about whom the Chief Secretary was so solicitous recently, then I say there is some hope of doing some good. But if the right hon. Gentleman goes on with the present scheme I can promise him, and I do it not in the nature of a threat but merely by reason of the knowledge I have of affairs in Ireland, that, instead of helping matters, he will only injure them.
  Mr. LYNCH: There is something anomalous in the conditions under which this Bill is being pressed forward by the Chief Secretary with the words of the Prime Minister still fresh upon our minds, that no legislation will be forced on Ireland where a minority object. We have this Bill, which is obnoxious to the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, pushed forward with only the support of that small minority. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary intends to
  852
  persist, and even now, if there is a place of repentance left open for him, I hope that he may avail himself of that chance, because if this Bill becomes law it seems to me to be fraught with much danger and much evil to the future. The Irish people will regard it as what is called the thin end of the wedge of a compulsory system, and they will have their suspicions aroused that compulsion in industrial matters may eventually be pushed forward, till it becomes compulsion also in military matters. Although any such intention may be disclaimed from the Front Bench, it is also fresh in our memories that when other important Bills were brought in, such as the Registration Act and the Defence of the Realm Act, we were also assured from that Front Bench that their scope would be limited as much as possible, and that it was never intended to use them in the way they have since been used, particularly in Ireland, where the Defence of the Realm Act has been applied in a manner never contemplated by any Member of this House when it was first introduced. This Bill is brought in on the false plea of raising the general efficiency of the whole country, but there is a much simpler way of raising the general efficiency of Ireland, and that method is to leave Irish affairs to be managed by Irish representatives. I will take one illustration, and that is with regard to the application of the system of increasing food production. When that was introduced it was to some extent mismanaged. Local people took it up with good will, examined it, studied it and with full knowledge of their local conditions presented from time to time a series of suggestions to the Department of Agriculture and to the Chief Secretary, each one of which, if applied, would have been beneficial to their own district. Every one of those suggestions were rejected from Dublin, without examination of the local conditions, and ignoring them, or not caring for them, and rejected on account of the uniformity of the scheme.
  If it is thought to increase the productivity of Ireland and the general efficiency of the country, speaking of my own Constituency, I believe it would be possible to map out productive works which, if the labour supply were sufficient, would increase the total efficiency by 100 per cent. No doubt what I say of my own Constituency applies to Ireland generally, and that it would be possible to point out productive works, such, for instance, as the

  853
  utilisation of waterfalls, drainage and the exploitation of mines, which were once worked and abandoned because the methods of those times were not efficient. If all these methods, which have for centuries been in the hands of the British Government, had been employed and developed, it is possible that the population of Ireland, instead of being a little over 4,000,000, would now be double that number, and the people would be happier, more contented, and more prosperous. This Bill has been brought in on the same principle as was a small Bill introduced into this House with regard to summer time, not because the Irish people want it, not because it has any application to the needs of the Irish people, not because it accords with their desire or will be to their advantage, but simply on a general plan of a sort of conformity in the laws of the two countries.
  When this new Government first came into power I was one of those who rather hailed its advent as being likely to produce a new era—an era of efficiency, not only in matters such as this Bill deals with, but in regard to the general conduct of the War. Up to the present day I must say I have been greatly disappointed in all that I have seen. There seems to be a prevalent idea in Government circles that efficiency is synonomous with fuss, agitation and newspaper puffing—with newspaper flummery, boosting and boasting. And when one sees that carried on in the newspapers on a crescendo scale, not merely at the beginning, but week after week after they have settled down to work, one is forced to ask this question, very deliberately and very keenly, How much useful, solid and valid organisation will all this fuss, flummery and newspaper fussery precipitate?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member's observations are not very relevant to the question before the House.
  Mr. LYNCH: I think they have a very intimate bearing on the question, and I hope to be able to show that they have. You are asking us in Ireland to adopt a scheme of organisation and to hand over to the Controller of that scheme powers of a character such as have never before been given to any ruler in any country except an absolute dictator. We have a right to examine into the consequences of such a scheme and to ask what are the proofs given by the Government that it
  854
  will be advantageous to Ireland. Still I will not attempt to press that point further, or, indeed, any other point, as so much has been said about the scheme by previous speakers on almost every aspect of the question. I will, however, give a warning to the House. Although there may be great work and a valid organisation proceeding from the present Government, I have seen a tendency which is alarming and dangerous to multiply offices indefinitely and to set up new organisations and to flood those organisations with office-bearers and bureaucrats of every kind with an outward show of organisation, but no real efficiency. There is one question of great importance to this country. What is to become of these office-bearers when the War is ended? What is to become of that great legion of bureaucrats and office-holders when there is no useful productive work for them to do? I hope that even now the Government may reconsider the whole scheme and find a way to exclude Ireland. I ask them to pay attention to their own declared principles about forcing any scheme of legislation upon a people who object to it even though they be a minority. Greater force attaches, of course, to that argument when the objection is entertained by the majority. I think they will find that, so far from the Irish party not representing the Irish people in this particular matter, when they are face to face with actual events and with realities they will discover that the views that have been put forward with special force have not stated with sufficient vividness the real dangers with which they will subsequently have to cope.
  Mr. D. MASON: Perhaps I may be allowed to offer a few observations on the effect of this proposal on the ordinary English Member. I confess that when one has regard to the effect of a speech recently made by the Prime Minister, in which he refused to put into force an Act which is now on the Statute Book, and when one sees him coming forward and asking for voluntary service from Ireland it does seem to amount to an insult to Ireland itself. The idea of expecting that you are going to get an enthusiastic support from Ireland when the policy of the Government is calculated to almost antagonise what was once its enthusiastic support is ironical in the extreme. I understand the Chief Secretary has suggested that he is prepared to agree to the appointment of a Director of National

  855
  Service for Ireland. We would like to know who this gentleman is to be. Is he someone that Ireland would care to accept? Just conceive for a moment what that must mean to the Irish Members and even to the average Member of Parliament.
  Mr. DILLON: They will take over the Shelborne Hotel.
  Mr. MASON: What I want to point out is the absurdity of asking the ordinary Member of Parliament to agree to such a proposal at a moment when the Government are acting in a way calculated to antagonise every section of the people in this country and in Ireland in order to secure, as they suggest, the satisfactory conduct of the War. We know what they have done with regard to Lancashire. We shall probably hear more about that on Wednesday. We have heard to-night a good deal about this being a measure for inviting voluntary service, yet this invitation is sent out when you have already antagonised services that were once loyally offered. Is it not farcical to make such a proposal as this? Can it in common sense be anticipated that you are going to get a response from people whom you have antagonised by your policy? The Chief Secretary has stated that it is proposed to appoint a Director of National Service for Ireland; but may I point out that there is no Amendment put down to the Bill to carry out such a proposal, which entirely alters the whole Bill? We want to know who the, Director is to be. It is not right to ask that this measure should be extended to Ireland unless we know whether the scheme is likely to get the support of Irish as well as English and Scottish Members. I for one believe that this is only on a par with many of the other proposals made by the Government. It is not in accordance with either reason or common sense, and I hope that, before we go any further, some member of the Government will state whom it is intended to appoint and whether it is to be a gentleman likely to be acceptable to the Irish Members. I protest against this haphazard method. We English Members of Parliament had been told, and certainly some of us knew, who was to be Director-General of National Service for England. The Irish Members, I think, have made out a very strong case for another cause of dissatisfaction on their part that this Director-
  856
  General, of whom they do not know, in whom they may not have any confidence, is to be given these enormous powers. It is to be given these enormous powers. It is ludicrous. It is absurd to expect Irish Members of the House of Commons to agree to the appointment of an officer whom they do not know. I never in all my experience heard of a proposal so absolutely hopeless. I hope some Member of the Government will give us the necessary information as to who this is to be; or, will it be that at the eleventh hour some proposal may be made by the Government for delaying the extension of this Bill to Ireland until conditions have been satisfactorily concluded for an agreement?
  Mr. KEATING: The arguments against the application of this Bill to Ireland have been so admirably expressed, and so fully dealt with, that I do not propose to take up the time of the House in recapitulating them. In fact, I would not have ventured to trespass upon this Debate but for the purpose of dealing with an aspect of the question which has been overlooked both by the Government and by the English Members. We have only had one or two speeches from English Members, and one from the Chief Secretary, whom, of course, we cannot look upon as an Irishman. It is quite evident to me—and I trust the hon. Member opposite (Mr. D. Mason) will forgive me if I put it this way—that English Members have quite made up their minds that our opposition here is not based upon any substantial grounds, but is rather the sheer perversity of the Irish politician. I dare say that when we go to a Division that hon. Members will troop into the Lobby to vote in the most casual and light-hearted manner for the application of this Bill to Ireland, without considering the objections that we really have to it, and, I very much fear, the strong objections which will be raised by the people of Ireland themselves. These in the near future will take a very formidable form. The application of this Bill to Ireland is a great mistake—for several very important reasons I think so. It is not necessary even for the purpose that the Government themselves have in view. I have had opportunities of discussing what will be the practical effect of this National Service Bill when it is in operation, and, to my mind, it will have two effects—I am not speaking now of Ireland

  857
  alone. One of the effects will be that the National Service Directors will have to prevent businesses being carried on which they consider to be not necessary in the interests of the nation, and the other will be the mobilisation of labour for businesses which they consider to be in the interests of the nation. The Government have created a large Department for the purpose of dealing with this matter.
  I asked a highly-placed official who has been engaged in the work several pointed questions, so that I might get at the root of the matter. I found it all amounts to this, that people who are willing to engage in National Service in this connection send their names to St. Ermin's Hotel, whence they are sent to the local Labour Exchange, so that anybody who wishes to participate in National Service can walk into the local Labour Exchange and achieve his purpose without all the other preliminaries. The thing is merely a reorganisation of the Employment Exchanges in order to perpetuate the farcical idea of doing something—it does not matter what—so long as it looks like doing something. Other powers will be taken if this Department is created which will enable those in charge, after men have enrolled, to take these men and to transfer them to any industry—I contend compulsorily. A man will have no choice at all. My argument against the extension of the Bill to Ireland really can be expressed in one or two sentences. There is no need for it, if you want to have voluntary labour for National Service. Voluntary labour will flow in the direction where its services will be most effective, and, of course, most highly paid. Therefore, unless you are wilfully bent upon challenging Irish public opinion upon a matter which will do you no good at all, I advise you not to press this upon Ireland, in view of the fact that it would not be of any practical value to you. Ail the practical value you can get out of voluntary service you can already get from Ireland by real voluntary service, not by means of this Bill. The Directors of the Ministry of Munitions, and the organisers of labour in this country—I mean the manufacturers who are organising labour for their own productions—have no difficulty at all in attracting labour here. In fact, they have attracted too much here. We want it in Ireland as much as you want it in England. We do not want a Bill to enable you to get Irish labour here; it will come so long as you have money to pay for it.
  858
  The Chief Secretary came up to-night and assumed the attitude of a benevolent stranger who knew very much more of the condition of the Irish people than did the Members of this House. He was concerned primarily for the Irish labourers, and he implied that we were not at all concerned for the Irish labourers? All I can say is, that, so far as I am concerned, if I was not more concerned for the welfare of the Irish labourer than is the Chief Secretary I would not be a Member of Parliament for Ireland. I think that it is a piece of—I will not say impertinence, because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would be guilty of that—but it is a piece of forgetfulness at least which prompted him to get up, and deny our right to represent the Irish labourer, and to claim his right to do so—an English Member, returned by a constituency by a majority of one vote, who has only been in Ireland twelve months, and knows nothing at all about the country, and I suppose the development of political events will transfer him in due course from that sphere of action to another sphere of action, and Ireland will know him no more. In the meantime he has taken upon himself the responsibility of informing this House that really the Irish party do not speak for Ireland on this particular point, but that he speaks for it. I warn English Members against accepting that doctrine. The House of Commons will have to deal with the consequences if this measure is forced on the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman's reply to our argument is, "Oh, well now, you really are not doing justice to your own intelli-when you talk about compulsion. You are confusing a compulsory Bill with this Bill. This is not a compulsory Bill, and you can take my word for it, as representing the Government, that it will not become a compulsory Bill."
  Well, I take the right hon. Gentleman's word upon many things that have nothing to do with politics, but I think I would limit the value of his word in politics to the measure of his strength in the Government, and I do not think his assurance would be enough to satisfy the Irish people that, once this Bill is passed, it might not in the very near future become a compulsory measure. What do we in Ireland care about the promises of British Ministers? I need not elaborate the point. We have had in the recent past too many evidences of the lack of responsibility to their own conceptions of their

  859
  obligations in regard to their pledges, to expect us to believe that this particular pledge given by the Chief Secretary tonight will not develop into another of the broken pledges which have scattered the highway of Irish politics during the last two or three years. No, Sir, Ireland will render voluntary labour in the best way you can possibly expect if you leave Ireland alone. If you apply this Bill to Ireland, I am very much afraid that the Irish people will regard it as the thin end of the wedge for compulsion, and will not only give you less but a great deal more trouble in the application of this Bill than ever you bargained for. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Irish labourer will be in some vague and obscure way advantaged by this Bill. I would be very much interested, if he has an opportunity of speaking on the other stages of this Bill, to hear him develop that point. His reasons for making that statement appear to be that so much labour is wanted, and there is so much labour in Ireland. The local Labour Exchanges in Ireland are quite sufficient to meet the needs of employers in Ireland, and for those men in Ireland who want to come to England, it is not necessary to have the machinery of this Bill for that purpose. They can come without that, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must really give better reasons than he has given.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Colonel M'Calmont) made a speech which I thought in very good taste, and of which, on the whole, I think no Member on these benches would complain. I was very glad he made it, because he has been identified with those members of the Irish race who have gone into the Army, who have covered themselves with glory, and have upheld the traditions of their race in the fighting in this War. But when the Chief Secretary was saying that in this matter the Irish party did not really represent Ireland, the hon. and gallant Member cheered that remark most markedly. In his speech the hon. and gallant Member repudiated the theory laid down by the Chief Secretary. He did not say we did not represent Ireland, but he thought we did not represent the views of the men fighting in the Army on this particular matter, because, according to his theory, this is a war measure, and therefore anybody who opposes this war measure is not represent-
  860
  ing the views of the men at the front. I am not conscious of the fact that this is a war measure. I do not think it is a war measure at all. It is a measure which will, more or less, retard the real interest of the War than advance it, and, so far as Ireland is concerned, I am quite certain about it. Therefore, I welcome the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman because he made, it quite clear that he did not regard us as being merely perverse politicians who were anxious for political reasons to embarrass the Government, but he thought this was really a war measure which would assist the Government in the conduct of the War. I have told the House the reason I do not consider it to be true.
  I think this measure, if it is applied to Ireland, will be a very great blunder. I see the Home Secretary in his place. He, I think, is primarily responsible for this, and I do not think he ought to take the responsibility of applying this measure to Ireland in view of the passionate protests that have been made by the representatives of Ireland to-night. If this measure is applied to Ireland against our will, and if it is repudiated and turmoil arises as the result of it, how can he expect to escape responsibility for the cause of that turmoil if he now takes the attitude of repudiating the wishes and the reasons and arguments of Members on these benches against applying the measure to Ireland? That seems to me a most extraordinary thing for the responsible English politicians to do, for they are ignoring such obvious considerations as those which have been put forward from these benches tonight. If you do not take into consideration the fact that this Bill will not assist you in Ireland and that it will be repudiated and resisted by the Irish representatives, and that it will naturally be followed by turmoil and possibly bloodshed in Ireland, how in the world can you reconcile that with your reputation—[An HON. MEMBER: "They have no reputation!"]—for being responsible and common-sense men. [HON. MEMBERS:" Order, order!"] At any rate, I give them credit for common sense.
  Mr. FIELD: It is want of common sense.
  Mr. KEATING: It seems to me that Ireland is the only place in the world where established principles must not be put into operation, and evidently the Government think that Ireland should be dealt with in a very special way. I am one of those who

  861
  really believe there never was and never ought to have been any essential quarrel between the English and the Irish people. I believe no difference would have arisen if you could only get the English people to understand the point of view of the Irish people. I believe the Chief Secretary is responsible for nearly all the trouble that has arisen in Ireland. This is the sort of thing that happens. English politicians imagine that such and such a state of things exist in Ireland—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I am afraid the hon. Member's remarks are too general for the Motion now before the House.
  Mr. KEATING: I think that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill is typical of the kind of conduct which has been the cause of all the trouble between the two nations, and if I can fasten that responsibility upon him without transgressing the Rules of Order my object will have been achieved. That is my case. I think you are will fully and perversely doing what you ought not to do, either in the interests of England or of Ireland, and you have no excuse whatever for making the assertion that you are doing so with full knowledge of Ireland because you are not. You are doing this against the express wishes of hon. Members from Ireland who have that full knowledge. I do not know whether it is too late to argue the case, because the mind of the
  right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to have been made up. I ask, is it too late to expect that this matter could be reconsidered? I beg the Chief Secretary as a friend of Ireland and England to prevent this injustice being done to the Irish people, and in consequence further trouble and possibly bloodshed in Ireland. Irish representatives during the whole of this War have not criticised the conduct of the War, and we have not done because we wish to render the best service we could in order to win the War; consequently we refrained in order to enable Ministers to conduct their business, and do the best they could according to their lights in connection with public affairs. In the future this will be one of the reasons why Irishmen will examine with a critical eye every action which Ministers perform which is not consistent with the principles of justice to small nations, the freedom of individuals, and the liberty of the subjects, when these principles are being outraged, and they are being outraged to-night by the indifference, if not the culpable ignorance, of willful and irresponsible Ministers who represent the Government in this House.
  Sir G. CAVE Sir G. CAVE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 73.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  [10.2 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

  Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cowan, W. H.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Helme Sir Norval Watson

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Craig, Colonel James (Down. E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Barton, William

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry 'age

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

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

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hills, John Waller

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hinds, John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hodge, John

  Bigland, Alfred

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Illingworth, Albert Holden

  Bird, Alfred

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bliss. Joseph

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Boscawen. Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Fell, Arthur

  Johnston, Christopher N.

  Bowerman. Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boyton, James

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Brookes, Warwick

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Brunner. John F. L.

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Burn, Colonel C- R.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Lloyd. George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Cave. Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Gretton, Col. John

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Cecil.Ht.Hon Lord Robert(Herts,Hitchin)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  M'Calmont, Col. Robert C. A.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Coates. Major Sir E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Pratt, J. W.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Tickler, T. G.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Tootill, Robert

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morison, Hector

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Robinson, Sidney

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowlands, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nield, Herbert

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M.(Beth'l Green, S. W.)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Stanier, Captain Baville

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Pete, Basil Edward

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Mr. Beck and Mr. James Hope

  NOES.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Billing, Pemberton

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John Plus

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Leary, Daniel

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Joseph

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Byrne, Alfred

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, West

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Cosgrave, James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cullinan, John

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Devlin, Joseph

  McGhee, Richard

  Sheehy, David

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Donovan, John Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Snowden, Philip

  Doris, William

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Field, William

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Molloy, Michael

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Muldoon, John

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nugent, John Dillon (Dublin, Col. Gn.)

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Connor John (Kildare, N.)

  O'Brien

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 76; Noes,. 148.

  Division No. 9.]

  AYES.

  10. 11 p.m.

  Boland, John Pius

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Dowd, John

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Leary, Daniel

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Byrne, Alfred

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lardner, James C. R.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cosgrave, James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cullinan, John

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Radford, Sir G. H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dillon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Donovan, John Thomas

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Sheehy, David

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mason, David M. Coventry)

  Snowden, Philip

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tootill, Robert

  Field, William

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Lelx.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Molloy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Muldoon, John

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hackett, John

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhougton)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Anderson

  Joyce, Michael

  NOES.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Or. Christopher

  Gelder. Sir W. A

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon, William

  Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barton, William

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Philippe, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harmsworth,, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bigland, Alfred

  Haslam, Lewis

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Bird, Alfred

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pryce Jones, Colonel E.

  Bliss, Joseph

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hinds, John

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bridgeman, William dive

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Rowlands, James

  Brookes, Warwick

  Illingwerth, Albert H.

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Johnston, Christopher N.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

  Cecil, Rt.Hon.Lord Robert (Herts,Hitchin

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Stanler, Captain Seville

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Stewart, Gershom

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cowan, W. H.

  M'Calmont, Col. Robert C. A.

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

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

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Denman. Hon. Richard Douglas

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Denniss. E. R. B.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wilson, Lt.-Cl.Sir M.(Beth'l Green.S.W.)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Mend, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Morison. Hector

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Young, William (Perth, E.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Younger, Sir George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nield, Herbert

  Mr. Beck and Mr. James Hope

  CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Minister of National Service.)
  (1) For the purpose of making the best use of all persons, whether men or women, able to work in any industry, occupation, or service, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Minister of National Service under the title of Director-General of National Service, who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure.
  (2) The Director-General of National Service shall, for that purpose, have such powers and duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to him or authorise him to exercise or per form concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by
  866
  Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly, but no Order in Council or Regulation shall authorise the compulsory employment or transfer of any person in or to any industry, occupation, or service.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move in Subsection (1), after the word "Service"["title of Director-General of National Service"], to insert the words "for Great Britain and another such Minister under the title of Director-General of National Service for Ireland."
  The Government having refused our demand to exclude Ireland from the scope of this Bill, it now becomes necessary for us to do what we can towards making this Bill on its voluntary basis as suitable as it can be made to Irish conditions. I had intended to move the Clause that stands

  867
  in my name on the Paper [Exercise of Powers of Minister of Rational Service in Ireland] and also to move the omission of Clause I, but in view of the statement made by the Chief Secretary in the course of the Debate this evening and not wishing in any sense whatever to delay the House upon matters of serious importance, it is of the utmost importance that we should get to close grips at once upon the issue raised by the Chief Secretary with regard to his intentions concerning Ireland. Therefore I propose this Amendment. Earlier in the discussion I had to point out how extraordinary it was that the Chief Secretary apparently had some definite policy in his mind upon this subject which he has not yet fully disclosed to the House or put upon the Order Paper as an Amendment to the Bill. It is high time that we had from the Chief Secretary a full statement of the Government's intentions, and I invite him to explain to the House and to Ireland on this Amendment what it is he proposes in this connection. If you are to work any kind of voluntary National Service in Ireland which will be of any advantage to the country, or meet national needs, you must have a man intimately acquainted with Irish conditions, you must have an Irishman in whom the country would have confidence, and that man must have a definite policy, which will carry with it the sympathy and support of the Irish people. The claim has never been made by anyone from these benches that the utmost within the power of Ireland could not and should not be done so far as any effort is required to meet the present emergency in Ireland, either in regard to food production or any other direction. But Ireland has been gravely alarmed, not without reason, at the attitude that has been taken upon this matter by the Government and the Chief Secretary. It appeared to us—and I think the House will agree with good reason—from the speech of the Chief Secretary on the Committee stage, that Ireland was to be put under the Director-General of National Service for Great Britain, and that her needs and situation were not to be taken into account; that Ireland was to be approached only as a reservoir from which to draw all the labour which it is possible to draw out of the country to put into munitions and other national needs here, instead of approaching this question on a broad and patriotic point of view from the Irish
  868
  standpoint and utilising the labour and the resources of Ireland within its four shores. In his speech on that occasion the Chief Secretary used these words:
  "I can tell the hon. Member that of the 160,000 men who were reported to be within the age of military service in Ireland and to be the surplus for labour which could be used, a number amounting to more than 40.000 is said to be already employed in this country."
  Our position from the start of this controversy has been that there are nothing like 160,000 men of military age of so-called surplus, and that there is a dearth of labour for national necessities in Ireland itself, and that if there is to be any organised effort to meet the emergency which has arisen, Ireland ought to have the first regard of the Government and have the first claim upon the labour of her own sons in employing them upon national needs. No one has claimed from these benches either, although the Chief Secretary to-night and on the Committee stage almost led the House to believe that it was so, that we want to set up a legal disability against Irishmen coming over to find employment at higher wages in England if they can. I do not believe in that policy myself. I believe that it is likely to lead to very serious misunderstandings between Ireland and England if Irishmen are induced to come over here under a voluntary National Service scheme and find employment and take the place of men who have gone to the front in this country. What are you going to do with these men whom you bring over here under the voluntary scheme when, in a few weeks time, you turn the voluntary scheme for Great Britain into a compulsory scheme] Are they to be exempted then? Are we to have to put forward another claim from these benches that these men are not to be brought under your compulsory scheme which we know very well is coming? While we do not want to set up a legal disability, we say the policy of the Irish Executive ought to be a policy of employing these people as far as possible in their own country, where there is plenty of work for them, where, although some small effort has been made, nothing like the effort has been made by the Government towards placing Ireland in a position of equality with Great Britain with regard to munitions. It is for these reasons that I believe we shall have to have appointed for Ireland a separate Minister under any voluntary scheme of National Service. We shall have to raise the question, also, of what the status of this Minister is to be and

  869
  what his relation is to be to the House of Commons and to the Irish Executive, who is to represent him in this House, and what his plans are. It is really monstrous to ask Irish Members to give a blank cheque to this Government which has deceived them so often, and to force a measure of this kind, not only through Committee, but, if they can, through the Report stage, without explaining to Ireland and to the Irish Members the intentions of the Government. I do hope the Chief Secretary will not force us into the position of having to ask the House of Commons to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill, but that ho will make a full, frank, and clear statement as to what the policy of the Government is going to be. I think from the interruption he made to-night during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he is not only in the position to tell the House his plans, but that he is in the position to tell the House the name of the gentleman whom he has got up his sleeve as the Director-General, or whatever he likes to call him in this capacity, for Ireland. I invite him to give to the House the fullest and the frankest information.
  Mr. DILLON: This Amendment raises so far as Ireland is concerned an issue of great and far-reaching importance. I cannot understand how any responsible Government can for a single moment expect a system of National Service on a voluntary basis to be a success without the co-operation of the people to whom it is applied. When you were bringing forward this system of voluntary service for Great Britain it was stated over and over again by the Prime Minister, and all who were advocating it, that the whole thing depended upon the enthusiastic and almost unanimous co-operation of the people. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what shred of evidence can he offer us here to-day that he has got the co-operation of the people of Ireland of any sort or kind? He had the votes of the representatives of Ireland here to-night and he described that as a political demonstration. I ask him to go to Dublin or Cork and face the people in any open meeting—if he will not accept us as the authoritative spokesmen of the people of Ireland and put his proposition of National Service to them. If he can get a resolution passed in any of the southern cities or the midland towns or counties in favour of National Service my attitude towards this Bill would be
  870
  very much altered. Has he got a single public meeting throughout the length and breadth of Ireland in favour of this proposal Has he got a single public body in favour of it? Has he got a resolution of any representative public body from Ireland in support of it? The Government has come down to-night to ask us to accept this Bill without furnishing us with one single shred of evidence that they have got the support of Ireland. Now comes this new proposition. Accepting for the sake of argument that the Bill is going to be forced on to the Irish people—and, make no mistake about it, you are forcing it on the Irish people—is it to be a system under the control of Mr. Chamberlain or is it to be a system really under the control of Irishmen? The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me to say that there was to be an Irish Director, but he was vague and misty as to the position of that Director, in regard to Mr. Chamberlain. According to the text of the Bill, so far as we can understand it, since that very important announcement was made, this Irish Director will be simply an underling, a kind of understudy of Mr. Chamberlain and under his orders, and really occupying very much the same position as one of his local inspectors in Great Britain.
  I do not believe that this Bill under these circumstances will succeed in Ireland or will attract any measure of support. The thing, at any rate, ought to be thoroughly and clearly settled to-night, whether this is to be a wholly Irish administration, quite divorced from, and totally independent of the English Director-General. If not, the thing is damned irretrievably, and will not be tolerated for a single moment in Ireland. I want the light hon. Gentleman to tell us frankly we are to have a wholly independent Director-General in Ireland, and, if so, is he prepared—because nothing else will meet our difficulty—to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend? Nothing else will satisfy us or give any assurance that the Director-General in Ireland is to be a real person and not an understudy and not a subordinate of Mr. Chamberlain. If it be the intention to set up a separate Department I may put the question, Must we not suspend operations and pass another money Resolution? Because I take it that the Government, in dealing with these Irish questions, always deal generously with the matter of salaries. I take it that the Irish

  871
  Director-General will have a salary, and may have, for aught I know, one of the Ulster Unionist Members as a Parliamentary Secretary. In the last Division the Government majority was almost entirely made up of paid members of the Government. I myself the other day—I think this is becoming a public danger—stood at that door and counted nearly fifty paid members of the Government passing through the Government Lobby. It is the policy of the Government according as they find themselves getting into rough water to increase the cohorts of their stalwarts.
  I assume that if we are going to have an Irish Department we must have an Irish Secretary, because the Chief Secretary himself, like the famous character in the Japanese play, represents about a dozen different Departments, and answers for them all with great labour, I must confess, and it would be rather too much to ask him to take on another Irish Department. The right hon. Gentleman told us that questions for this Department would be answered in the House either by the Chief Secretary or by somebody else. Who is the somebody else? Are we to have another Under-Secretary? Are we to have transferred to what remains of the city of Dublin, after the beneficent operations of the British Government which resulted in a large part of it being burned down, the new system of commandeering hotels? We are very scarce of hotels in Dublin, and we had a great influx of American visitors last year to see the ruins, which are the only attraction that we have now in Dublin. Are we to have this gentleman, and will he take the Shelfbourne Hotel, which is one of the few decent hotels we have for the accommodation of strangers? I suppose that he will want to put himself on a level with his English coadjutors. We have no ducal palaces or magnificent noblemen's mansions in Dublin.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Cecil Guinness!
  Mr. DILLON: I do not think that they will get Lord Iveagh's house. But I would like to know will they be entitled to commandeer the Shelbourne Hotel or any of the big hotels in Dublin and follow the example which has been set over here? The right hon. Gentleman should give us a plain, full, and frank statement as to the position of the Irish Department.
  Mr. DUKE: In the course of the previous Debate, the difference between the conditions in Ireland and in Great Britain was dwelt upon, and it was demonstrated to the House how the elaborate system of England, with its organisation and its ample provisions of machinery under the Bill, was not applicable to Ireland, where the conditions were of a simple character and the main industry was agriculture No machinery such as that contained in the Bill, it was said, was adaptable to the Irish situation: yet now it is recommended that there should be another full-fledged Minister, and I am not sure whether he is to have a secretary or not. An honest endeavour has been made to render the provisions of this Bill useful to Ireland, with the minimum expense and the minimum of interference with Irish affairs. Having that object in view, I certainly should have scouted any suggestion to set up a Minister of National Service in Ireland But I agree that the conditions in Ireland are totally different from what they are here. What is to be chiefly regarded in Ireland is the safeguarding of labour resources, and in their application to local uses before beginning to apply any surplus to British industries.
  I have had the advantage of consulting Mr. Neville Chamberlain, to whom I represented the difference in the national conditions of Ireland and the difference-in her outlook, and Mr. Neville Chamberlain agreed that it was fairly obvious that the best method for Ireland was voluntary endeavour, and that so far as possible it should be a voluntary undertaking. With that object in view. Mr. Neville Chamberlain was ready to delegate absolutely his duties to the representative in Ireland, who would no doubt be technically entitled to the technical status of representative Director-General of National Service, and would be for all practical purposes attending to the needs of Ireland, and so far as he was able, to subserve the common needs of the United Kingdom and of the Empire, devoting himself to that object with the minimum of interference in Irish modes of life and Irish industries, with the possibility of the maximum degree of utilisation of whatever voluntary help was forthcoming.
  Mr. DEVLIN: The Local Government Board officials.
  Mr. D. MASON: Is he to be a paid official?
  Mr. DUKE: That is a matter to be determined.
  Mr. MASON: It is very important.
  Mr. DUKE: If he is ready to render his services voluntarily there will be no proposal to pay him. If that help is not forth-coming it may be necessary that there should be some modest salary over which the House would have control. The intention of Mr. Neville Chamberlain is that so far as possible what is intended to be voluntary effort in Ireland shall be under the control of those who are ready to render help. If you are going to distribute labour and to take advantage of the readiness in every county in Ireland of a considerable body of workers who do desire to promote the common object of the United Kingdom in the successful prosecution of the War, and if you utilise that voluntary labour in various districts then the call for paid services under this scheme will be a small one. But the object is first to find out what voluntary labour is available, and second, how you can best apply it.
  Mr. HAZLETON: In Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: To use what margin there is beyond the immediate demands of Ireland for service in this country. Nobody has suggested that there was not a margin of labour in Ireland available for service in this country. [An HOST. MEMBER: "Not now!"] Hon. Members say that it has come to this country in numbers measured by tens of thousands. If that is so, why should the House of Commons be eager to forgo the possibility of utilising the services of these men in this country?
  Mr. DILLON: They are doing so now.
  Mr. DUKE: The services which they have rendered have been valuable services in munition works, harbour works, and various other industrial operations. An hon. Member says they are coming freely and he went on to say that labour in Ireland has been depleted. I meant that labour in Ireland shall not be depleted or diverted from local Irish purposes. I am sure it is the desire of the House, and I believe it is the desire of the great body of persons in Ireland, that such margin as there is should be used to the best advantage in this country for promoting common objects. I hope I have answered the questions that were put to me. If I have not made myself clear to hon. Members I do not doubt that I will hear more of it.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will you guarantee that when these men of military age come over to this country that they will not be conscripted?
  Mr. DILLON: That has been guaranteed already, months ago.
  Mr. DUKE: Yes, months ago it was guaranteed. If the hon. Member had only paid attention to the matter he would have known, as the hon. Member for East Mayo most fairly explained, that some difficulties had arisen and a system has been devised of labour tickets to show the status of the individual, so that he is absolutely secure from any interference for the purposes of conscription.
  Mr. DILLON: At present Great Britain has got the use of labour from Ireland, freely, as much as she requires, and there is no obstruction. As far as I can gather the object apparently that he has in mind in applying this Bill to Ireland is to prevent Irish labour coming over to this country.
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member thinks that is so I have totally failed to make myself clear on the subject. I stated two objects, of organisation and co-ordination. The first is to take care that labour is applied in Ireland to the best advantage, and to take care that surplus labour, if there be, as I believe there is, some surplus labour, shall be used in this country to the best advantage. So far as administrative machinery goes, no administrative machinery will be set up except under pressure of necessity, which will involve the elaborate arrangement of a second Director-General in Ireland. I agree it is not necessary.
  Mr. MOONEY: Will the appointment of a Director-General of National Service for Ireland require a new Money Resolution, or is it intended that the person to be appointed shall not be paid? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even after the Money Resolution has been passed as long as the person appointed does not call himself Director he can take any salary that is fixed, and if he be a Member of this House will not require to seek re-election?
  Mr. DUKE: The Bill does not provide that a Member of this House shall be appointed.
  Mr. DILLON: You might have half a dozen Members of the House appointed under the Bill.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I have been trying to understand this arrangement with regard to Ireland. What I gather is that there is not going to be an independent Director-General for Ireland at all, but some kind of National Commissioner under the control of the Director-General of National Service in this country. If that is so, then the salary of that gentleman will be merged with the other expenses of this office and there will be no opportunity of raising any distinctive policy of National Service as applied to Ireland. That policy as it will work in Ireland will be controlled from St. Ermin's Hotel, and as those of us know who are following up this matter the blundering already in regard to National Service in this country is sufficiently pronounced. Heaven knows what will happen when it is extended to Ireland! Certainly the chaos will not be less. The difficulties are going to be very great and also very delicate indeed. There will be the difficulty of bringing over the young Irishmen of military age, who are not themselves subject to compulsory service, but who, I have no doubt, will be used, when they get over here, by the Director-General of National Service to release men from the factories, men of military age who are subject to compulsory service. That is going to drive a wedge between Ireland and this country. It is going to create a great deal of bad blood, for when once this principle has been conceded the next demand will logically be to have compulsory military service imposed on Ireland.
  What is going to be the position of Irishmen who come over under the voluntary scheme to this country provided compulsory industrial service is imposed on this country? Are Irishmen over here going to work under one scheme of National Service, while Englishmen and Scotsmen side by side are going to be subject to quite a different scheme'? That is a point which must appeal to those who are concerned with this thing. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a speech I made earlier in the evening said he could not conceive compulsory civil service being imposed on Ireland so long as Ireland did not have compulsory military service. But what is going to happen? We know that the Government are pledged, in the event of failure to find an undefined number of recruits, to bring in compulsory industrial service so far as Britain is concerned. Is Ireland going to go a small part of the way? Is Ireland going to be
  876
  brought in? If compulsion comes along and Ireland is left out of these arrangements it seems to me best to leave well alone. This scheme of industrial service follows the scheme of military service. Since that does not apply to Ireland this cannot be properly applied to Ireland either— —
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going back upon a position that has been already decided. This is only an. Amendment for a second Director-General for Ireland.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I will not follow that any further. I will, in conclusion, say that in this country at any rate, there has been a desire on the part of the Director-General of National Service to get in. touch with opinions in this direction and that, I understand, for example, that this week there is going to be a great trade union congress held and that members are going to be brought up from all parts of the country, at considerable public expense, in order that views may be expressed in regard to this matter by the reports of organised labour. Certainly, I do not object to that in the slightest degree. I think that matters which are vital to labour ought to be discussed by the representatives of organised labour, and I am surprised that the House of Commons is apparently not going to have the same privilege in regard to many points which have been given to the House under this scheme. I would ask what opportunity has been given so far for the representatives of Ireland to express their views in regard to this matter? Has there been any conferences with the Irish representatives? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Have they been brought over from Ireland in order to express their views? Since the conditions in Ireland,. as the Home Secretary and as everybody knows, are in so many respects different from those in this country, surely it would have been a good thing, if Mr. Neville Chamberlain is prepared, as I believe he is, to modify certain aspects of his scheme in order to meet the desires or fears of organised labour in this country, that before applying his scheme to Ireland, he should have ascertained the opinion of Ireland upon this matter. I believe that is a very important thing, and I am sorry to say that the speech of the Home Secretary does not give us very much light as to how this matter is going to be worked out. Personally, I am con-

  877
  vinced that the whole scheme is more and more going to become unmanageable, even in this country, and if it is unworkable in this country, it is likely to be far more so as far as Ireland is concerned.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am somewhat surprised at the latter portion of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He said that he is astonished that Irish Members have not been consulted. He ought to have know by this time, although he has not been so long in the House of Commons, that the Irish Members are never consulted. As I have previously pointed out on another Amendment, if Irish Members do come together and confer in order to render National Service and public service, and make suggestions to the House, those suggestions are turned down specifically because they had come from the Irish Members. I could see the value of the argument that Ireland is not fit to govern herself and ought not to have national responsibilities imposed upon her, if the Chief Secretary, or any governor of Ireland, could have stated at that box to hon. Members, "I have consulted Irish opinion through the only constitutional means, namely, the Irish Members." Never, however, are we consulted about anything. On the contrary, as I told a more or less empty House to-night, we spent over six weeks drafting schemes, and trying to devise plans for better food production in Ireland, and our plans were turned down by the bureaucracy in Ireland. I suppose you are going to set up another under this scheme. The Prime Minister came along weeks afterwards and actually accepted our report word for word, and stated it as his own plan for dealing with food production in this island. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite as skilful as usual in his speech to-night.
  It being Eleven o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HAZLETON: Before the House adjourns I would like to ask the Government if they intend to proceed with the National Service Bill To-morrow, or is the original programme to be followed?
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): No; we intend to go on To-morrow with this Bill.

AIR SERVICES.
Mr. BILLING: I take this, the first opportunity, to call attention to a subject I have purposely allowed to drop for some months. Directly the Air Board was appointed I, in common with several other critics of the air administration in this House, decided to allow them at least to have an opportunity of settling down and seeing if there was any likelihood of the friction and intrigue which had occasioned the trouble and the delay both in the production and in the efficiency of the administration disappearing. It is quite a number of months since that has happened, and subsequent to the last agitation in favour of a more efficient Air Service we did for a short time gain the supremacy of the air on the Western front. To-day that is not so, and I do not think that any man who has identified himself as I have done, with the question of the Air Service of our country, should refrain from rising now and calling the attention of the House to that question. The friction between the two services is as great to-day, and is more serious, because it is more suppressed than it was twelve months ago.
Notice taken that Forty Members were not present: House counted, and Forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow.