Commons Sitting of 13 March 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Cork Improvement.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Lancashire Power Construction Company [Lords.]
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905," presented by Mr. BRACE; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Brighton, Eastbourne, Liverpool, and Wells-next-the-Sea," presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State of the Home Departments:—
City of Liverpool. (three)
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NAVY AND ARMY SERVICES, WAR LIKE OPERATIONS, AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1916–17 (SUPPLEMEN TARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the Amount required to be voted during the year ending 31st March, 1917, for general Navy and Army Services, Warlike Operations, and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 48.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (RETURN TO RUSSIA).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement with the Russian Government for the return to Russia of Russian subjects of military age unwilling to serve in the British Army provides that the cost of transportation shall be provided by the Russian or the British Government; whether transported Russians will be forced to provide food, bedding, etc., for the voyage at their own expense; and whether, in view of the Russian Government not having asked for the return of any Russians in the British Empire, inquiry will now be made whether the transport of untrained men or of munitions, equipment, coal, and food is the more welcome to the Russian Government?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): I have nothing to add to the reply which was returned to the hon. Member on this subject on 7th February.
    Mr. KING: Will these points be continually borne in mind?

  DENMARK AND HOLLAND (IMPORT OF FEEDING-STUFFS).
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the amount of feeding-stuffs allowed to be imported into Denmark and Holland by the late Governments, and which were used for fattening animals sold to Germany, have now been stopped; and, if not, will he have them stopped?
  Lord R. CECIL: I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. and gallant Friend the point which he raises in this question, but I do not think that the policy he recommends would produce the result which he desires.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Can the Noble Lord say whether a decision has been obtained from the Prize Courts as to these fertilisers and fodder imported into Holland and practically re-exported in another form as horses and livestock to Germany?
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that that arises on this question, and I should like to have notice of it.

  HOLLAND (SALE OF HORSES).
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether about 12,000 horses have lately been sold from Holland into Germany; and, seeing that many of these horses are used for food by the Germans, whether he can do anything to prevent Holland from supplying Germany with such amounts of food by giving more freedom to the British Navy to stop extra supplies of feeding-stuffs going to that country?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is, I believe, in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, it is not the general experience that scarcity of fodder diminishes the sale of livestock.
  Major HUNT: Is not fodder grown in Holland?
  Lord R. CECIL: There is a great deal of fodder, naturally, grown in Holland.
  Major HUNT: Why import more if there is plenty of it?
  Lord R. CECIL: The point is this: if you diminish the supply the price goes up and it becomes to the advantage of the farmer to sell his stock.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    DISCHARGE CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any attested men who have been rejected as unfit for any form of military service since I5th July, 1916, up to January,
    882
    1917, at the Central London Recruiting Depot have been given certificates of discharge; and, if no such certificates have been issued, why the Army Order on the subject has been disregarded?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): As far as can be ascertained, the answer is in the affirmative. My hon. Friend has brought certain cases to my notice where it was stated that a discharge certificate had been refused. I have informed him as to two of these and am making inquiries about the rest.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated officially that certificates should be granted to those who asked for them and that no such men have received certificates of discharge?

    MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the discontent created by the cases in which men of military age without previous military training, who have seen no service either at home or abroad, have been placed in the position of military representatives on the tribunals, and empowered to decide as to the fitness of others for the military service which they thus avoid themselves; whether a full commission of lieutenant was given to a Mr. Wally Leveaux, at the time employed on the Stock Exchange and of military age; whether this gentleman was forthwith appointed a military representative of a tribunal on which he is still acting; under what conditions was a Mr. Lumley, a former member of the Stock Exchange, given his commission, and why has this gentleman been appointed a military representative on the tribunal at Hampstead; whether Mr. H. J. Nias, who has been appointed military representative at Hounslow, the proprietor of the local Spring Grove laundry, is of military age, and has been given the position of lieutenant without having previously had any military training; whether he is aware of yet another appointment as military representative on a tribunal of a gentleman of great wealth and social influence, of military age, without any previous military experience on active service; and whether, having regard to the heartburning created by these and similar appointments which men who have seen active service and have been invalided home are

    883
    well competent to fill, and the suspicion of favouritism and desire to protect individuals at the expense of the community to which such appointments are subject, steps will be immediately taken for the abatement of this state of affairs?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The policy of the Department is to employ as military representatives officers who are either over military age or unfit for general service. Of those who are mentioned by name in the question, Lieutenant Leveaux is classified fit for light duty at home only; Mr. Lumley was commissioned in an Infantry battalion in the ordinary course, was found unfit for general service in November last, and is still unfit; Mr. Nias is not commissioned, but is aged forty-one and is in category C3. These three specific cases given by my hon. Friend do not appear, in my view, to justify the reflections which he casts upon the general character of these appointments. So far as the case not specifically given by my hon. Friend is concerned, I must ask for further and better particulars.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand from that answer that no military representatives throughout the country are fit for service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot, of course, say that offhand and without notice. What I can say is that the policy of the Department is to employ as military representatives officers who are either over military age or unfit for military service.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Does my hon. Friend in the slightest degree deny that Mr. Nias, who is the proprietor of a laundry, has been appointed as military representative in the very locality in which the trade lies, and does he deny that the other two gentlemen, with the rapidity of a transformation scene, came straight from the Stock Exchange into regimental uniform?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot answer as to the last two cases specifically, but I do not see any harm in Mr. Nias being appointed locally. He is forty-one years of age and in category C 3.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman know the gentleman to whom paragraph four of the question relates, and is he aware that that gentleman is a man great in riches and was quite willing to go?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already received an answer to his question.

    REJECTED ATTESTED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been reached as to the new instructions with regard to attested men rejected on re-examination and as to the new form of medical classification certificate?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 6th March, and, as he has already been informed, it is intended to modify the present instructions and to issue a new form of medical classification certificate, but the new form and new instructions have not as yet been issued.
    Mr. SCOTT: Have they yet been settled as apart from being issued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe that is so.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will they be issued shortly?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope so.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, with regard to attested men who have been rejected by a medical board on re-examination since 13th July, 1916, as totally unfit for any form of medical service, whether recruiting officers are correct in stating, as they have done in many instances, that they have instructions not to issue discharge certificates in such cases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 6th March. I am informed that no such instruction as that referred to has been issued to recruiting officers; but that, in order that there might be no possibility of misunderstanding, a special instruction was recently sent out calling attention to the instruction of 13th July, 1916.
    Mr. WING: Was there not an Order that men who have been discharged on a certificate as unfit should not be called up, and do I gather from what the hon. Gentleman said that that Order has been modified, and that they may be recalled again for further examination"

    CALLING-UP NOTICES (MEN ALREADY WITH FORCES).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is

    885
    aware of complaints with regard to calling-up notices being sent to the homes of men who have already been in the Army for months; whether he is aware that the receipt of the official envelope causes unnecessary alarm to parents and other relatives as they think it is a notification of death or wounds; and whether steps are being taken to ensure more complete records and thus avoid the muddle and expense of calling up men who are already doing their duty?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been necessary to send out notices to all men whose whereabouts are unknown or who are not recorded satisfactorily. This work has made much progress and is now nearing completion.

    BRITISH EMPLOYES (DRESDNER BANK).
    Mr. G. FABERasked whether the period of exemption from military service of four British employés of the Dresdner Bank came to an end on the 8th March instant: and whether any further exemption for them or any of them has been asked for or granted?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am informed by the controller that no appeal has been made to the City Tribunal to extend the exemptions to 8th March, 1917, granted in respect of four employés of the Dresdner Bank. The Bank propose, however, with the controller's approval, to ask the City Tribunal to permit them to appeal for further exemption to the 30th May, 1917, in respect of one of these employés who has been medically classified as B3 (sedentary duties abroad), and has not yet been called up, in order that the preparation of schedules of securities for vesting purposes may be expedited as far as possible. No appeal will be made in the other three cases.
    Mr. FABER: What is the age of the one man in question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that I have not got that.

  REGIMENTAL MESSES (GUEST NIGHTS).
  Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in various regimental messes at home it is the practice to hold frequent guest
  886
  nights, the cost of which has to be borne by all the officers of the regiment; and whether, in view of the hardship to junior officers, whose pay is quite inadequate to meet such charges and who may be total abstainers, he will consider the desirability during the War of discontinuing such guest nights, and, in any case, of each officer being made responsible only for his own wine bill?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that an occasional guest night has been a practice much appreciated by guest or guests and thought necessary by the officers of battalions stationed in certain parts of this country. I understand that these guest nights are not frequent, and I cannot see my way to interfere with the practice of regimental hospitality, particularly as most commanding officers are now alive to the fact that it is now necessary to have moderation in the number of guest nights and in the fare, liquid and solid, provided.
  Mr. WATT: Could not the hon. Gentleman's Department see that these guest nights are arranged on temperance principles, seeing that the views of the country generally are so pronounced at the present time?

  SIXTEENTH DIVISION (LEAVE).
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if numbers of the men of the 16th Division have had no leave since they went to France; and whether it is possible to give any of them leave now?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the answer given on the 6th instant to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow.

  WOUNDED OFFICERS (DIS TINGUISHING BADGES).
  Sir T. ESMONDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if wounded officers and men of the 16th and 10th Divisions attached to reserve battalions are-allowed to wear the distinguishing badges of their divisions; and, if not, if per mission will be at once granted them to do so?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the answer which I gave in this connection on 28th February to

  887
  the hon. Member for County Cork, W. I have not yet received a reply to the inquiries, and will inform the hon. Members when it has been received. I presume it is understood that the coloured cloth patch which is worn in certain cases in the field for purposes of recognition is purely for local use, and ceases, therefore, to be worn when the men return to this country.

  AIR SERVICES.

    BRITISH AND ESTEMY MACHINES.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is able to give the House the evidence on which his statement that we still maintain the mastery of the air on the Western front is based; whether he can state the average number of casualties per week during the last six weeks; and can he also state whether the War Office are in every respect satisfied with the machine that is at present being employed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will reply to the last two parts of my right hon. Friend's question first.
    The average casualties per week for the last six weeks are:

    Killed

    …

    …

    7.6

    Wounded

    …

    …

    8.3

    Missing

    …

    …

    4.2

    The War Office is satisfied for the moment with the best types which are being employed. But there are machines still in use, of types which are not up to the latest standard. These are being replaced as rapidly as possible.
    As regards the first and main part of the question, the situation in the air on the British front in France at the present moment is undecided. During the winter months, when flying is much interfered with by short days and bad weather, all the belligerents have endeavoured to in-crease and improve their Air Services. With the advent of good weather, we must expect a severe contest before achieving such a definite superiority as will enable us to throw the enemy entirely on the defensive.
    In one respect we have been superior to the Germans throughout the War, and that is in the amount of work performed by the Flying Corps for the Army. The Ger mans have never been able either to carry out such work on a comparable scale, or to stop our men from doing it.
    The situation is very similar to that which obtained at the same period of last year. At that time the Germans, reinforced and rested after the winter, put up a serious opposition, and it was only after severe fighting in the air—both at Verdun and in front of our lines—that fighting superiority was established. Even then, this superiority was only maintained by hard and continuous fighting at considerable distances behind the German lines, by which means it was found possible to keep the air above the battlefield practically clear of the enemy.
    At the opening of last year's campaign, the main concentration of the German air forces was towards Verdun This year it appears to be in front of the British forces, a move which probably is connected with the German retirement.
    There has not at any time, on any side, in the Western theatre, been a situation which could properly be described as the "mastery" or "supremacy" of the air, and when I replied to a sudden supplementary on this difficult point last week, I hope that the House will realise that I had no wish either to overstate or understate the actual situation.
    Reinforcements and replacements of material are now being dispatched continuously to our front, and there is every reason to hope that we shall assert our superiority in the air this year, as we did last. But, as I have already stated, we must be prepared for severe fighting before that end is achieved.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Would it be in the public interest to state what portion of these machines described as not up to the standard are in use?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: On what does the hon. Gentleman base his proportion of 7 per cent.? Is that on the total of fighting machines, or the total number of men and machines in this country and abroad?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that. I must confess these figures were supplied to me.
    Major HUNT: Is the output of fighting and scouting aeroplanes now used by the British equal to that of the Germans, in view of the fact that about the middle of October it was not? Have you caught up with them yet?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot assent to the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. I am sure the House will realise that I cannot answer off-hand any question of that sort.
    Mr. FABER: Is the inference from what the hon. Gentleman has said that during the past winter and also the winter previous the German activity in the manufacture of aeroplanes has been greater than our own?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I do not think it has.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these very machines that he says are not fit to keep our end up in France are at present being ordered in large quantities in this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
    Mr. BILLING: I will raise the whole question of the Air Service on the Adjournment to-night.

  PLOUGHMEN WITH FORCES (LEAVE).
  Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the men in the Army in the United Kingdom not wanted as drafts for the front before the end of April who are accustomed to ploughing can be summoned at once and given leave from the Army so that they can come back and assist in ploughing the necessary land for the next seven weeks?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Every effort has been made when allotting men who have been put at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture to select those with agricultural experience. It is not possible, however, to delay the training of men for drafts by sending them on furlough for ploughing.

  SALONIKA EXPEDITION.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, as stated in this House, the numbers of the Salonika Expedition are about 500,000; and, if this number is widely divergent from fact, whether it represents more or less than the actual figure?
  Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that information of this character, if given, could only be of use to the enemy?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Before reply is given—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better hear the reply.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No authoritative statement as to strength of our forces at Salonika has been made in the House, and it is obviously undesirable that such a statement should be made.
  Mr. TENNANT: Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to give the House a statement without, of course, endangering the public interest, as to whether there has been an accretion of that force or not in recent months?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I am afraid I cannot volunteer any further statement.
  Mr. KING: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement as quoted in this House was made by a gentleman in the Press who has been specially exempted from military service by the War Office?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    M. LEPERT (DETENTION AT SOUTHAMPTON).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War by whose orders M. Lepert, a French gentleman travelling with regular passports and the bearer of letters signed by members of the French Government, was recently detained for four hours at Southampton, where he was subjected to rigorous search and much personal indignity and was robbed of private papers given him by French Ministers which have never been returned to him; what suspicion attached to this gentleman justifying such measures, and whether any evidence confirming such suspicion was found on M. Lepert or is in the possession of the Government?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: M. Lepert has been associated with persons who are strongly suspected of having contravened Defence of the Realm Regulation 30A, and as information was received that M. Lepert was intending to come to this country and would probably be carrying documents connected with a case now under investigation, he was searched as a necessary measure of precaution. He was not subjected to any personal indignity. All papers taken from him were returned to him the same day.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information regarding this French gentleman's movements was given to himself in confidence, and that his own subordinates have involved him in a breach of confidence and given him false information in saying the papers were returned to him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must protest against that. As a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman made the statement that M. Lepert was coming to this country in the House three days before I saw him at the War Office.
    Mr. McNEILL: But I did not tell the hon. Gentleman when.

    INTERNED GERMANS.
    Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether interned German civilian prisoners are being trained in the Isle of Man or elsewhere in the manufacture of brushes; whether the products of their manufacture are used partly for the requirements of Government Departments, the remainder being sold in the open market through the agency of a firm which in pre-war days imported large quantities of German-made brushes; and, if so, what is the cost of training these interned Germans or the necessity for training them?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I would refer the right hon. Baronet to the answers which the Home Secretary gave to similar questions on 28th February and 7th March, and will only add that the firm which has assisted in arranging for the employment of the interned Germans on this work has never, as I am informed, imported German-made brushes.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Am I to understand from that answer that practically denial is given to the whole statement made in the question, which was given me by a respected correspondent?
    Mr. BRACE: I think the right hon. Gentleman must take the answer I have given.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with the facts?
    Mr. BRACE: I am acquainted with the facts, but do not want to commit myself to the extent the right hon. Gentleman would ask me.

    "FIELD" NEWSPAPER OFFICE RAID.

      LIEUTENANT SOMERSET'S STATEMENT (EXPLANATION).
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether Lieutenant Somerset, of the War Office, has been preparing for fourteen months a case for the Public Prosecutor in connection with the matters now the subject of inquiry; whether, as a result, five persons have in that period gone to prison without any preliminary inquiry; will he give the names of these five persons; whether any and each of them are still in prison: what are they charged with or suspected of doing to justify imprisonment; why no prosecution has been commenced as a result of Lieutenant Somerset's labours; and (2) who was responsible for an official communication to the Press issued by the War Office through the Press Bureau on 2nd March to the effect that, in reports of proceedings at the preliminary sitting of the Commission of Inquiry into the raid on the "Field" newspaper offices, the statement had appeared in the Press that five persons had been sent to prison without trial for breaches of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that this statement was devoid of all foundation; whether he is aware that the statement thus officially denied was not an invention by the Press, as suggested, but was made before the Court of Inquiry by Lieutenant Somerset, an official of the War Office; and whether it is proposed to publish a contradiction of the communication of 2nd March and a withdrawal of the aspersion cast by it on the accuracy of the Press?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Both these questions arise from a misunderstanding. Lieutenant Somerset informed Mr. Justice Shearman that he was the officer who had been preparing these cases for the Public Prosecutor for the last fourteen months, and during that time, as a result of his efforts, five people had gone to prison without any preliminary inquiry. By the words "preliminary inquiry" he meant such as that being conducted by Mr. Justice Shearman. The Press misconstrued his meaning and informed the world that five persons had been sent to

      893
      prison without trial. It was necessary to correct this statement, and the notice was accordingly communicated to the Press on the 2nd March. To make the matter clear, it is desirable to state that the officer to whom the question refers has, during the past fourteen months, been employed, amongst other duties, in investigating, on behalf of the War Office and under the direction of his superior officers, eases -where a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulation 30 A appears to have been committed. It is the practice in these cases for a very careful preliminary investigation to be made by the War Office, and if a prima facie case for prosecution is disclosed, to pass the papers with a statement of the facts to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration and further action where thought advisable. So far from it being the fact that no prosecutions have been commenced as a result? of Lieutenant Somerset's labours, the precise opposite is the case. During the past fourteen months a number of persons have been brought to trial before the Civil Courts, and in every case a conviction has been secured. In five cases the magistrate has taken such a serious view of the case that he has inflicted a sentence of imprisonment without the alternative of a fine.
      The names of the five persons so sentenced for breaches of Defence of the Realm Regulations 30 A were published in the Press at the time of their conviction, and it would savour of vindictiveness if their names were published afresh. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the whole of the case out of which these questions arise is now sub judice, and I trust that he will defer any further questions until Mr. Justice Shearman has been able to report.
      Mr. McNEILL: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's reply, and especially the last paragraph, may I ask him if he does not realise that inasmuch as the officials of the War Office are doing everything in their power to baulk this inquiry, it will be necessary to pursue the matter on every possible occasion in this House?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot accept that statement of my hon. Friend. I am perfectly convinced of this—that the subordinates, as he calls them, at the War Office are only doing their duty.
      Mr. McNEILL: Having regard to the nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies,
      894
      I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Report stage of the Army Estimates.

    BRITISH OFFICER PRISONERS OF WAR (PROMOTION).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the conditions under which British officers who are prisoners of war receive promotion; whether it is proposed to alter these conditions; and, if so, how?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Article 47 of the Pay Warrant provides that a lieutenant may be promoted to captain notwithstanding that he is a prisoner, and that promotion of a captain to major may be made good after his release if practicable. Any promotion outside the terms of this article can only be considered after the officer's release when his fitness tor higher rank can be determined. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Army Council are now exercising a close watch on the working of this article.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is any reasonable chance that a captain who is a prisoner will be treated in the same way as a lieutenant who is a prisoner and given promotion?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say more than I have said, that the Army Council at the present time are exercising the very closest watch over this matter.

    CABLE CENSORSHIP, IRELAND (CAPTAIN STAPLES' POSITION).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a military officer was appointed in 1915 as censor at the Ballin-skelligs cable station, who termed himself Captain Staples; that after holding the position for some months he left suddenly and it was discovered that he had no claim to the rank of captain; that there is only one hotel in the whole district, and that the hotel proprietor was unable to request him to leave when he failed to pay his hotel bills, by reason of the fact that the Defence of the Realm Acts prevented him from exercising the usual precautions; whether he is aware that the hotel proprietor has been unable to obtain payment of the amount due; and whether, in view of the fact that the War Office

    895
    appointed to the important position of military censor a man about whose antecedents they had not made the necessary inquiries, and who had no right to the title of officer which he assumed, steps will now be taken to indemnify the hotel proprietor for the loss he has sustained?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have every sympathy with the hotel proprietor referred to, but I am afraid that the Department cannot accept any responsibility for the private debts of persons employed by it. I do not quite understand the reference to the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman not perfectly aware that at this cable station messages going to America have to be censored, and that the hotel proprietor could not request this man to leave because under the operations of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland he would have made himself amenable to the law?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. There is this point I do not understand: I do not understand that the Defence of the Realm Regulations prevent any hotel proprietor from taking ordinary steps.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware, seeing that there is no other hotel in the place, that if the proprietor had asked this so-called military officer to retire immediately he would have made himself liable to military operations?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member will confer with me upon that point I will have it closely examined.
    Mr. BOLAND: I have already conferred several times, personally and by letter, with the hon. Gentleman, and I must take the opportunity of raising this question in Debate at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say where Captain Staples is now?

    TEMPORARY MILITARY CHAPLAINS (ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. S. MacNEILLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the attention of the War Office
    896
    authorities has been directed to the fact that temporary military chaplains on service at the various war fronts on promotion live at headquarters, where the necessary expenses are threefold in excess of the expenses of living with a regiment or ambulance, but that such Army chaplains receive no allowance corresponding with their work; and whether, having regard to the fact that these clergymen have in many cases cheerfully resigned good positions at home to fulfil their duty to their country in time of war, steps will be taken to place them in the same position with reference to allowances as other temporary officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: I presume the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind certain cases where a step of rank has been granted to chaplains to enable them to exercise administrative supervision over other chaplains, but where the extent of the charge entrusted to them is not sufficient (in the opinion of the authorities and those representatives of the various Churches who advise them) to justify any other than honorary rank. In all cases chaplains draw the allowances of their substantive or temporary rank under the same conditions as other officers.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Have not these gentlemen to pay threefold expenses for this honorary rank, and is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he ought not to rob the Church?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been directed to the waste of Food caused by the peeling of potatoes; if he will inquire if the practice is universal among Army cooks; and, if so, give strict orders that it shall be stopped?
      Mr. FORSTER: The peeling of potatoes is strictly forbidden except when the dietary of the troops makes it necessary. If other cases do occur, they are very rare, and the importance of avoiding this form of waste has been impressed on all concerned.

      HAY STOCKS, DUBLIN.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received a resolution from the County

      897
      Dublin Food Production Advisory Committee, and a letter from the Dublin Cowkeepers' and Dairymen's Association, asking that the military authorities should release at once all hay in Dublin and surrounding counties not required by them, in view of a possible shortage of milk supply in the city; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. The greater part of the hay not required by the military authorities has already been released. The owners of the remaining portion may depend upon prompt inspection, if they apply to the local officers.

      NECESSITOUS FAMILIES.
      Mr. BRUNNERasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has considered the question of large families in relation to the present price of food; and whether anything can be done to provide such families in poor circumstances with assistance to maintain them in health?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I hope that the measures which are being taken by the Food Controller will ensure a supply of food at prices which will not be beyond the means of most people in the country.

      DISTRIBUTION OF STOCKS AT FAIR PRICES.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department has considered the effect on prices and distribution of shortage or restricted imports in the case of such commodities as tea, coffee, cocoa, and potatoes; whether his Department has devised any plan for securing equitable distribution among all sections at prices which will be fair in all the circumstances; and if he is now in a position to make a statement on this matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. As regards tea, coffee and cocoa, the Food Controller is consulting with the leading representatives of these trades with a view to securing distribution at fair prices. As regards potatoes, my hon. Friend is aware that the prices have been fixed to the consumer, which are much
      898
      below the level to which they would have risen but for the Food Controller's intervention.
      Mr. FLAVIN: How is the Food Controller going to regulate the prices of tea when large tea merchants go into the market and raise the price by manipulation?
      Captain BATHURST: I have reason to think that that is a somewhat exaggerated statement. The whole question is being inquired into.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within the last four weeks tea has been artificially raised in the Mincing Lane market by over 5d. per lb.?
      Captain BATHURST: I am not aware of that.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Yes, you know it has. Your boss knows it.

      SUGAR.
      Mr. A. RICHARDSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in consequence of the influx of 15,000 munition and Government workers into the borough of Rotherham there is a shortage of sugar; and will he make such arrangements as will result in the inhabitants of Rotherham getting their 50 per cent. of sugar of 1915 supplies?
      Captain BATHURST: The shortage of sugar in Rotherham has already been brought to the notice of the Food Controller, and arrangements were made in the middle of February for the allocation of additional supplies of sugar to the Rotherham district at the rate of 4 tons per week.
      Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there is at the present moment eight to ten thousand tons of Manilla sugar in the London and West India Docks, bought by London dealers; that these dealers are not allowed to clear any of this sugar unless they give an undertaking that it is to be used for brewing purposes; and, in view of the fact that the grocers are only receiving 50 per cent. of 1915 supplies for domestic purposes, will he give instructions that the sugar dealers shall be relieved of this unfair condition?
      Captain BATHURST: I am aware that there are considerable quantities of this sugar in the warehouses of the docks

      899
      referred to, and that its delivery otherwise than in accordance with the Brewers' Sugar Order, 1917, is being refused. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this Order, which was intended to secure that brewers' sugar, which is of a grade generally unsuitable for domestic consumption, should be reserved for the use of brewers and brewers' sugar manufacturers. As a result of this Order, the Sugar Commission have been enabled to suspend the issue of licences for the importation of brewers' sugar, and so save a considerable amount of tonnage. The Food Controller is not prepared, as at present advised to grant exemptions from this Order in other than exceptional circumstances.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that scores of thousands of tons of Manila sugar has been used for domestic purposes and that it is usable for everything except tea?
      Captain BATHURST: Yes. I am aware that such sugar is being used for domestic purposes. I am also aware that the fact of this supply being reserved for brewing purposes enables the Food Controller to disallow any licences for further importations for that purpose?
      Sir W. ESSEX: Does not the hon. Gentleman think the time has arrived when even this sugar should be used for domestic purposes and not for brewing?
      Captain BATHURST: Only recently the Government have taken somewhat drastic action in this direction, and I have not the least doubt that if the requirements of the nation necessitate it further and more drastic action will be taken.

      PRICE OF TEA.
      Mr. A. RICHARDSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food Controller whether he is aware that the Food Controller, at a meeting held on 6th March with the tea merchants of London, suggested that they should sell a 2s. retail tea; if so, is he aware that on the same day the lowest price tea sold on the London market was 1s. 3¼d., which, together with the 1s. duty, costs the merchant 2s. 3¼d. per lb.; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      Captain BATHURST: Arrangements as regards the regulation of the price of tea are still the matter of negotiation, and the
      900
      Food Controller is conferring further with representatives of all the interests concerned.
      Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question as to the Food Controller having suggested 2s. as the retail price of tea?
      Captain BATHURST: This suggestion was in fact done in a private conversation with the traders, and it never was intended to be published.
      Sir WALTER ESSEX: Who has to bear the loss between the cost of the tea on the market, plus the duty, and the price of the tea to be sold, and who is to have the profit on the deal?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

      TILLAGE (IRELAND).
      Mr. COSGRAVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Regulations as to tillage have been complied with by the occupiers of untenanted and grazing farms in the rural districts of Portumna, Mountbellew, Ballinasloe, and Glennamaddy, county Galway; and, if not, what steps the Department of Agriculture have taken or propose to take, with regard to the defaulters and the arable lands which have to be tilled, and which numerous occupiers of uneconomic holdings are willing and anxious to till if they are permitted to do so and if the lands are let at a moderate rent?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The information at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture indicates that, generally speaking, the occupiers of land in the districts mentioned are taking or propose to take, steps to comply with the compulsory Tillage Regulations, either by carrying out the necessary cultivation themselves or by conacre lettings. In cases where occupiers fail to comply with the Regulations the Department will take the steps provided for under the Regulations.
      Mr. DORIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Department will take this into consideration, as it is a very urgent matter?
      Mr. DUKE: The answer I have given covers the supplementary inquiry.
      Mr. COSGRAVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken to comply with the tillage scheme on the following grazing ranches

      901
      in county Galway: Ballinavilla, 180 acres, the property of Mr. Frank Shaw Taylor, Castle Taylor, Ardraghan; Gurtnahoon, 100 acres, the property of Mrs. Egan, Lime Hill; and West Ballydonlan, 200 acres, owned by Mr. George K. Mahon Mahon, Ballydonelon, Kilrickle; and when the Department of Agriculture hope to make allotments to the neighbouring small landholders on the portions of such grazing lands in respect of which the present occupiers are in default?
      Mr. DUKE: This matter is being dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, but I have no information at present which warrants me in identifying any individual occupier as a person who is in default.

    CONNAUGHT RANGERS (PRIVATE M. CUNNINGHAM).
    Mr. DORISasked why Francis Cunningham, Duke Street, Castlebar, county Mayo, father of Private M. Cunningham, No. 5545. Connaught Rangers, has received no separation allowance since his son's enlistment in January, 1915, when the soldier made an allotment of 3d. per day to his father?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries will be made and the hon. Member informed of the result in due course.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked whether it is intended to remit the whole or part of the English Excess Profits Duty in the case of a company registered in this country but trading only in an Allied country and already charged with an Excess Profits Duty by the Allied Government?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): In computing profits for the purposes of Excess Profits Duty a deduction is allowed for any payment in respect of the profits on account of any Excess Profits Duty or similar duty imposed by an Allied Government.

    RAILWAY FARES.
    Mr. BRUNNERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the case of blind piano-tuners who in the course of their business are obliged to travel by railway and pay the increased fares; and whether he can make some concession in their case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I sympathise with the case, but I am afraid that it is not practicable in present circumstances to make an exception in favour of blind piano-tuners.

    PAPER IMPORTS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the restrictions placed on the supply of paper, he will consider the desirability of giving power to the Paper Commission to refuse paper supplies to the halfpenny comic papers and papers of a similar character, in order that sufficient paper may be reserved for papers and weekly journals serving some national purpose?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that the difficulties of drawing any exact line of division between periodicals whose publication serves a national purpose and those which could be suppressed without loss to the public interest are such as the Paper Commission could not be expected to overcome.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman cannot draw a distinction between a halfpenny comic paper and an evening newspaper?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Being an ordinary-human being, I am unable to do so.
    Mr. GILBERTasked whether steps are being taken to ascertain the stocks of paper held by various newspapers; and whether when this has been done it will be possible for the Commission to restrict the right to prevent purchase from the mills in cases where it is found that sufficient stocks are held to publish for the next three, six, or twelve months, and so enable such smaller newspapers or journals as may be found by the Commission to be serving some national purpose to purchase sufficient paper to continue publication even in a restricted size?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that the Paper Commission are obtaining the information with respect to the stocks in this country. When the facts have been ascertained, careful consideration will be given to the question whether any action is; necessary or desirable.
    Mr. KEATING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the proportion of paper allotted to certain proprietors this year is

    903
    in proportion to the amount utilised last year, and that they cut down their supplies last year in accordance with the wishes of the Government, they are now penalised as compared with those who did not cut down their supplies last year?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That point has been brought to our notice and is under consideration.
    Mr. GILBERTasked whether a newspaper recently obtained 500 tons of paper while, at the same time, notice has been served on all the existing papers and weekly journals that they can only obtain half supplies in future, a quantity which is in many cases insufficient to publish even in a restricted form?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No newspaper has had more than its regulation supply through the licences of the Paper Commission. Any further or special supplies that any newspaper may have obtained must have been bought in the open market without any assistance from or knowledge of the Commission.

    INTERNATIONAL PLATE GLASS IN SURANCE AND CLEANING COMPANY.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great International Plate Glass Insurance and Cleaning Company is going to be allowed to continue trading in this country, in view of the fact that before the War most of the shares were held by Rob Stähr, a German, and have merely been trans ferred to Max Kühn, also a German and only naturalised in 1913; and is he aware that Max Kühn was secretary to the Kaiser jubilee funds in 1913, whose committee declared that they never missed an opportunity to prove its love to the father land?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member for York yesterday.

    MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT.

      CHARGES OF PRO-GERMAN INFLUENCE.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to charges of pro-German Influence in the case of members of the Government contained in the speeches of Dr.
      904
      Ellis Powell and Mr. Arnold White at a meeting in Queen's Hall on Sunday, 4th March; and whether he proposes to take any action under the Defence of the Realm Regulations in the matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that if charges of this description are made on public platforms and in the columns of the daily Press they are to remain unanswered?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That must depend on the discretion of the Home Secretary.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very serious insinuations have been made against men of high judicial capacity, who have no chance of defending themselves?

    PENNY BANK.
    Mr. YEOasked when the next instalment will be paid to the creditors of the Penny Bank; and, if so, what will be the amount?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. A final dividend of 2s. 5d. in the £ will be paid to the depositors in the National Penny Bank next Thursday.

    DEATH DUTIES (MERCHANT SER VICE AND FISHING FLEETS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the number of deathes due to the action of the enemy among officers and men of the merchant service and fishing fleets, he will extend the provisions of the Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914, to the estates of all such men whether at the time of their death they were subject to the Naval Discipline Act or not?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the sums in question are trivial from the revenue point of view, but are of great importance to the widows and dependants of these people?

    SALE OF SPIRITS (BRITISH SEAPORTS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the danger and delay to shipping at British ports due to the sale of spirits in bottles by persons holding licences for the off-sale of spirits, he will take steps to have such sale prohibited during the continuance of the War within the municipal boundaries of every seaport city and town in the British Islands?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have not sufficient information to justify such a step being taken, but I will consider any information of specific instances that the hon. Member may send me.

    GERMAN BANKS IN LONDON.
    Mr. G. FABERasked whether the Deutsche Bank, the Dresdner Bank, and the Disconto-Gesellschaft, in London, have now, or has any and which of them, been finally wound-up and their businesses brought to an end; and, if not, when they will be and, as soon as they are, to whom the books and papers of the said banks will be entrusted and to whom they will belong?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that, by the end of the month or soon after, the work in connection with the Deutsche Bank will be completed and the bank will be finally closed. In the case of the other two banks the necessary work is being completed with all the expedition that is possible with a much reduced staff. The books and papers of the banks will be vested in the Public Trustee.

    BUILDING WORK (LABOUR).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the Ministry of National Service, what course a firm of builders should take to secure labour to replace men called up in order to carry out essential works of repair to farm buildings, etc., having regard to the Orders issued by the Director of National Service?
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. The firm should state their requirements
    906
    to the National Service Commissioner or to the Director-General of National Service, when the application will be dealt with on its merits. It is proposed to issue instructions to enable such applications to be dealt with locally.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: Is it at all probable that men will be allocated to this builder to enable him to carry on his work?
    Mr. BECK: I will convey my hon. Friend's query to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the inconvenience, hardship, and loss caused at present?
    Mr. BECK: I will point that out to my right hon. Friend.

    MUNITIONS.

      COMPOUND EXPLOSIVES.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution at the Caxton Munitions Tribunal of Mrs. Skipper and Miss Brown, 5, Pear Street Cottages, Pear Road, Hounslow, for the second time, refusing to work on C.E.; whether he is aware that they were fined £3 each in addition to the previous fine of 15s. each, and that both have also suffered five weeks' unemployment, their leaving certificates having been withheld; whether he is aware that Miss Brown is only seventeen years of age, although she gave her age as eighteen in order to obtain employment, and that she produced a medical certificate that, in the opinion of her own doctor, she was unfit for work in C.E.; and if he will give instructions that these prosecutions are to cease?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: It is true that the women in question were prosecuted a second time and were fined as stated. When the second complaint was lodged the women were invited to continue at work other than C.E. work. They gave no notice to terminate their employment and made no request for their leaving certificates. Their leaving certificates were, in fact, issued to them voluntarily on the day of the second prosecution. Miss Brown gave her age as eighteen on entering the factory in September, 1916, and her written statement to that effect was put in evidence. It is true that the girl produced a medical certificate from her own doctor dated later than the

      907
      certificate issued by the factory medical officer, which the tribunal accepted as valid. In reply to the last part of the question, I cannot undertake to give instructions for these prosecutions to cease.
      Sir C. HOBHOUSE: What is "C.E."?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Compound explosives.

    UNPAID POSITIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. HOLTasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that several hon. Members have accepted unpaid positions in various Government Departments in order to assist in the prosecution of the War and have virtually become unpaid Civil servants; whether such positions, as, for instance, that of Controller of the Priority Department of the Ministry of Munitions, unpaid, can be accepted by an hon. Member without vacating his seat; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to prevent any Member from unwittingly vacating his seat or exposing himself to penalties as a consequence of his public service?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart: The matter is at present before the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion.
    Mr. HOLT: If I put the question down for this day week will I receive an answer?
    Sir G. HEWART: Yes, I hope so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the Solicitor-General aware that this is a matter of urgency, and, as there is no statement at the present juncture, there are Members of this House who may be incurring penalties.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Solicitor-General has already given the answer that the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is the Solicitor-General aware that this matter has been under consideration for the last ten days? How many days do you want?
    Sir G. HEWART: No Sir, I am certainly not aware of it.

    CEREBRAL MENINGITIS (READING).
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the outbreak
    908
    of cerebral meningitis at the jam factory, Coley, near Reading, at present occupied by the School of Technical Training, Royal Flying Corps; if several men there have died of this complaint; if the other men were allowed to be in contact with possible infection without the slightest precaution being taken; if he is aware that at the coroner's inquest, held on 23rd February on one of the victims, it was ascertained that the man who died was ill twenty-four hours before a doctor was summoned, and that the jury and two doctors agreed that medical aid ought to have been obtained sooner; if his attention has been drawn to the character of the answers given by the military authorities to questions asked them by the jury; if his attention has been drawn to the, verdict of the coroner's jury at the inquiry held and to the remarks they added; if any inquiry has been instituted by the War Office: and, if so, what conclusion they have arrived at and what action it is proposed to take?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and my hon. and gallant Friend will be informed of the result.
    Captain HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman say when this outbreak occurred, and why inquiries have not been concluded before now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate the facts as soon as possible.
    Captain HALL: How many persons who suffered from this fever have died?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I have caused inquiries to be made, and as soon as I have received the full facts I will communicate them to the House.
    Captain HALL: Only now?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

      OFFICERS' DEPENDANTS.
      Colonel YATE(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is now in a position to state what provision has been made for the families of officers of the junior ranks?
      Mr. FORSTER: Treasury authority has now been obtained for a scheme whereby officers in the Army under the rank of

      909
      major, or equivalent rank in the Navy, may, under certain conditions, obtain a maintenance allowance from public funds for their children. These allowances will be made by the Military Service Civil Liabilities Committee, and will be supplementary to the grants which are already made by that Committee in respect of rent, rates, insurance, school fees, etc. The present limit of £104 per annum may be increased by any amount which may be given for maintenance allowance. Applications for grants must be made on a prescribed form, which will be obtainable from the Army and Navy Agents and from the Civil Liabilities Committee. Information in regard to the conditions under which the grants will be given is being circulated in Army Orders.
      Colonel YATE: Is there no provision for the wives of junior officers, dependant mothers, or other dependants on junior officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: Not in the form of this allowance. The maintenance allowance is confined to those households where there are children.
      Colonel YATE: Does not the wife require maintenance as much as children?
      Mr. FORSTER: Not without children.
      Mr. BILLING: Are there not many thousands of young officers in this country whose obligations are such as to make them even worse off than privates in the Army?
      Mr. FORSTER: The arrangement communicated to the House is intended to obviate that hardship. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Civil Liabilities Committee have already a scheme by which they can assist officers with regard to rates, insurance, interest on mortgage, and matters of that kind.
      Colonel M'CALMONT: Are we to understand that these grants are only to be made on application, and, if so, will it be made quite clear that officers have to apply for them before they can get them?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes; these grants can only be given on application. I am taking special steps to call the attention of officers of the Army to the opportunities which are given.
      Mr. G. FABER: Will the machinery of application be made as simple as possible?
      Mr. FORSTER: I hope so. I want to make this as easy for the officers as I
      910
      possibly can. Officers at home will have to apply themselves. In the case of officers abroad application may be made by the wife or the guardian of the children.

    DARDANELLES COMMISSION REPORT.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: I beg to ask you, Sir, a question in reference to the privileges of this House and the relations between the Speaker of this House and its Members. I wish to know whether the Dardanelles Report, without omissions, was received by you in your official capacity as Speaker of the House of Commons and, if so, whether it ought not to be laid before the House and so received?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have never received any such Report.
    Mr. MacNEILL: It -was stated publicly in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that unexpurgated copies had been furnished to the Speaker of the House confidentially. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and an HON. MEMBER: "Would be."] Then it was to be in the future. I will wait until you receive it.

    Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce legislation amending the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, so as to permit of the holding of fatal accident inquiries before the sheriff without a jury in all cases other than those in which the Lord Advocate may, in the public interest, direct that the inquiry shall take place before the sheriff and a jury?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am aware that the effect of the War has been to increase the burden thrown upon individuals who are liable to be called away from work, which may be of national importance, for the purpose of serving upon juries in the class of case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of his suggestion that a discretion to dispense with a jury should be vested in the Lord Advocate—at any rate during the War. I shall carefully consider any expressions of opinion that may reach me for or against legislation in the sense suggested.

    Gaming Machines.
    Mr. D. MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any representations on the subject of the use in Scotland of certain gaming machines, which have been held to be illegal in England, but the use of which, according to the decisions of the High Court in Scotland, is still permissible in that country; and whether, having regard to the injury done to the morals of school children who are attracted by the machines in question, he is prepared to introduce legislation prohibiting their use in Scotland?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have received representations from influential quarters on this subject, which I regard as one of serious consequence. My advisers are at present considering the form which any Bill that I may find it possible to introduce should take—a question that is not free from difficulty.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what type of machine is referred to?
    Mr. MUNRO: A type of machine which has been held illegal in England, but which has been held legal in Scotland.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is the type? Have you got one here?

    National Insurance (Inspectors of Audit).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division), as representing the National Insurance Audit Department, whether, seeing that the inspectors of audit are mainly employed on duties which connote duplication of work, that these inspectors, lacking in intelligence, education, and a practical knowledge of the world, hamper auditors when they interfere with them, and that the effective work of the Department is supervised by auditors who have a practical knowledge of the work and who are responsible for the preparation and signing of the reports, he will consider the question of the reorganisation of the Department with a view to effecting economy and efficiency by the abolition of the grade of inspector?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is misinformed as to the qualifications and duties of the inspectors of audit under the National Insurance Audit Department. The answer to the question is in the negative.
    Mr. NUGENTasked what was the date on which Mr. Twort was promoted from the position of auditor to that of in spector of audit; whether Mr. Twort occupied the position of auditor for only a very short time; and whether, seeing that previous to his appointment as an auditor in the Department Mr. Twort had no experience of auditing and was not qualified as a professional accountant, he will explain the reasons for his promotion?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Mr. Twort was appointed inspector of audit under the National Insurance Audit Department on the 1st January, 1914, having served as auditor since the formation of the Department and having in the year 1907 passed the test examination of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Mr. Twort's promotion was made solely in the interest of the public service.
    Mr. NUGENTasked whether the hon. Member will furnish a statement showing the names of Irish-born assistant auditors of the old grade who, prior to 1st January, 1914, and 1st May, 1915, respectively, were recommended by their immediate superiors for promotion to the new grade of assistant auditor on the intermediate scale, but who were not so promoted as from each of those dates, and the names of the inspectors of audit who vetoed such promotions being made; whether the immediate superiors of these assistant auditors were in a better position than the inspectors of audit to adjudicate on the qualifications of such assistant auditors for promotion; and whether he proposes to take any steps in this matter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The place of birth of an assistant auditor has never been taken into consideration with regard to promotion, and the inspectors of audit have no veto with regard to promotion, though their recommendations are considered by the chief auditor in submitting names to the Treasury. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those of Irish nationality have been practically disqualified from all nominations?
    Mr. NUGENTasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) whether one of the original appointees to the post of inspector of audit was Irish born; and, if so, whether, seeing that it was intended that these inspectors should be the immediate advisers of the

    913
    chief auditor, he will explain why an Irish-born inspector had not been appointed either at the formation of the Department or at a subsequent date when opportunity occurred for so doing?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is referred to the reply to his question of the 18th April, 1916.
    Mr. NUGENTasked whether, seeing that some twenty-five senior assistant auditors of the old grade were promoted to the newgrade of assistant auditor on the intermediate scale as from 1st January, 1914, that Messrs. Atkinson, Williams, and Joynt, senior assistant auditors of the old grade, were considered as not having shown themselves equally qualified to be so promoted as at that date, he will explain why these three latter officials were subsequently promoted to the yet higher position of acting auditor over the heads of their twenty-five colleagues who had a short time previously shown themselves better qualified for advancement; whether promotion in the Department connotes pergonal favourites of the inspectors of audit at such times as vacancies for promotion may arise: whether the bulk of these inspectors of audit are lacking in education, intelligence, sense of equity, and practical knowledge of the work of the Department; and whether, in the interests of efficiency and economy, he will institute an independent inquiry into the present system of promotion in the Department with a view to eradicating it in favour of a more equitable system based on a combination of merit and seniority?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Messrs. Atkinson, Williams, and Joynt were selected by a Departmental Committee as the most suitable officers to fill these vacancies. The answer to the second, third and fourth parts of the question is in the negative. I wish to deprecate strongly the ungrounded attacks made by the hon. Member, upon a valuable body of public servants.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. COSGROVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a number of small landholders on the Ussher estate, county Galway, purchased their holdings some years ago through the Estates Commissioners on the understanding that the same would be enlarged at the first opportunity; if he will say whether the Congested Districts Board
    914
    have acquired huundreds of acres on the Smyth estate, in the immediate neighbourhood; if so, if he will state whether and, if so, when these lands or a portion of them will be distributed amongst the people who are trying to eke out an existence on a few acres of cut-away bog; and, pending final distribution, will the Congested Districts Board now let to the congests at moderate rents one acre for meadow for each acre they till on their present small holdings?
    Mr. DUKE: If the estates referred to are those of William A. Ussher, near Ballinasloe and Mountbellow, County Galway, purchased by the Estates Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the tenants have purchased their holdings and the untenanted land has been allotted. I have no information regarding the alleged understanding that the holdings of small landholders would be enlarged at the first opportunity. The Congested Districts Board have purchased the estate of J. J. Smyth, in the Union of Loughrea, on which there is a large quantity of untenanted land, but the question of the final distribution of this land has not been considered, except for a portion agreed to be exchanged with the Estates Commissioners for the enlargement of small holdings on the Clonbrook estate. The visual practice in the distribution of untenanted land will be followed in this case and enlargements will be provided, as far as practicable, for the holdings of the adjacent small landholders before the migration of persons from a distance is provided for. Pending the permanent distribution of the untenanted land, grazing and meadowing is provided for the neighbouring small tenants on the usual conditions.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir DANIEL GODDARD reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Gordon Harvey; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Francis Blake.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    Census of Production Bill,
    Railway Passenger Duty Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    VOTE OF CREDIT.
    Mr. McKENNA: Can the Leader of the House let us know the programme of business?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: On Thursday we shall find it necessary to introduce a further Vote of Credit for the current financial year, to meet increased expenditure which, for reasons I will fully explain, could not be foreseen. We propose to take the Vote on Thursday.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
As amended, further considered.

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 perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by 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.
Amendment proposed [12th March;] In Sub-section (1), after the word "Service" ["title of Director-Geeral 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."—[Mr. Hazleton.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. DEVLIN: When the Debate was adjourned last night I was pointing out to the House that in connection with the application of this measure to Ireland, Irish opinion had not been consulted. We have already had instances of how unsatisfying this Bill is as a national necessity in England. We have had instances that since National Service was established it has been a painful failure in its working in England, and if it is in England how much more disastrous must it necessarily become in Ireland, a country which it does not suit. The proposition I lay down may be traversed, but if I can make a draft upon the patience of the House I venture to say that I will advance it by much more powerful arguments than anything that could come from myself when I give a quotation or two from the Bible of the Coalition Government, namely, the "Daily Mail." I hold in my hand an article which states:
"The complaints about National Service that are being received from most parts of the country show that something is wrong with the present scheme …
That is the scheme which you propose to apply to Ireland.
"The Prime Minister asked at the outset that a fair chance should be given the new men and new Departments. They have now had three months and three months is a very long time at one of the most critical periods of the War. What have they to show for it?"
This scheme has been in operation, according to the "Daily Mail," for three months in this country. It has been backed up by the authority of the Government, and all who have been behind the Government and its chief apostle in the Press is the newspaper from which I have quoted, and yet up to the present, according to the "Daily Mail," there is nothing to show for this scheme, and that is the scheme you propose to apply to Ireland. The article goes on to say that National Service, as it is now being worked, has not set free those men who it is designed to provide:
"People are being invited to enrol in thousands, but for what they were asked nobody seems to know. The National Service Department gives no signs of having any plans. Complaints reach us from employers that they have released their workpeople for National Service1 and that those people are drifting about unable to obtain any other employment. We have other complaints of letters addressed to the Department at St. Ermin's Hotel which remain unanswered. We learn of business enterprises that are being abandoned because of the fear that it may be impossible to obtain labour."
The article concluded that those businesses would have to do their part in the nation's work, and that the chaos is growing every day. That means that with fresh experience, with an increased staff, and with all the administrative power and machinery

925
which three months' experience has given to the Government and to Mr. Neville Chamberlain, things are going from bad to worse:
"It can be allayed if the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues makes a definite statement as to when the volunteers who have enrolled will be wanted and what they will be wanted for, and make an end of chaos."
That is our experience, not the experience, mark you, of the opponents of this scheme, like some hon. Gentlemen who sit below me, but the experience of the "Daily Mail," which has been the inspiring agent which has forced the Government to adopt this policy to which they have been committed. We are told it has been a disastrous failure. I object to your successes in this country being imposed upon Ireland altogether; and if I object to your successes in England being imposed on Ireland, I object to your failures being imposed upon Ireland. Mr. Neville Chamberlain is a very distinguished and very able municipal administrator, and I myself think he was as good a man as you could have got in England for the job, but Mr. Neville Chamberlain took larger responsibility on his shoulders than he was able to bear. I heard some one say the other day that St. Ermin's Hotel was less like a Government Department than a lunatic asylum, that they were running everywhere and nowhere, and did not know where they were or where they were going. That is how this great industrial country has organised and mobilised labour in this country for National Service, and that is the system you are going to transfer, only in a worse form, from this country, where it has been a grotesque failure, to Ireland. The "Daily Mail" has asked for some explanatory statement from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not come to the House of Commons. I am surprised that any Minister comes to the House of Commons. The Chief Secretary for Ireland comes to the House of Commons for the purpose of telling the Irish Members that they do not represent Ireland. That is a frank statement to make. He has courage enough to come and make that statement on the floor of the House where we are here to meet him, but the new policy is for the Prime Minister not to come to the House of Commons, but to treat the House of Commons with absolute contempt, while even the "Daily Mail" is howling for the Prime Minister to come here and try and get England out of the disastrous position which she occupies in regard to the carrying out of this policy
926
of National Service, which is to be transferred to Ireland after it has been tried in England for three months, and has been a failure. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will he now, before all this bungling and all this blundering takes place in Ireland, tell us how this system of voluntary National Service is to be carried on in Ireland? He was not quite sure last night. He had not his mind made up: he was thinking over it. He will go over to Ireland and find out from the most trusted officials with the most crusted officialdom what their view is on the situation because he has not consulted us. I want to know who is to conduct this national scheme on voluntary lines in Ireland? We must have the name of the National Director. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) said he must be a man who possesses and commands the confidence of all sections of the Irish people. This is, I will not say the good old system, but rather the new-found doctrine that has eaten its way into the relations of Ministers in this House to Ireland. You must not give Ireland Home Rule because every hole and corner of Ireland does not want it. You must not consult Irish opinion because there is a difference of opinion in Ireland. You must have, even to conduct this National Service, a man who commands the sympathy and support of everyone in Ireland. Let us have the super-man. You could not find him in England, but the right hon. Gentleman says he will find him in Ireland. There are many men in Ireland in your Government whom you could utilise for useful public purposes, and you have been so accustomed to use the vilest of instruments in Ireland that everybody looks, even when your intentions are honest, with a suspicious eye upon anyone whom you appoint to a responsible position, and especially a position of this character in Ireland, because this is a very important position.
The action of the Director in Ireland will have the widest and most far-reaching consequences. We have not many industries in Ireland outside the North. Most of the industries in the North are engaged in munitions work, and therefore you may practically count them out altogether. You want to find labour for the purposes of National Service in the other three provinces. Whom are you going to appoint to carry on this work? [An HON. MEMBER: "Major Price."] I well re-

927
member, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it, that we have had character sketches, delivered from that box by the Prime Minister, of the gentlemen whom you sent to carry out voluntary recruiting in Ireland. You sent Orangemen from the North of Ireland into the most Nationalist and Catholic districts, not to appeal to the people, but to denounce them and to call them names, because gentlemen of military age from the North of Ireland found it more convenient to lecture their Catholic fellow-countrymen in other parts of Ireland on their duty than to enter the Army themselves. The whole secret of the failure, next to the War Office itself, of the voluntary recruiting in Ireland, was the character of the men whom you sent to carry out the work of recruiting in every one of these three provinces. If you intend to send some gentleman, or with him a number of apostles of similar views, round the country, appealing for voluntary workers, then it would be better to be perfectly frank with us and tear your Bill up so far as Ireland is concerned, because it can have no useful application to that country. The right hon. Gentleman said last night in his speech that we were opposed on these benches to the mobilisation and the readjustment of labour in Ireland. Nothing of the sort. I would call his attention to a paragraph of the Report of the Food Committee of the Irish party, which was sent to him on the 15th of January last, in which we say:
"Labour is still leaving this country, even from the agricultural districts, for Great Britain, while nothing is done to organise it for home needs."
That was over two months ago. We made that recommendation to the Government. What has been done, in the intervening period by the administrative authority which the right hon. Gentleman set up in Ireland to organise or mobilise labour for home purposes and especially for food production? Not a single thing. In fact, I would like, at some stage of these proceedings, if the right hon. Gentleman would get up in the House and tell us what this Committee has done, who they are, and what they have been doing since they were appointed for the purpose of developing food production all over Ireland. We recommended that an Advisory Committee should be appointed to cooperate with officials in the development of food production, and whom did we
928
recommend? We recommended a chairman of a county council who had great knowledge of farming and of the growing of foodstuffs from each province in Ireland, but the suggestion was turned down. We did not ask to be represented upon your Committee, although many of ray hon. Friends are trained farmers, carrying on successfully, profitably, and skilfully the pursuit of agriculture. But we asked that men of representative character, men holding the position of chairmen of county councils, one from each province, should be appointed on this Advisory Committee, and the suggestion was turned down by the Government. Now, I want to know what is to be done in regard to the carrying out of National Service. Is if to be done by some understrapper of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who will pursue the policy in Ireland that the "Daily Mail" declares has been pursued in this country, of turning everything into pandemonium, with nothing but universal chaos evolving from it all? Is this understrapper to be guided by the principles that have brought about the disastrous results stated in the "Daily Mail"? We want to know to whom he is to be responsible, who is to speak for him in this House, and if he is to be an independent authority dealing with Irish conditions, or merely an official performing such duties as are assigned to him by the Director-General here. We want to know, also, if there is to be an Advisory Committee. An Advisory Committee was granted by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary yesterday for England. We want to know if there is to be an Advisory Committee in Ireland, and we want to know the names of the Advisory Committee. We want to know who they are, if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to appoint them, and I am afraid that, laborious and responsible as are the right hon. Gentleman's duties to answer for nearly fifty bureaucratic Boards in Ireland in this House, he is taking on his shoulders too large a responsibility and too serious a burden if he constitutes himself the defender of all the blunders that are bound to be incidental to the administration of this National Service in Ireland under such constituted bodies.
4.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to secure labour. In my judgment, the first function of labour at this moment is to produce food. You have already had to take 30,000 trained soldiers

929
from the front and bring them back to engage in agricultural pursuits in this country. That is what you have had to do in England. You have the labour in Ireland, if you know how to use it. You want to produce food, and I will tell you how you can do it. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of vast grazing ranches in Ireland, and there are thousands of what are called landless men in Ireland—men living on what are known as uneconomic holdings, men ekeing out an existence on five or six acres of land, or of bog, while these rich and fertile plains, as rich and fruitful as any lands that can be found under the sun, are lying there in waste, while the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) has two bodies in the country, the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, who have all the machinery by which these grazing ranches can be broken up and distributed among the people. If you break up these grazing ranches into farms of 30 or 40 acres, and hand them over to the trained small farmer who hitherto has had a very small farm; if, I say, you give an additional 30 or 40 acres through the Congested District Boards or the Estates Commissoners, you will not only have himself but his family working on that land. That is labour that could not possibly be utilised anywhere else; labour that will be there to do the work that is essential. You can have this if you break up the grazing ranches and give them to the people. What, therefore, is the good of talking about transferring labourers from one part of Ireland to another, or bringing them over here to England to put them, I have no doubt, on farms in England where they may act as substitutes under the policy which, I understand, has been adopted in this country? I mean, where you have taken, for example, a trained accountant, a man whose long experience and training was required in a big business to be used for accountancy purposes, and placed him on the land. A man, the only man on a farm, volunteered for National Service under the scheme, and was sent to plough land in Devonshire. You have the land in Ireland. You have the farmers. You have the skilled agriculturists. You have the knowledge. You only want to use them, instead of introducing into the country this thing, which nobody believes in, and which everybody knows has been a gross
930
failure in England. It will prove to be a greater failure still in Ireland. In my judgment, when it is properly understood in this country, with all the dangers that surround it and the disastrous resulting consequences, it will be found a very costly experiment. How will the Government face the people? I, therefore, hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after having all night to think over the matter, will answer the question which I have put-namely, how is this scheme to be carried out in Ireland, the name of the Assistant Director who is to deal with the question in Ireland, is there to be an Advisory Committee, who are to constitute this Committee, and whether this Bill, now that it is being applied to Ireland, and becomes an Act, is to be of real usefulness for Irish purposes as well as for Imperial purposes, in-stead of the grotesque failure which it has so far been proved to be?
Mr. LUNDON: I had no intention of intervening in the Debate had it not been for what the Chief Secretary said last night in respect of the Irish labourer. Those who listened to him would come to the conclusion that those who sit on these benches have no regard for Irish interests, and particularly for those of the Irish workman. He stated that he was introducing this Bill in the interests of Irish industry, in the first place; secondly, for the well-being of the Irish labourer; and last, but not least, in the interests of the United Kingdom. I should like to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman several things, and to read for his benefit a copy of a notice of motion which has been handed in for the annual meetings of the Irish agricultural labourers to be held on St. Patrick's Day. The Irish agricultural labourers have an organisation which extends not alone to Ulster, but to all parts of Leinster and to parts of Con-naught. I am satisfied that when he has read the newspapers next Saturday he will come to the conclusion that those of us who represent Nationalist constituencies in Ireland have a right to speak for the Irish labourer, and not the right hon. Gentleman who represents Exeter. The resolution to be moved at the annual convention—I have the honour to be associated with the organisation, and they have sent me a copy of the agenda for the convention—is as follows:
"That we view with alarm the proposed extension of the National Service Bill to Ireland. We take this

931
opportunity of publicly declaring our unaltered and unalterable opposition to any form of military service, and call upon the Irish party to use all its powers to prevent the measure being forced upon Ireland; and in case the measure may be enforced against the declared will of the Irish people we call upon our labour fellow countrymen to refuse to register under it."
That is the expressed wish of the great bulk of the Irish workmen. I believe that the Chief Secretary is disposed in a friendly manner towards Ireland. Yet there is at the back of the minds of these people the idea that this is the thin edge of the wedge, and that it is only the beginning of industrial compulsion which is being forced upon them. I could not help thinking last night, when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman declare that ho had the interests of the Irish labourer at heart, that only last year, when public bodies in Ireland, the county councils, borough councils, and others, sanctioned a reduction of sixpence or a shilling a week in the rents of the labourers' cottages, that he was the one man who stepped in and said: "You shall not do it; yon must keep them up to what they originally paid for these cottages." He is the sole defender of the labour interests, according to his speech last night. It is only three days ago that he refused—and he still refuses—to give to rural councils in Ireland the right to acquire land by compulsion for the purpose of granting allotments to the poor people in order that they and their families may be kept through the coming winter. On the other hand, he says that men must come forward, and that land shall be made available on the borders of towns and villages for the purpose of supplying the poor of the towns and their children. It is the unanimous wish of Ireland that that demand should be acceded to. It is a demand which is already being put into operation in Great Britain, but the demand to give this concession to Ireland is turned down by the only defender of the Irish labourer; the only man, according to himself, who has at heart the interests of Ireland.
We do not, says the right hon. Gentleman, speak for Ireland on this question. Will he tell us the name of a county council, an urban or a district council, or any body of business men or labour men from Belfast to Cork that has asked him to extend this National Service Bill to Ireland? Where has he got his information that this Bill is suited to the needs
932
of the Irish people? We know where he gets his information from—only too well All his information as to Irish needs and Irish wants and interests is obtained through the old channels, those which his predecessors used, and those channels are the Royal Irish Constabulary! These are the men from whom he gets his information from Ireland, not the men who are entitled to speak for Nationalist Ireland in this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Irish labourer is to be paid for his labour, and he further says: "Is there any member in the Irish party who is willing to tell his constituents that the labourer is not selling his labour to this country to the best advantage of himself?" I have no hesitation whatever in going to my constituents — and I represent as many labourers in this House as any other man in it—and telling them honestly and frankly that it is better for them to work in Ireland for 25s. per week than to come across to England and to be insulted by the English workmen, even if they get £2 10s. or £3 per week for their work.
The organisation of labour is what the right hon. Gentleman says he wants. He wants it for the purpose of bringing over to this country any surplus labour which there may be to Irish requirements. According, however, to his own statistics, and according to the information supplied to him and to his Department in Dublin, the number of migratory agricultural labourers available in Ireland last year amounted altogether to only 13,000. If we are to increase food production at the rate demanded by the Chief Secretary and by the Irish Food Committee, every single one of these 13,000 Irish migratory labourers will be absolutely essential for the requirements of Irish agricultural interests during the coming harvest. No, Sir; this is all part of a scheme! They find that the only way to introduce anything in the nature of compulsion, either for military service or industrial service, in Ireland is by introducing a Bill which means that voluntary effort will first be introduced. That voluntary effort is to be arranged by a man who is supposed to have the confidence of the Irish people. Let me remind the Chief Secretary—and I hope he will not forget it—that we trust the Director-General of National Service in Ireland will not be the man who not three months ago declared that Irish public bodies, the county and district councils, and other bodies in Ireland,

933
instead of doing their duty as required by Act of Parliament, were being used for the coercion of the minority of the Irish people. The gentleman to whom I refer is an official of the Irish Local Government Board. It has come to the knowledge of the members of the party to whom I belong that he has been using every means in his power to become Director-General of National Service for Ireland. I trust that, on second thoughts, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not force this measure against the will of the Irish people. If he does, he will find the Irish labourer, whether he works in the town or in the country, will not be gulled by any soft promises made by the Chief Secretary as to the wages which he will be able to secure in this country if he enrols under the Bill. Whether this Bill is forced upon Ireland or not, the organisation to which I have the honour to belong will do everything in its power to prevent the Irish rural labourer from enrolling under any scheme, be it voluntary or be it compulsory. We have made up our minds on one thing. It is that the Irish labourer will work for Irish requirements. He will work in the interests of food production. He will not be used to enrol himself to be transferred at the dictation of the right hon. Gentleman, or Mr. Neville Chamberlain, or any other gentleman appointed to be Director-General of National Service in Ireland.
The Irish labourer has been badly paid, and he was badly housed until the efforts of this party brought him from the position which he occupied to the one which he now occupies. The Chief Secretary is very anxious for his welfare. What answer did he give to the Members of the Irish party six weeks ago, when we waited upon him to ask him to introduce a minimum wage for the benefit of the Irish labourer? He met us with a point-blank refusal. He replied. "No; I cannot do it. A minimum wage can be introduced only in Ireland by the consent of the Imperial Parliament and by the unity of all parties in Ireland." These were the very men for whose welfare he proposes now to speak. Some of them waited upon him a Few clays after the deputation from the Irish party. He said then, "No; I cannot fix a minimum wage for you. I cannot personally come to your assistance, neither can the Government which I represent. Your only policy is to go back to your counties and to meet representatives of the farmers, then if you
934
cannot agree I will see what can be done. But no minimum wage can be fixed except by Act of Parliament." Why has the right hon. Gentleman refused for the last few weeks to allow the loans which the public bodies in Ireland can grant for labourers' cottages to be extended to the workers in towns and villages if he is so anxious for their welfare? The right hon. Gentleman, I am satisfied, cares as little for the interests of the Irish labourer as he cares for the interests of the Irish farmer. Simply because we stand up to oppose this measure of industrial conscription, he takes the opportunity of trying to set the Irish labourer against the Irish party and to set one class against another.
The Irish labourer is told that we are trying to keep him from making double the amount of wages in this country- which he would receive in Ireland. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish labourer is not as ignorant, not as big a fool as he imagines. The Irish labourer knows who are the men, even although they are politicians, who have rescued him from the miserable hovel which his forefathers and himself dwelt in. The Irish labourers are not going to abandon their allegiance to this party at the dictation of the right hon. Gentleman. During the last twelve months, in all the trouble and confusion in Ireland, no body of the Irish community has stood more faithfully and trustworthy to the constitutional movement and to those who have rescued them from slavery and poverty than the great bulk of the Irish agricultural labourers. For doing so, it would be ungrateful on our part if our opposition to this Bill was to cause them injury or ruin in any way. No, we stand here having the interest of the Irish labourer more at heart than any Member in this House, whether he occupies the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland or whether he does not. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that his speeches last night will be road with dismay, not only by the Irish labourers, but by every class of the community in Ireland. When he sneered at us and said we were only politicians and did not speak for the people of Ireland I can only tell him that Ireland to-day owes her position of independence, of relief from poverty and distress, of outward appearance of affluence and wealth, not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to those who sit, and have sat, as politicians

935
representing Ireland on these benches for the last thirty-five years. I would not have intervened in the Debate but for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Irish labourers. I know them far and away better than he does, and far and away better than any official who represents them in Ireland, and amongst those permanent officials in the Irish Local Government Board who are supposed to look after the interest of the Irish labourer there is not a single one who we can say has the interest of the Irish labourer at heart.
The right hon. Gentleman claims to have the interest of the Irish labourers at heart more than we have, and at the same time he signs an Order of the Local Government Board, issued to a district council in the county of Westmeath, asking the council to evict fourteen Irish labourers because the Estates Commissioners happened to give them a few acres of the land from which their forefathers were evicted, and which were distributed by the Estates Commissioners. In conclusion. I would say this: The right hon. Gentleman may take it. for granted that any attempt at enrolment, either by voluntary or by compulsory measure in Ireland, is doomed to failure. The Irish labourer is not going to enrol himself under the banner of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, because he is perfectly satisfied that, should he be transferred to this country, he will meet with the same insults as his associates met with last year when they worked for the farmers of Lincolnshire. I hope and trust this Bill will not be proceeded with, but that some regard will be had, even in this case, to Irish wants and Irish interests. But if the Bill is passed, let the right hon. Gentleman take it for granted that there is a land and labour organisation, with 15,000 members, who will endeavour to secure, openly and honestly, that workmen are not seduced either by the promises of the right hon. Gentleman or Mr. Neville Chamberlain, but will stand by the men who have stood by them in the past, and who, they are satisfied, will look after their wants in the future. We want no soft promises. We want no guarantees from the right hon. Gentleman, because we know that he is not able to keep them, even if he wants to do so.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has been getting off the point rather. I must
936
ask him to recollect the Amendment now before the House, and to give his attention to it.
Mr. LUNDON: I am giving my attention to it, but I cannot help getting away from it. If you, Mr. Speaker, had been in the Chair last night and had heard the right hon. Gentleman you would blame no Irish Member for referring to this matter, because human nature, after all, is human nature. Only three days ago the right hon. Gentleman in the Food Production Committee said, "Give me a chance of knowing something about Ireland," and then he got up and said last night that he, and not we, know the wants of the Irish people. I trust he will make up his mind to drop this question, and will have regard to the advice tendered to him by those who claim to represent the interests of Ireland. If he does, I am satisfied the Irish labourers will come, as they have come in the past, to help' their fellow workmen and their friends in this country. But if once they get the idea that this Bill is being introduced for the purpose of enrolling them in a register, and that the Director-General' of National Service has power to transfer them to industries in this country, they will become very sceptical as to their future. I say leave them as they are. They have paddled their own canoe, and they do not want the right hon. Gentleman to go into the boat and row them to the bottom. They are very well able to look after themselves. They believe that if they are left to look after themselves they will find employment enough-in Ireland, and that their wages will not be as they have been in the past. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not do anything to aggravate the position in Ireland by forcing this policy upon the people of that country.
Mr. MOONEY: Had it not been for the action of my hon. Friend (Mr. Farrell) in moving that the Bill do not apply to Ireland, there would have been no indication of what method the Government proposed to adopt in regard to Ireland.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The hon. Member will recollect that on Wednesday or Thursday last week the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked me a question on that subject, and I replied to him in practically the same terms which I gave in the House last night.
Mr. MOONEY: I listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last night, and I am now just as much in the dark as I was before he made that speech. I do not know what he proposes to do with Ireland, and I do not know whether he knows himself. In the speech last night he made two distinctly opposite statements. He stated, first of all, that it was not proposed to put the full machinery of the Bill into force in Ireland. Later on he stated that no administrative machinery would be set up except under pressure of necessity, but he also said:
"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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March. 1917. col. 872.]
If you are going to have no administrative machinery, if you are not going to put the machinery into force, why is it necessary for Mr. Neville Chamberlain to delegate his authority to this individual? Then who is this individual to be? I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not prepared to accept our Amendment. Does he object to the term "Director-General"? Is the person he is going to appoint to be called Director-General, or a Special Commissioner? Has he got the name of the Special Commissioner in his pocket? Has he seen that Special Commissioner this morning in this House? He drew a character sketch of a man who, he said, would be necessary to fill this position. He would have to be a man who would be acceptable to all sections in Ireland. All I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is going to appoint a gentleman I have got in mind, and whom he saw in the House this morning, he would be most unacceptable.
Mr. DUKE: I have not the least idea to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring. So far as I am aware, I have had no interview with anybody in this House to-day about any matter of public business.
Mr. MOONEY: If it was not here, it was at the Irish Office. I want to know why the right hon. Gentleman will not have this separate Director. Is it because the subject, when it comes up in this House, would be merged in the general Vote, and we should not be able to discuss the Irish part without being switched off to difficulties which have arisen in England? If you give a separate Director-General, as we ask, the discussion must be on a separate Vote. If you only appoint a
938
Special Commissioner, he will be merged in the general Vote. It is a very interesting thing that, while this Bill has been under discussion, the only Ulster Unionist Member to speak was the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel M'Calmont), who made a speech last night to which no hon. Member on these benches could take the slightest possible exception. But what I would like to say to him is this: He has been absent from Ireland for a year and a half, rendering services to his country which everybody admires, but during that eighteen months the hon. Member opposite must have got out of touch with public affairs, as he admitted himself. At any rate, that hon. Member is the only Unionist Ulster Member who has addressed the House with regard to the feeling in Unionist Ulster about this Bill. Last night I asked the right hon. Gentleman the following question:
"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 light 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?
He replied:
"The Bill does not provide that a Member of this House shall be appointed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1917. col. 871.]
The Bill does not provide that he shall be appointed, but it provides that if any hon. Member of this House accepts the position of Secretary to the Ministry of National Service he can sit in this House without seeking re-election. The right hon. Gentleman further said that cither he himself or somebody else would answer for the Irish official in this House. Is there going to be somebody else, and who is he? Is there going to be an Advisory Committee in Ireland? I want the name of the Special Commissioner. I also want to know if there is going to be a Parliamentary Secretary, and who is he to be? If there is going to be an Advisory Committee, who are the members going to be? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us that information.
Mr. ARCHDALE: I did not intend to speak in this Debate until the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney) said that no Ulster Unionist Member had spoken in favour of the application of this Bill to Ireland, except one. I have been strongly in favour of the application of this measure to Ireland, and nobody can say that they know the opinion of the people

939
in my part of Ireland better than I do. I say that nearly all the Unionists in Ulster are in favour of the application of this Bill to Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Devlin) said there was plenty of labour in Ireland, if it was only properly organised. That is exactly what this Bill is going to do. In my county we badly want labour, because our labourers, Nationalist and Unionist alike, have answered their country's call, and are fighting at the front. In one county nearly every man who could go has gone, and we want labour very badly at the present time. We are trying to get labourers from Donegal and the western districts to replace those men who have answered the call of their country so well. I disagree with the statement of the hon. Member for East Limerick (Mr. Lundon) that the Nationalist party are the only people who represent the labourers of Ireland. I strongly differ from that opinion. I have spent thirty years in the district of Ireland which I represent, and not only the labourers of my own politics, but those of opposite politics have supported me many limes against men of their own principles in Ireland. Therefore, I do not think hon. Members can claim the right to represent the labourers of Ireland any more than the Unionist Members for Ulster. The Orange body, with which I have the honour to be connected, is a democratic body, if ever there was a democratic body, and a large number of the members of that organisation are labourers, and no one can say that they are not among the followers of the Unionist Members for Ulster. It is not helping the labourers of Ireland when you refuse to allow him to choose a wage of 25s. per week. Irish labourers are not foolish men, and when a labourer who has been in the habit of getting 12s. or 13s. a week is offered 25s. a week and 2s. 6d. a day subsistence money, I think it is a very queer way of showing friendship for that man to say that he shall not be allowed to take that work. We want labourers very badly in Tyrone and Fermanagh, and. as regards the housing of labourers, I can say something about that subject—
Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the housing of labourers. The question is whether there is to be a Director-General for Ireland.
Mr. ARCHDALE: All I can say is that I am strongly in favour of the applica-
940
tion of this Bill to Ireland and of the appointment of a Director-General for Ireland.
Mr. LYNCH: Over the whole of this Bill there appears to rest an extraordinary air of mystery and huggermugger. I would like to come to the bedrock of these things, and get away from the surface aspect. What is the real meaning of these proposals, and why at the present moment does the right hon. Gentleman not give-us the name of the Director-General, whoever he may be? What is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to this Amendment? Does he object to the term Director-General? If so, will he propose some other term? [AN HON. MEMBER: "He has the name in his pocket."] If that is so, why does he not produce the name in that plain, straightforward manner which is supposed to be characteristic of the British mind? Who is the Noble Lord who is going to be Director-General in Ireland? I say Noble Lord because experience has taught me that when a Prime Minister wishes to form a Cabinet the first question he asks is, "Who are the Noble Lords available?" If he cannot find the Noble Lords he would like, he looks for a man of great territorial and social influence, and if in the end he is driven to desperation, he asks where is there a man to be found with brains and ability?
This Bill asks us practically to sign a blank cheque. Has there been anything in the record of the Government that would justify us in signing that blank cheque? Is if dealing straight with the House of Commons to ask us for this blank cheque, when the right hon. Gentleman has the name in his pocket, or in his interior mind, and will not produce it? Why does he conceal this information? We are told that in ambiguity lies fraud, and in this matter the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the most ambiguous method. By the course which is suggested in this Bill you take from us the sole opportunity we have of criticism, and by that attitude alone the right hon. Gentle man condemns himself and also condemn? the name which he is now hiding. There is still another aspect of this question. I want to get at the real meaning of this extraordinary kind of legislation which is being forced upon the Irish people. What is its ultimate object? Is it that the right hon. Gentleman hopes that by offering to the agricultural labourers of Ireland a wage somewhat superior to that which

941
they now enjoy he will be able to induce considerable numbers to migrate to England?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the question which we are now discussing. That question may be relevant on the Second Reading, but it is not the Amendment that we are now discussing.
Mr. LYNCH: I am sorry to transgress, but so many hon. Members have taken such a wide divergence that I thought my slight excursion might have been allowed.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should set a better example.
Mr. LYNCH: Then I will drop that point, and perhaps I shall be in order in saying that the Director-General of National Service has not inspired us with such confidence that we could expect his subordinate, without knowing either his name or his character, to inspire confidence in us. I think the application of this measure under any Director-General or any subordinate will be a failure in Ireland, because hitherto it has been a failure even in this country. There has been here a great deal of high-flown talk and agitation, but there has been no evidence of any really valid and efficient organisation. Since the resignation of the late Government people have been inclined to mistake mere puff and fuss and newspaper talk for valid work. But the essence of a good organisation should be that all the parts should be so contrived and perfectly designed and constructed that the machine will run smoothly with the least possible noise. It seems to me in regard to the organisation of the new Government that they have achieved the maximum amount of noise and friction, but a miserable attempt at a perfectly designed and constructed, efficient machine. There has been nothing whatever in the character of the Director-General of National Service which warrant us in reposing confidence in any man whom the Government may care to name as the subordinate of the present Director-General of National Service. The right hon. Gentleman is asking for the most extraordinary powers, which no one would ever dream of ever giving to anyone and which have never been enjoyed by any man except Cromwell himself. We should hesitate before we set up a number of cardboard Cromwells to dominate Ireland.
Mr. LARDNER: I hope we shall have some expression of opinion upon this question from some representative of the Government. I suggest to the Chief Secretary that in a matter of this kind, which can only be successfully and effectively carried out by the co-operation and good will of the people of Ireland, that he ought to do something to allay the, suspicions and doubts which have arisen in regard to this measure. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Home Secretary, is present, and perhaps he can give us the information which we require. The first thing I desire to draw attention to is that this Bill provides for the appointment of a Director-General of National Service. Under Clause 1, Sub-section (2) we find the following provision:
"(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 perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly."
I think we are entitled to know from the Home Secretary what are the further powers conferred under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which were enacted purely for England and Scotland, and which, by this Subsection can be put into force in Ireland by the Director-General of National Service under the provisions of this Bill? That is a question to which we are entitled to have an answer.
The Chief Secretary, in his reply last night, said that the person to be appointed in Ireland 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. Those are the words of the Chief Secretary, and if you are going to have in Ireland a subordinate official there is no doubt that he will take his orders from, and supply the wants and needs of the English Director-General. I understand the Home Secretary has agreed that there should be an

943
Advisory Committee for England. If there is any necessity for an Advisory Committee for England, there is much greater necessity for an Advisory Committee for Ireland, and I should like to hear whether there is going to be one. The Irish officer, whatever he is going to be, whether a Commissioner, a Delegate, or an Assistant Director-General, is going to be responsible and subordinate to the English Director-General, and he is going to put into force all the Orders in Council, Statutes, and other things referred to in Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. Surely such powers should not be put into the hands of any subordinate officer. No subordinate officer should be in a position to disturb the whole life of the people and the trade and industry of the country without consultation of the fullest character with the representatives of all the interests involved. I want to know—we are entitled to know, having regard to the seriousness of the Amendment—what the actual status of the officer to be appointed in Ireland is going to be. What is the meaning of these words of the Chief Secretary, himself a very eminent lawyer:
"He would, no doubt, be technically entitled to the technical status, of representative Director-General of National Pervice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March. 1917. col. 866.]
Does that mean that he is going to have the title without the rights and the authority of such? Does it mean, when something likely to cause trouble and upset matters is done in Ireland, that the answer of this technical Director-General is going to be, "This is not my Order; it is the Order of the English Director, and I am only carrying it out because I have been asked to do so." Judging by past experience of this sort of legislation in Ireland, its management is put into the hands of some minor official, and the Chief Secretary, who has to answer for some fifty other Departments, is unable to give the matter that personal attention to which it is entitled. Why cannot we have a responsible officer in Ireland and not merely somebody who is technically entitled to a technical title without any legal authority or legal status, and who will always be able to shelter himself behind the excuse, "This is not my doing; this is the direction of the National Director"? I hope that there is an answer, because this is a very serious matter, and however much we may dislike the scheme and be opposed to the application of it to
944
Ireland, still, if it has to come, we are anxious that the best should be made of it in the interests of the people and of trade and industry. I respectfully ask the Home Secretary to tell us exactly what the position of this official is going to be. Is he going to be an Assistant Director-General, a Commissioner, or a Delegate? Further will the appointments to the Department of National Service in Ireland be made by the Director-General in England or by the Irish representative, whoever he may happen to be, under the responsibility of the Irish Government? We are entitled to know that. If there is to be an Advisory Committee, on what basis is it to be appointed? Will it take into consideration the interests not merely of agriculture and of industry in the North, but also of the employers in the various districts?
I was very much struck by the remark of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. Archdale) that the whole of Ulster was in favour of this Bill, but I noticed that he never went the length of saying that there was any surplus labour to be dealt with in the North. On the contrary, he said that there was a shortage of labour in the various districts which he mentioned. If that be so, how on earth is the Director-General, having his office in England, with his eyes on English and Scottish needs and requirements, going to deal with the condition of affairs in Ireland, where there is no margin or surplus? The real difficulty in Ireland at the present time is that for the amount of tillage and industry to be carried on there is insufficient labour. There can be no doubt about that. While the hon. Member gave a sentimental support to the measure, he did not venture to say that there was any need for it or any room for the operation of the Director-General in Ireland by the transfer of labour from Ireland to England. That, I think, is the strongest argument why there should be a separate Department for Ireland and why there should be an officer in Ireland responsible for the working of the Department in Ireland, an officer who would not be able to shelter himself behind the excuse: "Although I promulgated this Order and put my name to it as an Irish Order and although there is no margin of labour for transference or migration to England, still, at the same time, I was bound to publish it because my master, the Director-General of England, directed me to do so." I again ask the Home Secretary, before we come to a Division, to tell us what is the status of this officer to be

945
appointed in Ireland, whether there is to be an Advisory Committee for Ireland, and, if so, what is to be the composition and the character of it? If we get that information and a satisfactory statement from the right hon. Gentleman it may allay a great many doubts and suspicions which exist by reason of the fact that the whole of this business has been sprung upon Ireland.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave)The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (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. 196; Noes, 74.

Division No. 10.]

AYES.

[4.54 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Parker, James (Halifax)

Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

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

Partington, Oswald

Baird, John Lawrence

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

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Baldwin, Stanley

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Perkins, Walter F.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Peto, Basil Edward

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

Haslam, Lewis

Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Henry, Sir Charles

Pratt, J. W.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

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

Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

Barnett, Capt. R. W.

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

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

Hewart, Sir Gordon

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Higham, John Sharp

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hills, John Waller

Rendall, Atheistan

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Hinds, John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Bird, Alfred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Blair, Reginald

Horne, E.

Robinson, Sidney

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rowntree, Arnold

Bliss, Joseph

Hudson, Walter

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

Boacawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

Hunt, Major Rowland

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

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Illingworth, Albert H.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Boyton, James

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset. East)

Shaw, Hon. A.

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Johnston, Christopher N.

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Brookes, Warwick

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Stanton, Charles Butt

Broughton, Urban Hanion

Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Stewart, Gershom

Brunner, John F. L.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Bryce, J. Allean

Joynson-Hicks, William

Sutherland, John E.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Swift, Rigby

Butcher, John George

Knight, Captain E. A.

Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

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

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Clive, Capt. Percy Archer

Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Thomas, J. H.

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

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

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

M'Calmont, Col. Robert C. A.

Wardle, George J.

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

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

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Mackinder, H. J.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macleod, John Mackintosh

Watt, Henry A.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Macmaster, Donald

Whiteley, Herbert J.

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

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

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

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

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, James Ian

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Malcolm, Ian

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Manfield, Harry

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Fell, Arthur

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

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

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

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Wing, Thomas Edward

Fletcher, John Samuel

Morgan, George Hay

Wolmer, Viscount

Ganzoni, Francis John C.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Gardner, Ernest

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Young, William (Perhshire, East)

Gilbert, J. D.

Newman, John R. P.

Younger, Sir George

Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

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

Greenwood, Sir G. G (Peterborough)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Beck

Guest, Hen. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

NOES.

Adamson, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Anderson, W. C.

Hackett, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Astor, Hon. Waldorf

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bentham, G. J.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Dowd, John

Boland, John Pius

Hogge, James Myles

O'Leary, Daniel

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Malley, William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Joyce, Michael

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

Byrne, Alfred

Keating, Matthew

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Clough, William

King, Joseph

Outhwaite, R. L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Reddy, Michael

Cosgrave, James

Lardner, James C. R.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Crumley, Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Cullinan, John

Lundon, Thomas

Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

Devlin, Joseph

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Sheehy, David

Dillon, John

McGhee, Richard

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Donovan, John Thomas

M'Kean, John

Snowden, Philip

Doris, William

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duffy, William J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Elverston, Sir Harold

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Falconer, James

Mohan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

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

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Ffrench, Peter

Molloy, Michael

Field, William

Mooney, John J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

Muldoon, John

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

Glanville, Harold James

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 196.

Division No. 11.]

AYES.

[5.3 p.m.

Adamson, William

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Anderson, W. C.

Hazleton, Richard

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

Arnold, Sydney

Hogge, James Myles

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bentham, George Jackson

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Boland, John Pius

Jowett, Frederick William

Outhwaite, R. L.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Joyce, Michael

Pringle, William M. R.

Bryce, J. Annan

Keating, Matthew

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kilbride, Denis

Reddy, Michael

Byrne, Alfred

King, Joseph

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rendail, Athelstan

Clough, William

Lardner, James C. R.

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Robinson, Sidney

Cosgrave, James

Lundon, Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Crumley, Patrick

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Rowntree, Arnold

Cullinan, John

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Sheehy, David

Devlin, Joseph

McGhee, Richard

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Dillon, John

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

Snowden, Philip

Donovan, John Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Stanton, Charles Butt

Doris, William

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Sutherland, John E.

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duffy William J.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Farrell, James Patrick

Molloy, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Ffrench, Peter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Watt, Henry A.

Field, William

Mooney, John J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

Muldoon, John

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glanville, Harold James

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Wing, Thomas Edward

Goldstone, Frank

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hackett, John

O'Dowd, John

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien

Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

O'Leary, Daniel

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Brunner, John F, L.

Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Bird, Alfred

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Baird, John Lawrence

Blair, Reginald

Butcher, John George

Baldwin, Stanley

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

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

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C W.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Barnett, Capt. R. W.

Boyton, James

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Brookes, Warwick

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Broughton, Urban Hanion

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pratt, J. W.

Cowan, W. M.

Hunt, Major Rowland

Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Illingworth, Albert H.

Pryce-Jenes, Colonel E.

Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Craik, Sir Henry

Johnston, Christopher N.

Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H

Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Joynson-Hicks, William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Knight, Captain E. A.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Lams, Sir Ernest Henry

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Starkey, John R.

Fell, Arthur

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

Stewart, Gershom

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Swift, Rigby

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

M'Calmont, Col. Robert C. A.

Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

Fletcher, John Samuel

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

Ganzoni, Francis John C.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

Gardner, Ernest

Macleod, John Mackintosh

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

Macmaster, Donald

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Gilbert, J. D.

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

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

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

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Grant, J. A.

Macpherson, James Ian

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

Malcolm, Ian

Wardle, George J.

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Manfield, Harry

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hall, O. B. (Isle of Wight)

Middleware, John Throgmorton

Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

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

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Weston, J. W.

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

Morton, Alpheus Coleophas

Whiteley, Herbert James

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hardy, Rt. Hen. Laurence

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Newman, John R. P.

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Haslam, Lewis

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Henry, Sir Charles

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

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

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

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

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Hewart, Sir Gordon

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Wolmer, Viscount

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

Yeo, Alfred William

Hills, John Waller

Parkes, Ebenezer

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Hinds, John

Partington, Oswald

Younger, Sir George

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Perkins, Walter F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Horne, E.

Peto, Basil Edward

Lord Edmunt Talbot and Mr. Beck

Hudson, Walter

Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that the Ministry shall not be continued for a period longer than three months after the close of the War."
This Amendment is one which, I trust and believe, the Government will see their way to accept. I would like at the outset to also express the hope that if they do not do so they will, at any rate, treat the House of Commons and hon. Members engaged in these discussions with more courtesy and consideration than has so far been shown in the Debates on this Bill. When we put forward a case, whether the Government agree or disagree, the least we have a right to expect is the courtesy of a reply. The point of this Amendment is that this great new organisation which is being built up now by the Government under the title of National Service shall not continue to be a burden and expense on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for one moment longer than is absolutely
950
necessary. We have seen the growth of a vast bureaucracy in this country during the past twelve or eighteen months. We have seen new Department after new Department set up, hotel after hotel taken to accommodate them, and a vast army of officials engaged to carry out the duties. Even long before Parliament has definitely decided upon the policy and machinery embodied in this Bill, the Government has taken over the St. Ermin's Hotel, and I am told that there is on duty there already, before this Bill has been approved by the House of Commons or by Parliament, a staff of over 700 persons. It is very easy to set up a great machinery of this kind, but it may be very difficult, when the War is ended, to get rid of it and to go back to normal conditions, unless Parliament absolutely lays it down when this Ministry is being set up that there shall be a definite limit and period to its continuance. It is as no more than a safeguard that I ask the

951
Government to put this Amendment into their Bill, so that these officials, who have been appointed during the War—it may be, many of them necessarily appointed during the War—shall not think that they have got into permanent and safe billets for the rest of their lives, to be a burden and expense upon the taxpayers. I do not think that the Government will be in a position to resist this Amendment, because it asks for nothing that is unreasonable. I do not even propose that this new Ministry shall come to an end at the close of the War; I give a period of grace, which ought certainly to be sufficient, in the shape of three months for the dissolution of this organisation. It cannot be urged from any quarter of the House that there will be any necessity for the continuance of this Ministry in Great Britain or of its branch in Ireland after the close of the War. All we want is the safeguard and security that it shall not be unnecessarily continued. The House will recognise that the subject is one of considerable importance. If the Government are prepared to give a satisfactory assurance on the point, we can pass on to deal with the other and, perhaps, more important details of the measure.
Mr. BOYLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: I always like to give an answer to arguments which are put forward. It is only on occasions when I think that arguments which have been answered are repeated that I refrain from repeating the answer which has been given. In this case the point put forward is that there ought to be a limit to the powers of the Director-General of National Service. I entirely agree. Such a limit is already imposed by the Bill.
Mr. HAZLETON: Where?
Sir G. CAVE: The only point is whether the limit imposed by the Bill is satisfactory or whether we shall take a smaller period of time. If hon. Members will look at Clause 2 of the Bill they will see that we propose to incorporate Section 13 of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916. The limit imposed by that Section is a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War—
Mr. HAZLETON: Too long!
Sir G. CAVE: Wait a minute—or such earlier date as may be decided by His Majesty in Council. As the hon. Gentleman truly said, this office has a considerable staff, it involves a great deal of work and it is not so easy to put an end to work as to begin it. That is so. It may be that in order to wind up the work done during the War and to put everything in its place a period exceeding three months may be required. The limit fixed for all the other new Ministries is twelve months or such earlier date as His Majesty by Order in Council may fix. It is very convenient to have the same restriction on all these emergency Ministries, if I may so call them. Nobody will desire to prolong the existence of a Ministry for longer than he is obliged to do so. Therefore the moment the work is finished an Order in Council will be made putting an end to it.
Mr. ANDERSON: The Home Secretary has given us a very reasonable reply upon this matter, but there are one or two aspects of it which ought to be taken into account and as to which we ought to get some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. Immediately after the War the whole aim will be to get men back into industry again as quickly and smoothly as possible. Under this Ministry of National Service you are, in various directions, making it very difficult for men to get into certain trades. Once they leave certain less essential trades they may find it impossible to get back again. It would be most undesirable, as the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit, if restrictions of that kind are going to survive the War in any shape or form. Therefore, if only a skeleton of the Ministry were to remain, we ought to have an assurance that any restrictive measures which may be adopted for the moment will be abolished immediately. There ought to be no question of continuing them after the War is over. There is a further point which is a good deal in the minds of labour people, especially in this country. Personally, I think that whatever happens, and however many recruits Mr. Neville Chamberlain obtains for his scheme, there will be a demand in certain quarters for industrial compulsion. I put it in this way: If the response is a small one, then these newspapers will cry—and the newspapers have stampeded the Government again and again—"This scheme has been a failure, and we must have compulsion." If the response should be an enormous one, these

953
same newspapers will cry: "Everybody is in except a few slackers. Why should they not come in along with the rest, and in order to bring them in we must have compulsion." That will happen inevitably, and however matters may shape the end will be largely the same.
Assuming that industrial compulsion does arise out of this measure in the future—we have had pledges that in certain circumstances it would follow if certain things do not 'happen—it is enormously important from that point of view that the compulsion should be limited and curtailed, and that it should be abolished at the earliest possible moment. I believe that industrial compulsion will create much trouble even during the War, but if any attempt were made to continue it after the War, the position would be made absolutely impossible. We might have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that even if the office has to be continued for a time in order to wind up various affairs, any emergency measures taken by the office to meet the war situation will lapse the moment the War is over, whether they be restrictive or in the nature of compulsion. That is not an unreasonable point of view. A good many people think that a great deal that is happening at the present moment is tending far more to the conquest of England than to the conquest of Germany, and if we are going to have that, if we are going to have more and more various forms of Prusaianism imposed upon ourselves, let us at least set a definite limit to it. I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not give us an assurance that anything tending to restrict the freedom of contract brought about by war conditions is going to lapse the moment the War is over and that anything brought in in the way of industrial compulsion is to lapse the moment the War is over. If he agrees to that, I admit it is entirely reasonable that the office should have time to wind up its affairs.
Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Anderson) should at this time of day retain that childlike faith in Ministerial assurances which so often in the past have deluded the House.
Mr. ANDERSON: They are the only things we can get.
Mr. PRINGLE: I do not think so. There is a method in this Amendment of limiting the restrictive and coercive measures that may be taken under this Bill, and it
954
is for that reason that I support the Amendment. The only argument put forward by the Home Secretary was one founded upon the analogy of what we have done in regard to other Ministries. The first of the new Ministries set up-since the beginning of the War was the-Ministry of Munitions. In the Ministry of Munitions Act the period fixed for the-duration of the Ministry beyond the conclusion of the War was twelve months. In that case the considerations which made it advisable to convince the Ministry after the War were considerations arising out of the interests of labour, not considerations arising out of the desire to coerce labour. Under the Ministry of Munitions Act, as is well known, many privileges are to be restored to labour after the War, and with a view to securing the restoration of those old privileges it was-decided that the Ministry of Munitions should continue for such a long period. This precedent was followed in respect of other new Ministries. There was some force in it in respect to these other Ministries. For instance, it may be very desirable to have a Food Controller for twelve months after the War. We all know-that we have just entered upon the period of stringency in regard to food, and that probably for a considerable time after the War is over there will be something in the nature of a world-wide famine. In-these circumstances, it is obvious that it will be absolutely necessary to continue-the Food Controller in this country. None-of these considerations, however, apply in regard to the Ministry we are now setting up. It is a Ministry the object of which, to use the phrase of its promoters, is to organise labour and regulate it. Those who are suspicious of the measure regard it as one to restrain and coerce labour. Believing that to be its effect, we-regard its continuance for even an unnecessary month as a thing to which the House-should not readily agree. Therefore, instead of having the provision which has been applied to the other new Ministries, namely, a duration for twelve months after the War is over, which may be diminished by Order in Council, we ought to have, instead of a maximum-period, a minimum period which can only be extended by Order in Council, subject to the verdict of this House. If the Mover of the Amendment is willing to test the feeling of the House upon this question—the question being whether we are to have a minimum period after the

955
War, which may be extended, or a maximum period, which may be limited—I shall certainly vote for him in favour of the proposal for the minimum period which is capable of extension.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Bristol [to leave out Sub-section (2)], would have the effect of negativing the Bill.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: When the Deputy-Chairman was in the Chair I consulted him as to what form the Amendment might take, and I understood from him last night that was in order. He discussed the point you have now raised with me as to whether it would negative the Bill, and in accordance with his suggestion I put it in the form in which it is on the Paper.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot allow it. It would leave the Director-General without powers of any kind if we left out the whole Sub-section. I think probably the hon. Baronet's point can be raised on an Amendment that I am just going to call, which has been handed in by the hon. Member for Dublin.
Mr. PRINGLE: Would it be in order on that Amendment to discuss the extent of the powers which may actually be transferred from existing Departments?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I should think it would be difficult to separate the two things.
Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly."
I do not know whether or not I may be accused of being unduly suspicious, but the conduct of the Government this evening and last evening would rather tend to make me suspicious, if I was not so already. To-day it was a very curious thing that no reply whatever was made by the Home Secretary or by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a scries of speeches the last of which seemed to me to call specially for a reply. I do not think the excuse given by the Home Secretary for
956
not replying was at all a valid or even a respectable one. I listened to the speeches which were made, and especially to that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Lardner), and it seemed to me that he pointed out certain things which had not been pointed out before, which were not trivial, and which went to the very root of the question at issue, and yet the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary utterly gave the go-by to it altogether, and said, what I think was not quite justified, that all that he had said had been said before and answered yesterday. That fills me with suspicion, and when I come to read this Sub-section that suspicion is largely increased and intensified. One would imagine that the Government had got nearly all the powers that they ought to ask for, and nearly all the powers which would be sufficient for a dictator when it is prescribed that the Director-General of National Service shall 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 perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned."
Under ordinary circumstances I cannot imagine any wider delegation of powers: in fact, I think it would be very difficult to find out the exact limit put on the exercise of the power by these words, and I imagine the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Hobhouse), in objecting to this Sub-section altogether, had in his mind the very vague and indefinite powers proposed to be conferred upon the Director-General by this Subsection. But, not satisfied with conferring extraordinary powers, which we here cannot estimate, because we have not the Act of Parliament before our eyes, not satisfied with clothing this officer with these powers, the Clause goes on to confer on him still more serious powers—
"And also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914. and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly."
That is going entirely too far. I might hesitate in saying that if we had not had some experience of the meaning of Regula-

957
tions under the Defence of the Realm Act. The most unheard-of powers have been exercised and legalised, if they can be said to be legalised by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. At first it was thought, for instance, that under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations might be made for the voluntary sale and purchase of land for the purpose of tillage, and when it was explained that this did not go far enough, if I recollect rightly, the defence made was that the Defence of the Realm Act did not authorise the conferring of powers of compulsory acquisition. Yet a very short time afterwards, after agitation had sprung up, after it had gone out of most people's minds that it could be? done, the Government came forward with the purpose, and carried out the purpose, of extending the powers regarding the acquisition of land from the region of voluntary sale and purchase to that of compulsory purchase. What troubles me about the matter is that if this can be done in one case, if this extraordinary extension of power can be acquired in one matter, what is to prevent the Government from saying, "We can do anything else we like under this Defence of the Realm Act"? I now charge here that in these lines conferring power to make Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act there is concealed not merely the germ, but the full disease of compulsion. This is called a Voluntary Service Bill. The Chief Secretary said there is nothing compulsory about it, and in terms it would look as if there was nothing compulsory about it. I should like to know is it not possible to argue that if these lines are left in, Regulations may be made under which compulsion can be exercised by the worker who has been trapped into giving his service, and, if that be the case, what is this but a compulsory Rill after all? You induce the workers, at any rate in Ireland, by the promise that there is not compulsion in this, and by also telling them that if they come to England there will be no danger of it because this is a voluntary measure. But let them come in their hundreds and thousands to England, let them go even in Ireland under the control of the Director-General of National Service, and a Defence of the Realm Act may be brought forward one day enabling the Director-General or his substitute in Ireland to order them to do things which now, according to the Government, they
958
would not be compelled to do at all. I charge that the Government have in their minds the actual exercise of compulsion for the workers of Ireland, and, in my opinion, we should be false to the promises we have given to our people if we did not resist the insertion of words calculated, and I believe intended, to effect that object.
Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is one of real substance and importance, because it provides that there shall not be made under this Act further Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act of a nature of which the House and the country has no information whatever at this moment. It is all very well for the Government to say that the Defence of the Realm Act gives them the right to issue such Regulations from time to time as may be considered necessary or desirable. We in Ireland have had a very different experience of the use of the Defence of the Realm Act from the people of Great Britain. It has been used not merely for War purposes—for furthering the prosecution of the War—but it has been used as a political weapon against political parties in Ireland. When you are setting up this new Department and refusing to give us any real information as to the lines you are going to proceed on in Ireland we have aright to say, "Let the House of Commons and the Members from Ireland refuse to give you these extraordinary powers of bringing in further sweeping Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act." If this Amendment were to be adopted it would not in the least mean that the Government could not use the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations which have already been put into operation or published in the "Gazette." Surely we have not gone for two and a half years of this War and arrived at this stage without the Government having under these great and wide powers set forth what they believe to be necessary in their schemes for the prosecution of the War! All we ask is that no new powers and no new procedure shall be rushed upon us under the cloak of the second half of this Sub-section. I think there was a great deal of force in the argument of my hon. friend that, although this is nominally a voluntary Bill, once a man volunteers he has no further voice as to what will become of him, and the Government, by new

959
Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, may do something which would outrage public opinion in Ireland. Supposing under this scheme the Government was to get 5,000 or 10,000 volunteers for National Service in Ireland, and then they were to issue a new Defence of the Realm Regulation that these workers were to be transferred to some county, or to various counties in England or Scotland, where there was urgent need of labour. It would be possible for them to do things of that nature if this Sub-section is allowed to remain as it stands, and I think we have a right to ask for the small security that would be given to us by the deletion of the latter part of the Sub-section.
Sir G. CAVE: This matter was discussed at some length in Committee on the proposal to omit these words. I think the omission is only supported to-day on arguments which are really founded on a misapprehension. Will the hon. Member consider what is the effect of the Amendment I The Defence of the Realm Act empowers His Majesty in Council to make Regulations for the safety of the public and the defence of the realm—very wide words, I agree. Under that Act Regulations have been made conferring certain powers on certain Government Departments. Some of those powers may be useful to the Director-General of National Service. Accordingly, the first part of this Sub-section provides that those powers may be transferred to the Director-General of National Service. It may happen in the future that further powers are required. If the words proposed to be left out are omitted, these other powers can still be conferred on some other Minister and then transferred to the Director-General of National Service. What is effected by these words is, that if His Majesty in Council finds that further powers are required to enable the Director-of National Service to carry out his duties, then those powers can be conferred upon him directly under this Statute. I am confident that everybody, except those who are opponets of the Bill, desires that this Minister shall have all the powers necessary for carrying out his duty, and I cannot conceive why hon. Members who hold that view should be disposed to make it impossible in the future for new powers which are found necessary in the future to be conferred upon the Director-General. That is the whole effect of the Sub-section. It is confined to empowering
960
His Majesty in Council to confer upon this Minister the powers which under the Defence of the Realm Act he is already empowered to confer. The only point is on whom these powers shall be conferred. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Hazleton) seems to be under the impression that under this Bill, or under some Regulations, the Director can forcibly transfer labour from one part of the Kingdom to another. I say we cannot.
Mr. HAZLETON: If they have volunteered.
Sir G. CAVE: Then I do not see where compulsion comes in. If anyone volunteers to serve the country where is the compulsion?
Mr. HAZLETON: May I amplify my illustration? Suppose you have 10,000 volunteers from Ireland under this Act. They volunteer for National Service in Ireland, believing that they are going to be helpful and to do national work there-There is nothing to prevent Mr. Chamberlain, or anybody acting for him, to take the whole of these 10,000 men straight away from Ireland and employ them over here.
Sir G. CAVE: If a volunteer offers to-serve the country in such a manner as the Director of National Service may ordain, I quite agree. But the Director has said more than once that the object is to employ volunteers as far as possible in the places where they are. That saves a great deal of unnecessary expense and trouble. If he finds that they cannot be employed there, but can be employed better in some other county or some other province, or it may be in some other part of the Kingdom, I agree he would have the right to call upon them under their undertaking. But their obligation is entirely voluntary, and they would be entitled if not legally at any rate morally, to say, "I enlisted on certain conditions, and if you will not fulfil those conditions, I am not bound by my honourable undertaking." The undertaking is an honourable undertaking, I agree. They have voluntarily undertaken that service. There is no element of compulsion in the case. It is simply holding a man to his honourable obligation. The primary wish of the Director-General is and always has been, to employ volunteers where they are.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: My hon. Friend the Mover of this Amendment draws attention to the fear that exists in Ireland lest

961
the powers given to the Director-General of National Service should infringe upon the liberty of action of people in Ireland. I wish to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the Regulations which were issued by the Ministry of Munitions on 28th February, in which power is conferred upon the Director-General of National Service, enabling him to do a great number of things. The Ministry of Munitions, at the request of the Director-General of National Service, has granted certain powers under that Order. I will not weary the House by reading out a good deal of the Order, but only what I believe to be the essential words of the Order. I will draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the following words in Subsection (3):
"The occupier of any factory, workshop, or premises shall comply with any direction given by the Director-General of National Service for the purpose of giving full effect to any provision of the Order."

That is the first of these operative Subsections. Sub-section (4) reads:
"Any directions given for the purpose of this Order by the Director-General may be given on his behalf by the National Service Commission, and any failure to obey any Regulation—"
I lay stress on these words
"or any restriction contained in that Order is an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations."
Sir G. CAVE: Upon the employer.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That gives very wide powers to the Director-General of National Service. If the Home Secretary will look at the words of this Bill which purports to create not merely the office of a Minister, but actually to create the office of a Director-General, because the words of Sub-section (2) are very clear, he will see that the Order of the Munitions Department anticipates the sanction of this House to the creation of a further office of Minister, or of the office of Director-General. A question has been raised by a correspondent of mine as to whether or not under these circumstances the Order of the Munitions Department granting, in anticipation of the sanction of Parliament, these powers to the Director-General, is ultra vires. If the power of the Munitions Department to grant to the Director-General powers under the Defence of the Realm Act is I
962
valid, then surely there is no necessity to-bring in a Bill in order to confer that power, first of all, upon the Munitions Department, and, secondly, to enable the Director-General to assume those powers. Or alternatively, I put this question as to whether it is necessary at all to have in the Bill these words which my hon. Friend proposes to leave out, because if the Order of the Munitions Department is valid, it has already anticipated the sanction which this Bill proposes to give, after the Munitions Department has validly granted those powers to the Director-General. My correspondent asks, "Am I entitled until this Bill is passed, to neglect the requirements of the Director-General of National Service, under the Order of the Munitions Department, because it is not valid, or am I to wait for the approval of his actions until this Bill has been read the third time in another House and becomes the statute law?"
I should like to put to the Home Secretary a further point, which perhaps he may be able to answer as a late Law Officer of the Crown. He can perhaps; give us advice on the point which ordi- arily we should seek from one of the law-officers. Are not the powers which are-taken under the Defence of the Realm Act by this Order in excess, unless this House passes this Bill, of anything which is conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act itself? I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House to the use of the word "restriction" in this Order. I have looked, purely as a layman, through the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, and I find no words which give to any Government Department the power of restricting action. It may be that I am wrong, and it may be that my correspondent who suggested this point is wrong also, but I do not find any such words there. I should like to be told by the Home Secretary, in his legal capacity and with his legal knowledge, whether or not this point is good and whether, as a matter of fact, the Order issued by the-Munitions Department is not ultra vires, and, therefore, whether any person presuming to act under that Order must not wait until this Bill has become law in order to find that his action has any legal authority at all? I am sorry to have burst into the controversy raised by my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment, but, under the Rules of the House. I had no-other opportunity of raising this matter,

963
which, in view of the action already taken by the Munitions Department and the Director-General of National Service, is a very important point. It has this further bearing, that if the contention I have put forward is sound it is only another instance of the attempt of Departments to anticipate and neglect the verdict of this House in acting before they have received the sanction of this House. House. As one of those who have endeavoured to uphold the right of Parliament to control the Executive and to control the administrative machine, I look upon this point as one of some importance.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. PRINGLE: This is a Sub-section which confers powers upon the new Minister—in the first instance, powers which are to be transferred, and, in the second place, new powers which are to be created or conferred. Up to the present, in the discussions which we have had, the Ministers in charge of the Bill have been singularly vague and elusive regarding both these classes of powers. My right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) referred to the Order already issued, and apparently issued under one of the powers which is intended to be transferred to the new Minister. That Order was issued on behalf of the Director-General of National Service by the Ministry of Munitions. The question now naturally arises whether the Order issued by the Minister of Munitions is within the powers conferred on him by the Ministry of Munitions Act. I find that the powers are conferred in Section 10 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915. That Section is an amendment of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 1915. That Act was passed in March, 1915. It for the first time conferred upon the Government or the competent military authority the right to close down particular factories or workshops. That caused considerable consternation in the ranks of those who were identified in this House with the rights of property. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) immediately raised the question of compensation. As a result of his protest not only was the passing of that Bill—which was extremely urgent from the point of view of the production of munitions—delayed, but an undertaking was given that wherever factories were closed down there would be a claim for compensation before the Commission over
964
which the right hon. Gentleman presided. The Section of the Ministry of Munitions Act is an extension of that power. That power is
"(a) to regulate or restrict the carrying on of any work in any factory, workshop, or other premises, or the engagement or employment of any workmen or all or any classes of workmen therein, or to remove the plant therefrom with a view to maintaining or increasing the production of munitions in other factories, workshops or premises, or to regulate and control the supply of metals and material that may be required for any articles for use in war."
That limits the powers of the Minister to deal with factories and workshops. Under this Order the Minister is in express terms restricting not only what goes on in particular factories and workshops, but whole occupations and trades and industries. Obviously that is not within the terms of the Section which I have read. It only deals with individual workshops and factories. Here, under a power conferred in relation to these individual cases, the Minister has taken upon himself to restrict whole industries and occupations.
That is the first point in regard to which I think his action is ultra vires. Another is, the objects for which this should be done are expressly stated in the Sub-section. It is only for these objects, and for no other, that the Minister of Munitions is entitled to restrict, regulate, or close down any factory or workshop. Under this Order he is acting for far wider purposes. He is acting in the general interests of all the essential trades in the country. Consequently, from both points of view, the Minister of Munitions in issuing this Order is acting in excess of his powers, and when we see a Minister acting in excess of his powers it puts the House of Commons on its guard to see that the powers now being conferred are strictly limited, so that there may be no opportunity of abuse in future under the new Ministry. I think that under this Amendment we should have with absolute clearness and distinctness a statement from the. Minister in charge as to—what are the powers transferred, from what Department are these powers transferred, and what new powers it is the intention of the Government to confer upon the new Ministry? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be able to reply upon this

965
point. Undoubtedly up to the present the Home Secretary, who is usually very competent to deal clearly with questions upon which he desires to be clear, has involved himself in a haze through which it is almost impossible to penetrate to his meaning on this particular subject. The right hon. Gentleman may be more in the secrets of the new Ministry, he may have examined what they intend to do with regard to Ireland with greater accuracy than has the Home Secretary, and if he has it will certainly be an advantage to this House if he undertakes the duty of clearing up the difficulties in regard to this Sub-section.
Mr. BOLAND: The Home Secretary, in reply to an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend, indicated precisely the reasons for our objection to this particular Sub-section. He spoke not merely of the powers which are provided under Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, but went on to allude to the further powers, further Regulations which might be issued. If there had been in this particular Bill power to issue Regulations under this Bill to carry out its voluntary provisions, I do not think that the same objection would be raised, which is now raised. But here we have the Bill practically transferred to the Defence of the Realm Act. When this Bill has passed into law we cease to think any more of the Director-General of National Service Act. We think of a new position under the Defence of the Realm Act, and if this process continues, by which new Bills are introduced giving it may be power to set up a new Ministry, but by which Regulations can be issued under the Defence of the Realm Act, then the original Bill disappears, and you have merely a new branch of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I ask whoever is going to answer for the Ministry in this matter, where is this process to stop? What is the good of bringing in Bill after Bill, setting up new Ministries, when in practice the real power you set up is a new power under the Defence of the Realm Regulations?
The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the extension of powers given to the Ministry of Munitions, which are found in practice to exceed the original powers conferred by the Bill which established the Ministry of Munitions. It is precisely the same in this caste. It is the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act which in practice absolutely
966
regulate the working out of this Bill. I confess that my hon. and learned Friend who professes to have an atmosphere of suspicion round about him, as regards measures proposed by the Government, is absolutely justified. When the House comes to consider the powers given by this Bill, so far as the whole of this Bill is concerned, I think that its essence lies in this Sub-section, and we might have been saved the printing of a page or so of this Bill if it had been merely stated that we were bringing in a Bill to extend the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to indicate more precisely than has been done up to now what are the further powers which it is proposed to apply under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, as otherwise this Bill has no real substance in reference to the work of the Director-General of National Service, and it is merely an extension of the Defence of the Realm Act.
Mr. DUKE: I am afraid that it is the suspicion to which the hon. Member referred which poisons the Debate here— the suspicion that the Government is seeking by indirect means, under cover of general words in this Sub-section, to enlarge its powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. This Sub-section does not enlarge the powers of the Government in any way.
Mr. DILLON: Then why insert it?
Mr. DUKE: I was going on to answer that obvious query. The Bill creates a Ministry to deal with a set of problems which have been found to require particular treatment, and all that the Subsection does is to enable the Government to devolve upon that Ministry powers which exist or which under the existing law can be exercised by the Government, and the suspicion that the Government is seeking any new powers here, to be exercised without the control of the House, is an unfounded suspicion.
Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why they put in "such powers as may be conferred"? Obviously these powers are not possessed by any Department at present. What powers are you contemplating which are not possessed by any Department now?
Mr. DUKE: I think that the hon. and learned Member will agree with me that those powers can only be powers which

967
the Government could now lawfully take by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Acts as they exist.
Mr. BILLING: Is it possible under this Bill for the Government to introduce compulsory service without coming to this House again?
Mr. DUKE: Certainly not. I regard that as impossible. If I am right in what I have postulated about this, then the Government is doing nothing here to increase what used to be known as the powers of the Crown and are now known as the powers of the Administration. But there are certain existing powers which are being exercised by existing Ministers, and it is desired that these powers may be exercisable for the purpose of National Service. There are existing powers to make Regulations by Order in Council, Regulations the scope of which is absolutely limited by the Defence of the Realm Acts, and this Sub-section does not in any way enlarge the power of making Regulations by Order in Council under those existing Acts. The sole reason, as I understand, for including the power of delegation is that the use of the delegated powers is limited by the Statute or other instrument by which they are called into being, and questions might arise with respect to the new Ministry if you have not taken formally the power to vest in it the exercise of authority under existing Regulations.
I am satisfied that any lawyer in the House who looks at this matter, will think that I am right in my exposition of the powers contained in this Sub-section. The right hon. Gentleman opposite raised a question with regard to a particular Order issued by the Minister of Munitions making a delegation of his powers to the Director-General. It would be presumptuous in me to pretend to discuss, with any authority, whether that Order is or is not intra vires or ultra vires. I have a very strong conviction, based upon my knowledge, of the extreme care usually exercised in the making of these Orders, that it will be found that the Statutory Authority of the Ministry of Munitions is sufficiently large to permit of the delegation which he makes here, not to a corporation, but to an individual, and if the Minister of Munitions can delegate powers to individuals, he may delegate them to the individual who happens to be for the
968
moment the Director of National Service. I abstain from discussing any view of the regularity or validity of the Order to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. For myself, I am satisfied that there is very little doubt about it. I rather admire the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend in raising the discussion, an ingenuity of which many of us would hardly be capable, and which does raise issues of law. If that matter comes to be considered as a question of law, or comes to be debated in a Court of law, which is the place for it to be effectively debated, my own impression is that they will be rather against the case put forward that these are not valid Orders. So far, I have found myself on the two propositions I have put before the House, and I trust the House is satisfied that we are not here with a covert desire, secretly to enlarge the powers of arbitrary action on the part of the Administration. There is no substance in such a consideration, or in the Amendment before the House.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman, in expressing his view as to the Order of the Munition Department, did not explain to the House the reason for inserting these words in the Subsection because there is already power under the Order of the Munitions Department.
Mr. PRINGLE: There were two questions which I put to my right hon. Friend: What are the powers to be transferred, and what are the new powers?
Mr. DUKE: So far as the transferred powers are concerned they are not very great, and as respects the other powers, they will be appropriate to the duties which, according to the Ministerial statement in this House, are intended to be performed by the Director-General. They are not new powers, but existing powers, which from time to time it may be necessary to call into being by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act.
Mr. BILLING: I think this House ought to limit these powers which have been so generously given in the case of all these new appointments. We are now dealing with the powers which shall be given to the Director-General. This House might possibly consider whether these powers ought to be entrusted to a particular Director-General having control of the National Service of this country. It may be that the present Director-General will not remain in that office for the duration of

969
the War. In fact, it is generally expected, and it has been published in some papers, that the position of the present occupant of the office of Director-General is likely to be changed at any moment. In these circumstances we cannot put our trust in any particular individual, for we do not know how long he is going to occupy his office. The question is whether this House should transfer powers to a corporate body, or a Committee which may be set up under the Director-"General, and of which the Director-General may be the purely nominal head. If the Director-General wore purely the nominal head of the Committee he appoints to administer the Act, and to use these practically unlimited powers, the government of this country would very rapidly be transferred from this House, where surely it ought to be, to the hands of a Committee appointed by a man who might possibly not be the same man who is now occupying the position of Director-General.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the point raised by this Amendment at all.
Mr. BILLING: I am trying to emphasise the necessity of very jealously guarding the powers proposed to be given, and not to grant any more powers than are absolutely necessary for the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. We here at least represent the people, and I think, as freely elected Members of this House, we ought not to transfer these powers we possess without giving the matter at least serious discussion.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the point. There is no question in regard to the transfer of existing powers. That stage is past, and we are now dealing with another Amendment.
Mr. BILLING: We are dealing with powers under the Defence of the Realm Act.
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. BILLING: The powers under the Defence of the Realm Act are very extreme, almost Cromwellian, and certainly require discussion in this House. There are very few Members present, and those who are slumbering in the smoke room, and who have not heard the Debate, will simply, when they hear the bell ring, go into the Lobby to vote, though they do not know what they are voting about. I certainly think that Members who vote should listen to the Debate before doing
970
so. I protest against any more powers than are absolutely necessary being given under this Bill, and I should certainly join hon. Members if they go to a Division.
Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to reply to what was said by the Chief Secretary. He argued that in this Sub-section of the Clause there is no extension of powers, and he said that he is quite confident that he will get any lawyer in the House to agree with him. I am not a lawyer at all, and I do not argue with him along the strictly legal line. I am just a plain layman, but I do want to understand more of what is behind this Clause than we have yet heard. I wish, in the place of giving us a legal explanation, the right hon. Gentleman had given us a few concrete illustrations of what really is meant by the powers which the Government are going to give. We are told that this is a voluntary scheme to secure the better organisation of labour, the better organisation of industry. In so far as that is true I have no objection to it at all, but if it is a voluntary scheme for the proper organisation of labour, why do you want these wide and vague powers under the Defence of the Realm Act? They are viewed in the country as being very harsh. Many people believe that the powers are used not to defend the realm, but are very often used to punish individuals. I do want to know what you have in mind. I have urged the same point on the Home Secretary, and I have had no answer to convince me in the slightest degree. The Home Secretary has never given us one concrete example of what he means, nor has the Chief Secretary given any concrete example. I do not believe they know themselves, and it simply comes to this, that wide powers—powers have to be wide in war time—are to be transferred. But why should you apply those wide and indefinite powers to a purely voluntary scheme for securing the more effective organisation of labour and of industry? I am bound to say that you have said nothing on that point to satisfy me. I have tried to understand even the legal argument, but it has been neither clear nor convincing. It may be that I lack knowledge, or that the fault is due to my legal ignorance, but I honestly tried to understand what it is the right hon. Gentleman has got in his mind. For my part I object very strongly indeed to the Director-General, who has to deal with industrial labour in this country, having transferred to him vague and indefinite

971
powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. I think it is a dangerous thing, and I should like to know far more about it before I can give my consent to any such step.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether the House remembers that in the Committee stage we discussed this Clause. I would point out that the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to cancel an Amendment made in Committee. The Amendment made in Committee was at the end of Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, adding these words:
"No Order in Council, or Regulation, shall authorise compulsory employment or transfer of any person in or to any industry or occupation or service."
Unfortunately, the Bill has not been reprinted. I ventured to say yesterday that the Bill ought to have been reprinted; and this Amendment now before the Committee refers to the only point in regard to which our Amendment—that which I have read—was made in the Committee stage, and if the present Amendment were carried, those words would be left out, and the result of all the trouble we took in Committee would be lost. I thought I should be justified in drawing the attention of the House to this matter.
Mr. ROCH: I think the Chief Secretary-has fairly clearly pointed out what is the effect of this Clause and what powers are given to the Director-General. But while he has answered the theoretical issue, I do not think that he or the Home Secretary made any attempt to answer the practical issue which arises, and which is being asked almost daily, in my experience, in letters from the men who are volunteering. I quite understand what both right hon. Gentlemen say, that the effect of these words which my hon. and learned Friend seeks to omit perfectly and clearly and definitely arm the Director-General with all the powers which are given by the Defence of the Realm Act, with the exception of the Amendment which the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has pointed out. But I think that right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that that Amendment is not much of a safeguard, because we are told that under the Defence of the Realm Act what the Amendment seeks to safeguard would have been impossible, or at least so I understand from the discussion. It
972
is quite clear that this Sub-section gives to the Director-General the formidable powers which are given by the Defence of the Realm Act. Both right hon. Gentlemen are perfectly right in saying that that gives no further powers to the Director-General than are existing in Ministers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and it is also true to say that the effect of this Bill does not add anything to those Regulations. But there are two practical questions which arise. I have been asked by at least half a dozen Members as to the position of men who have volunteered under this scheme. I endeavoured to ask this question in Committee, but I am afraid it was owing to my want of clarity that I was not able to get an answer. I will ask the Home Secretary two perfectly specific questions, and I shall be very grateful if he gives me information on them. The first one is this: Given those men who are volunteers, given the transfer to the Director-General of the powers of the Defence of the Realm Acts and the power of making Regulations under that Defence of the Realm Act, would it be in the power of the Director-General under this Section to make a Regulation forming a disciplinary code for the men who volunteered?
Mr. DILLON: Certainly!
Mr. ROCH: I am asking for information, and if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me-for saying so, it is more important to get a declaration from the Front Bench. That is the first question I ask. Is it, when this Bill passes, in the power of the Director-General under this Section to put those volunteers under a disciplinary code? Personally you may say what you like, but really with these hosts of men volunteering you must have some kind of regulation, or I should have thought the whole thing would have been inoperative. You are bound to get a man who is not willing or does not wish to help, and to have a certain percentage of those, and therefore your whole scheme will be unworkable unless there is some kind of disciplinary code. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary-was quite accurate when he said that a volunteer can come in to-day and go out to-morrow. Has the Director-General power, first, to make any regulation as to a disciplinary code for volunteers? If I have not made myself clear I hope the-

973
right hon. Gentleman will ask me to develop the point a little further.
The second question is this: If this power does exist which is now given to the Director-General, is it or is it not the intention of the Government to use that power? Is it in the contemplation of the Government that some kind of disciplinary Regulations shall be made? Surely it is idle to ask us to give these formidable powers unless we are told quite specifically what they include, and whether there is a real intention on the part of the Government to make Regulations on the lines I have suggested. These two questions which I have put are exercising the minds of many Members day after day. Nobody can ask a man to volunteer without being asked, "Gracious heaven, what is going to happen to us; what are we going to be under?" They really are of the essence of the Bill. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says it is clear it is so. Let the Government act candidly and say quite directly, and let them not make any mystery about it. You cannot have hundreds of thousands of men volunteering, or in whatever quantity they volunteer, without, I will not say, good faith, but absolutely clear dealing with them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman now will give a clear, definite answer to the point I have endeavoured to raise.
Mr. FIELD: I have listened to this Debate with a good deal of anxiety, and the replies from the Front Bench only add to that anxiety. I cannot understand, if we are to have voluntary service, why it is necessary to use the Defence of the Realm Act. We know what use it has been put to in Ireland, where it has been applied for political purposes and is altogether opposed to voluntary service. It seems to be extraordinarily unbusinesslike to ask us to vote for a Bill not yet. printed. I think we are entitled to know exactly what we are voting on. Unless I am mistaken, I am rather of the opinion that probably the Local Government Board sent someone over here to prompt right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench.
Mr. LUNDON: They are in the Gallery.
Mr. FIELD: This is a Bill affecting Ireland, and we Irish representatives have been treated in extraordinary fashion in this House which is supposed to be a constitutional Assembly. It has been the habit of the Coalition Government not alone to take no advice from the Irish
974
Members, who are the representatives of the people in Ireland, but always to do the opposite. One would imagine that they knew everything about Ireland and that we knew nothing. They are adopting exactly that policy as to this particular measure. I trust that the very common-sense views put forward by the hon. Member will be answered. Sometimes the answers from the Front Bench increase our confusion. The right hon. Gentlemen who adorn the Front Bench—
Mr. LUNDON: Adorn?
Mr. FIELD: That is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Gentlemen who occupy positions on the Front Bench apparently think we ought to be satisfied with anything they say. We do not represent their views, we represent the opinions of the people of Ireland and of our constituents.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is repeating himself.
Mr. FIELD: I bow to your ruling. I am always obedient to the Chair. I would ask the Front Bench to produce the Bill and let us know exactly what it means and what it proposes to do, and let us know who is going to be the Director-General in Ireland?
Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: I can only speak again by leave of the House. I do not think I need deal with the wider questions raised by my right hon. Friend, but I hope to answer these specific inquiries made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roch). He asked first, if the. Director-General had power to make Regulations under this Bill. That, of course, is quite a mistake. He has no power to make Regulations; they can only be made by His Majesty in Council, as hitherto. The second question is this: Can the Director-General, or, I suppose, anybody else, form a disciplinary code under this Bill?
Mr. ROCH: The right hon. Gentleman says, "under this Bill." That was not my question. I said, under the Defence of the Realm Act.
Sir G. CAVE: Under the Defence of the Realm Act applied by this Bill. My answer is no. I have said so often in Committee, so often that I hesitate to do so again. There is an express prohibition in this

975
Bill against any kind of compulsion. It is not intended that the Director-General should have the power to impose any penalty for a breach of the volunteer's undertaking. Let us see what that comes to. A man volunteers to undertake such services as the Director-General may allocate. He carries out his undertaking by entering into a certain employment. He is bound by contract to carry out his undertaking, and that is the only legal obligation. If he leaves that employment and refuses to go to any other which the Director-General suggests to him he is breaking his promise, but he is under no kind of legal discipline, and nothing the Director-General can do can impose upon him any penalty, nor can any kind of discipline be enforced.
Mr. BILLING: Can he be prevented getting a job anywhere else?
Sir G. CAVE: He has broken his promise. I am dealing only with the question with regard to legal obligation and legal discipline. As regards what was said by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir F. Banbury), I am sorry that the Bill was not reprinted, but, under a recent decision, it has been the practice lately not to reprint a Bill if there is only, say, one Amendment or something which it is easy to refer to in the House, and for that reason and for reasons of expense this Bill, like others, has not been reprinted. But, apart from that, I would point out that if the House accepts this Amendment the words inserted in the Bill in Committee embodying the pledge which I gave on the Second Reading would go, and I do not think that that is the desire of the House. For that reason, therefore, I hope the Amendment may now be dealt with in the Division Lobby.
Mr. CLANCY: I had not borne in mind the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and I think the Government will admit that the gravamen of the matter is the fact that the Bill has not been reprinted. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Clause 1, at the end, to add the words "or shall impose any penalty for any breach of a voluntary agreement made by any person with the Director-General of National Service."
976
The Amendment which stands in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division (Mr. Watt) comes in at the end of the Amendment which was inserted in the Committee stage to the effect that
"no Order-in-Council or Regulation shall authorise the compulsory employment or transfer of any person in or to any industry, occupation, or service."
This question of a disciplinary code has already been raised on the last Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch), and I do not propose to argue the master at any length. I desire to remind the House of the circumstances under which the Amendment in Committee was made and the motive which led the Committee to insert that Amendment. In respect of the compulsory employment or transfer of any person in or to any industry or occupation we had received, in the course of the Second Reading Debate, an undertaking from the Home Secretary as explicit as that which he has given us in regard to this question of a disciplinary code. The House was not satisfied with that assurance, not because they did not trust the word of the right hon. Gentleman or rely upon his desire to see the pledge fulfilled, but because they were naturally anxious, in view of the experience of the House in respect of certain other pledges and Parliamentary undertakings, to see it inserted definitely in the Act itself, and the right hon. Gentleman very fairly met us and inserted this Amendment. Accordingly we now have statutory effect given to the assurance regarding compulsory transfer and employment. The Amendment which I am now asking the House to adopt is merely to give statutory effect to the other pledge which the right hon. Gentleman has repeated in the course of the Debate which has just come to an end. The fact that I return to the matter is not intended to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not anxious to see the pledge kept, but pledges have not always been kept in the past. We all know what happened to the attested men under the Derby scheme, because their position in respect of compulsion is very analogous to the position of volunteers under this Bill. An express assurance was given to them that they would be in no worse position than the conscripts under the Military Service Act, yet day by day we see men to whom that assurance was given called up for medical examination while—
Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to this Amendment.
Mr. PRINGLE: I was merely giving the illustration, and I had practically concluded my point. It was merely that that pledge had been broken, and I do not suggest that there was any want of good faith on the part of the Ministers concerned in that. I understand now, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment, and I will therefore conclude my observations.
Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not complain in the least of this Amendment being moved. It is far better to have conditions which are clear put upon the Statute Book. I accepted a previous suggestion as to my pledge given on the Second Reading, and I am prepared to accept this Amendment also.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DILLON: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "And the Director of National Service shall have a veto on any proposal by any Government Department to remove men or women from any industry at which they are now engaged."
This Amendment is one to which I attach very great importance, and I rather hope the Government may see their way to accept it. Now that the House has practically decided to set up this new Ministry, with abnormal powers, surely there cannot be a greater farce than to set it up without the one most important power of all, and I would ask the House to refer to the words at the beginning of the first Section of the Bill:
"For the purpose of making the best use of all persons, whether men or women, able to work in any industry, occupation, or service, etc."
How can the Controller of National Service carry out that great purpose set forth in the first words of the Bill if there are other Departments that have the power to come in without consulting him and dislocate all his arrangements? I will take a few eases in point to illustrate the meaning of what I have in my mind. I will take the case of agriculture, and this is really a practical illustration, because it only bears out what occurred in regard to agriculture when we were setting up the Controller of Food Production at the be-
978
ginning of this Session. Last Saturday the Prime Minister himself addressed a letter personally to the farmers of the country, which was published in some newspapers—I do not know why they did not all publish it—in which he made a most impassioned appeal to the farmers of this country to increase their tillage, and the case must be extraordinarily urgent when the Prime Minister addresses this personal appeal to them. Then we all saw on Saturday the appeal by the new Secretary to the Agricultural Department. the hon. Member for Hants (Colonel Sir Arthur Lee), in which he made an almost hysterical appeal to the farmers to set their ploughmen at work from morning to night, and I think he said even during the night.
What is the use of the Prime Minister making this appeal, and what is the use of our setting up such an elaborate machinery as we have now decided to set up for the purpose of organising, co-ordinating, and making the best use of the labour of the country, if the whole thing is turned into a farce by the interference of the War Office? I do not even, at this moment, in spite of repeated questions which I myself and other Members have put to the Under-Secretary for War, know whether the War Office is not still engaged in stripping the fields of England of ploughmen and horsemen, at the very time when it is absolutely notorious that so far from the food production of England being increased this year it is going to decrease, and the only question is as to how much the decrease will amount to. Yet we were told quite calmly by those who speak for the War Office at the opening of this Session that of the 60,000 skilled men temporarily exempted by the tribunals up to the 1st of January, 30,000 were to be taken from the land at the most critical period of this season. Lord Derby, in a speech about six weeks ago, persisted that he would take these 30,000 men, and spoke of the appeals of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Prothero) with contempt. He ridiculed them, because when the right hon. Member for Oxford stated to a meeting of farmers that he had received a staggering blow at the very outset of his work when the War Office said they would take these 30,000 men from the land, what did Lord Derby say? He said that the right hon. Gentleman had declared that he had got a staggering blow, "but," added Lord Derby "many debtors feel a staggering

979
blow when they are called upon to pay their debts"; and then, of course, there was laughter.
7.0 P.M.
When pressed in this House on the question, the Prime Minister himself, on the day when he came down and made that extremely startling and grave speech on the state of the food supplies of the country, declared that up to that date the War Office had only taken 6,000 men from the land, but neither from him nor from the representatives of the War Office have we ever been able to obtain any assurance, from that day to this, that the process would not go on. We were told that they were sending substitutes to the extent of from 15,000 to 20,000 men from the Army in England to farmers, but are they at the same time taking away men who are actually on the fields and who could be relied upon by the farmers to plough their land? Up to this moment we have got no answer, and I saw some of the most rabid journals of the Yellow Press in this country—and we have a Yellow Press—denouncing the War Office last week as being absolutely insane on this matter, and I must say that I do not think the language was too strong after what has happened, and in view of the terribly serious warnings addressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty and by the Prime Minister to the people of this country, and of the statement made the other day by the representative of the Food Controller that within a few weeks time we may be entirely without potatoes in this country, which, I think, is a very grave reflection on the whole machinery which we have set up, if they have suddenly awakened to that fact, instead of having discovered long ago, with the vast machinery at their disposal, what was the exact supply of potatoes in this country. If that had been done the potato famine which now prevails would not have come suddenly upon the country. That is the system which has produced the state of things which now prevails, and this, too, in face of the enormously serious warnings that have been given. I think that the word "insanity" is not too strong a word to use in connection with an office like the War Office which openly proclaims the doctrine that nothing matters except getting the requisite number of men for the front, and deliberately goes and strips the land at this all-critical time, when a few weeks
980
alone remain, and when, on account of the inclemency of the season last autumn and the dreadful weather we have had during the spring—I do not suppose that for forty years there has been a summer or autumn so unfavourable to agricultural operations—matters are as I have said. I say in face of all this that the War Office should continue to take away men from the land is absolutely intolerable. The whole thing becomes a perfect farce. We are, it appears, to set up now, at great expense, another Department whose main duty it is to co-ordinate all the labour of the country and get the best possible use out of every man and woman between the ages of eighteen and sixty. I say if they are to be overriden in the most vital points in this work by the War Office, which seems to me, so far as I can observe, to take a positive delight in treating with absolute contempt the officers of National Service, of Food Controller, and of Agricultural Controller, what is the use of setting up the Department?
I have a few cases which I have-gathered from the newspapers in the last two days, all of which newspapers are, and have been, notoriously violent supporters of Conscription and of the demands of the War Office for more men. I will just give a few cases to show why I feel that this matter is one of absolutely vital importance. Here is a letter from yesterday's "Daily Mail" written by a lady farmer. She says:
"1 farm 65 acres, 10 acre of wheal, and am now ploughing up another 20 acres—"
I observe this lady apparently proceeded to respond to the appeal of the Member for Oxford University, for she continues:
"Since Christmas I have had only one man to help-with the cattle and to plough He was called up last Monday. I hare done my utmost at Guildford and Dorking, hut being only a woman farmer, they would only let me have him for a week. I shall be left without anyone. How can I gut this man back?"
Is that true or is it not true? If it be true, what is the use of having a National Service Ministry if the War Office can act in the way we. See? There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the War Office continuing to do the same thing. Let me quote from to-day's "Times" comments from two men who are certainly men of high authority. The first letter is written by Lord Northbrook, and is headed "The Appeal to Ploughmen," He speaks as follows:
"Why is an appeal to enrol for National Service being made to ploughmen who are now employed in districts in which the farms are much under-staffed, according to

981
the Bath scale, and where the labour available is insufficient properly to prepare the arable land and sow spring corn? The enrolment of fanners, shepherds, stockmen, killed agricultural labonrers, and men employed on steam cultivation and motor ploughing, whose services are essential for the cultivation of the land in the counties in which they reside, will not result in releasing fit men for the Army."
Then he goes on to say:
"I am aware that Mr. Neville Chamberlain has given an assurance that we will not even move people who are engaged in agriculture from one place to another without the consent and approval of the President of the Board of Agriculture or his local agricultural representative. But he prudently qualities his assurance by expressing the hope that it will have better lack than some assurances that have been given.'"
That is a nice sample of the value which Ministerial assurances have come to now in this country! The next comment I will read is that of Lord Ribblesdale, another very considerable authority on agriculture. He asks of what use are appeals such as those—
"By Sir Arthur Lee in the 'Times' of to-day, even when reinforced as in this case by interjections and style which savour of despair at our enemy's activities. How in the world is a ploughman to work from daybreak to dark, and so on when he is marching about a barrack square doing physical drill on once useful pasture land adjoining his barracks, or running messages for the orderly room?"
That is the kind of thing that is going on. It is nothing short of an absolute farce to set up this great machinery that we are now engaged in setting up unless this man has a veto upon interference in his domain from any other Government Department. Here is one other case from the "Daily Mail" of, I think, to-day:
"My teamsman and ploughman was given twenty-four hours to join up on 18th January, at the very moment when this great stress of work began. Since that date my horses have been standing and not a furrow has been ploughed. As this man was home this week-end—"
This is a beautiful example of the intelligence of the War Office!—
"on sis days' leave. I wrote to his commanding officer explaining my situation and asking for an extension to Six weeks' leave so as to get my ploughing done, and the seed crop put into the land. The commanding officer has replied with a refusal. 'Owing he says, to recent War Office instructions, I am unable to grant this leave, as this man is in medical category A."'
Recent War Office instructions? Therefore, I presume, this farm is to be left untitled. These are only samples of cases. I saw a letter the other day from a lady in Surrey. She said there were hundreds of acres where she lived lying untilled, horses standing in the stables for whom there were no men to attend to, and ploughs lying idle. What is the use of men like the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Hants writing hysterical letters to the papers and appealing for ploughmen to work from morning till night, and into the darkness of the night, when
982
they know perfectly well that the War Office is paralysing this great national work in many parts of the country, and that, as a matter of fact, hundreds of thousands of acres are lying idle in this country for the very simple reason that there are no men to do the work? The lady who wrote from Surrey also said:
"Can anything be more preposterous than to see in my own neighbourhood, and within my own knowledge, hundreds of acres of excellent tillage land lying idle because there are no men to be got to work them, and the Government ploughing up Richmond Park and planting potatoes by way of showing their tremendous zeal."
When I turn to Ireland from this country I see that the whole of this system is to a large extent a farce. I have got a description of the work in Ireland upon which I should like to say a word or two. The people have thrown themselves into the work with extraordinary enthusiasm and are doing their level best. Happily the War Office cannot stop us there. We have not the War Office to contend against. Already we have the promise of a large increase in food, which, mark you, is of as great importance to this country as it is to Ireland. Do hon. Members know how much food we are sending you from Ireland? I do not say it is a benefit to you alone, for you pay us exceedingly well for it; you gave us very high prices—and I am glad you took it. But do hon. Members know that last year Ireland sent more food to this country than any other country in the world except America? The value of Irish food imported into this country amounted to £40,000,000, equal to the whole of the imports from the United States of America. Therefore, the production of food in Ireland is a matter of vital importance. Also I say we have not, thank God, got the War Office on our backs! We are able to do what we can to increase production, and would increase it enormously more if we could have control of the food scheme more-completely. I say that in this country you are now face to face with a terrible crisis. All the talk I have heard in this House about increasing the production of food is to a large extent a farce, because you are deliberately allowing tens of thousands of acres of the best land to lie uncultivated, and after the next five weeks no human power can put this land to any useful purpose during the present season. I think this is a reasonable Amendment. I hope-the Government will accept it. It is abso-

983
lutely essential to make this new Department a reality. In my judgment it will be one of the most useful powers we can confer upon the Controller.
Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment. There was a meeting today, held in one of the rooms of this House, of business men from many parts of the country. Example after example was given of the conflict between Government Departments, and how, perhaps, shipbuilders will receive an urgent demand from one Government Department that they should go on with building mercantile shipping, while at that very moment another Government Department is taking away from them men that will make it possible. A very strong protest was made. Therefore, if this new development of National Service is going to do any good, there must be some kind of check as between one Department and another, so that one Department shall not undo what another Department is trying to accomplish. Of course, the most extreme case is that of agriculture. There is no doubt at all that the food situation in this country is becoming increasingly serious. If you go down to some of the poorer districts you find it is becoming a problem for many of the poorer people to obtain certain kinds of food, and you will see to-day in certain districts in London long queues, regulated by policemen, outside some of the shop doors. What is said by many of the people who are waiting in these queues is of a character that would suggest that unless some remedy is forthcoming a very dangerous spirit indeed will develop. The spirit I refer to is that which we see manifested in some of the other capitals of Europe at the present, including Petrograd. We do not: want to see that here, if it can possibly be avoided. If it is to be avoided there must be less blundering and more organisation between one Department and another.
I should like to give one illustration which affects the War Office, and is typical of a great deal of what is going on. At the very moment that the Director of National Service, in conjunction with certain women leaders, was striving to get together a scheme for providing women for the land of this country, the War Office, without consultation, as I understand, with the Ministry of National Service, came forward with a brand new scheme of their own for enlisting 50,000 women—or the idea that got abroad was
984
that 50,000 were needed-to be enlisted for special work in France. That scheme was put forward in direct conflict with every scheme that was being put forward at the same time by the Ministry of National Service. What has happened in regard to that scheme for the women? I believe that the response was a ready and generous one, and that almost immediately 20,000 women came forward to enrol themselves for any work that they would be called upon to do in France. What happened? The War Office had forgotten all sorts of things. The War Office had forgotten that women sometimes sleep, and that they need beds. There were no beds ready. None of the things were ready that were necessary for the protection and comfort of the women. I am told that the scheme has dwindled and dwarfed itself down until something like 400 women are now going to France in place of the 50,000 originally asked for; that a large number of women who have enrolled themselves will not be called upon. It is not a pastime. Again and again women have been called upon to enrol themselves by various Government Departments, and when they have done so they have waited week after week month after month, to do something, and no job has been forthcoming. I believe the same thing is going to happen in regard to this scheme. We do want some kind of regulation, and some kind of control, if any good is going to be done in regard to a matter of this sort.
I would like to take another example of the kind of action which is happening in Government Departments, involving endless labour and endless expense that could be put to far better use. I take as an illustration the Department of the Food Controller. The Food Controller made up his mind, very properly I have no doubt at all, that after a certain date ordinary white flour would not be available for sale in this country. I think personally that was a necessary step in view of the supplies. But what happened? When the time came near it was found that the traders and the dealers had large stocks of white flour still in hand, and the problem arose as to whether there would be an extension of time during which white flour could be sold or whether it would have to be wasted. I am going to show in a minute that a great deal of unnecessary labour was called into being by the Food Controller which might have been put to real work of national service. An appeal

985
was made by the traders to grant a general extension of the time inside which white flour could be sold. That, I understand, has been actually done by the Food Controller's Department. But next day the Food Controller himself announced that the Order of his own Department would be cancelled, and that he would issue individual exemptions to certain people, and actually people were set out to make about 16,000—
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how this can apply to the Amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman propose that the Director-General of National Service should take over all the work of the Food Department?
Mr. ANDERSON: No, Sir.
Mr. SPEAKER: Then what application has the hon. Gentleman's argument?
Mr. ANDERSON: It is this: The Director-General of National Service should have a veto over Departments uselessly employing labour.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is arguing that the Director of National Service should run all other Departments. That is not the Amendment.
Mr. ANDERSON: The Director-General is to act as a check in regard to other Departments, and the wasteful use of labour by other Departments, I understand, is involved in this Amendment. However, I pass from that, and I say in regard to many aspects of industry there is far too much being done at present, and that some branches of industry would be far better if they could really get some kind of rest from many of the exactions that are being made. But I do contend very strongly that there is need for regulation and check as between one Department and another. I am quite sure this Amendment tends in that direction, and therefore ought to be supported.
Sir G. CAVE: I confess I am puzzled as to what this Amendment means. As I listened to the hon. Member who proposed it, I thought he wanted to give the Director of National Service a veto on compulsory removal, but the hon. Member for Attercliffe seems to desire that he should have a veto on the voluntary removal of a man from any other industry. He referred to the engagement of persons of the shipping industry, and the engagement of women by the Army, and seemed to think the Amendment would apply to
986
that. I cannot think the House would seriously entertain a suggestion that when any Government Department wants to engage any particular person for any particular work, the Director of National Service should be able to say it cannot have him or her, even although the work in which the person is now engaged is wholly unnecessary. If the hon. Member refers to compulsory removal, that, of course, does not come within this Bill.
Mr. DILLON: That is the chief purpose of the Amendment, but it would also cover a case, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, in regard to the enlistment of 50,000 women for France, which would conflict directly with the National Service scheme, and although that proposal was not compulsory still, if on a large scale, it would remove a great number of people.
Sir G. CAVE: Whether on a large scale or a small scale does not affect the question. The Amendment really means that that if a Government Department desires to engage 100 men, ten men, or even one-person employed in any other industry, whether essential or not, the Director-General should have a veto. I really do-not think that any body of Members would assent to that, and therefore I will deal with the Amendment as a proposal to give to the Director-General a veto upon enlistments for the Army. It seems to me that could not possibly be done. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment gave his version of what happened with regard to agricultural labour. If he will permit me to say so, he is under a misapprehension of what really did happen. His statement was that 60,000 men were exempted by tribunals from military service, and that 30,000 of these were afterwards called up by the military authorities. That was not what happened. The 60,000 were not exempted, but were released by the tribunals for military service, and the Army Council, in order not to interfere unduly with agriculture, did not call up any of them until 1st January, when they called up a certain number. It is on that action that the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman referred arose between the Army authorities and the President of the Board of Agriculture, and, as a matter of fact, I understand that to-day the President is completely satisfied with the arrangement which has been made, so that really the strictures of the Mover of the Amendment are undeserved With regard to the point made by the hon.

987
Member for the Attercliffe Division, I will only say that neither the number which he gave of the number of women asked for nor the number which he gave of those actually engaged for Army purposes is accurate.
Let me deal with the substance of the Amendment. Of course, differences may arise between two Government Departments, each having an eye on its own requirements. The Army may say that there are 50,000 men engaged in an industry whom they require, and the Department in charge of the industry may say that it wants these men for the purpose of that industry. Such differences have arisen from time to time, and no doubt will arise, and the point is who is to decide? In my opinion you cannot put into a Statute a provision that one Department shall have a veto over another Department. When this question arises and the matter is brought before the Cabinet both Ministers are heard and the Cabinet decides what is right and proper to be done. That has happened time after time, as I know to be the case, because I have been present. But the Cabinet have gone further, and taken a step in the direction of the principle of this Amendment. I understand that they have asked the Director-General to act as arbitrator when these questions arise. That cannot be made statutory, but it can be done so long as the Cabinet desires it. So long as these questions are liable to arise it is very reasonable to have some Minister—and I know of none better than the Director-General of National Service—to ascertain the facts on both sides and to endeavour to act as mediator between the two Government Departments. I have no doubt the arrangement will work smoothly and well, but I do not think that the hon. Member, with his experience, would expect us to put in an Act of Parliament a provision that one Minister shall have a veto upon the acts of another Minister. I hope that, after the statement I have made as to the practice which at the moment is being followed under the direction of the Cabinet, the House will be satisfied with that explanation and will not accept this Amendment.
Mr. RENDALL: The speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made may have one or two interpretations of a very extraordinary kind, as it seems to me. As I understand, the Director of National
988
Service is going to be the arbitrator between various Government Departments, and in the main for the particular purposes of national emergency. As the right hon. Gentleman spoke he did not exclude from the powers of the arbitrator power over the demand of the War Office for more men, and therefore, if the War Office one day decides that they want to put in the category of the combatant forces a particular class now excluded, it seems to me that. if we take what the right hon. Gentleman said literally, it would mean, as a matter of fact, that the War Cabinet. which is supposed to sit from day to day and hour to hour, has abdicated its own right by placing in the power of Mr. Neville Chamberlain the right to make a final decision as to whether the Army shall get more men or fewer men. It may be right or it may toe wrong, but it seems to be an extraordinary departure from precedent, and, although in these times we are accustomed to departures from precedents, this seems to me a most remarkable thing. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman if he will qualify what he has said, or if he desires to qualify what he has said, and if he really means that practically in every ease, if there are two opposing claims for men, even when the Board of Agriculture says, "We want so many men here, and we must have them," and the War Office says, "We must have men for fighting," if in such a case, Mr. Neville Chamberlain may actually decide against the War Office? I think that question has been put plainly, and I must say I should like an answer before going on.
Sir G. CAVE: My statement referred, of course, to the very case which the hon. Gentleman has put. Supposing the Army wants certain men, and another Department having charge of those men desires to exempt them from military service, the point arises as to who shall act as mediator between the two. I do not say that if the Director decided in favour of exemption and the Army Council felt that the release of those men was injurious to the country, the decision of the mediator would be final, but it is desired that in the first instance the Director-General of National Service should act as mediator so that these differences may be adjusted.
Mr. DILLON: Do I understand that the Army Council are the supreme judges of what is or is not injurious to the country

989
or not? Is the whole country to be starved if the Army Council decides to take away all the men?
Sir G. CAVE: I said the very opposite. The decision would rest with the Director-General, or, in the last resort, with the Cabinet
Mr. H. LAW: I cannot understand why the Home Secretary does not accept this Amendment, because he has really admitted the case in substance. He has admitted very frankly that there may arise disputes between Government Departments as to the use of particular bodies of men. He has gone further, and admitted that such cases have arisen. He admits that there must be some person to determine the dispute as between those Departments, and he suggests that it is impossible to set up the principle that one Minister is to have a veto on the proceedings of another Minister. I suggest that that principle has already been admitted in the case of the Minister of Munitions, where there is already the power to take certain men, and if the Minister of Munitions thinks that certain men are essential in the case of a particular industry he has a veto on the action of the War Office in relation to those men. All we are left with is a legal purism on the part of the Home Secretary, who dislikes to place in a statutory form that which is an ample precedent in the action of the Government during the last two years.
Mr. PRINGLE: I am afraid there is some difficulty in appreciating the reply of the Home Secretary to the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be quite without precedent to allow any Minister to have a veto over any other Minister, but the hon. Member who spoke last pointed out that that is not quite so, and he showed that we have already a provision in the Munitions Act to that effect. But apart from that the Home Secretary should remember that we are now living under an unprecedented constitutional system. In former days all Ministers met together in the Cabinet, and consequently you had a Cabinet in which everybody had an equal voice; but you have no such system now. The consequence is that when we set up a Director-General of National Service you should do what your Bill professes to do, namely, make him the Director of National Service, and not
990
Director of one part of the Service and powerless in respect to another part. The Home Secretary says it would be quite legitimate to have the Director-General of National Service acting between two Government Departments, but apparently he is not even to be entitled to have this limited power of mediation if the Army is concerned in the dispute, and the Army Council has to be the deciding factor, with an ultimate appeal to the War Council. Why should this be so in regard to the Army? Already the Director-General of National Service has taken over one of the functions hitherto performed by the Army Council, namely, the provision of substitutes for men who have been ordered for military service, and why should he not have this other power? If the Director-General is responsible for the provision of substitutes, surely he is the Minister best able to say where there are available sufficient substitutes to justify the Army in taking a further number of men from the industries affected. In the delegation of the functions of the Army Council in regard to substitution you have the very argument which entitles the Director-General of National Service to this veto, which I suggest should be conferred upon him by Statute.
Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I was not quite clear as to what functions the Director-General of National Service was to exercise as mediator or arbitrator. The point. seems to me to be this: Under the declaration of the Home Secretary the Director-General is to mediate between the Departments who are disputing in bulk, if I may use the term, for a large number of men who are or are not to be recruited. For instance, the hon. Member for East Mayo instanced the demand by the War Office for 30,000 men in regard to which I understand that as a matter of fact only 10,000 were obtained. The dispute between the Board of Agriculture and the War Office related to 10,000 men, and surely a dispute of that kind can easily be referred to the Director-General of National Service for adjudication. But when you get down to the individual man taken out of an individual factory, or an individual shipyard, then I do not understand that there is to be any reference to the Director-General of National Service.
May I give two cases which were brought to my notice to-day. One was the case of a man taken out of a dockyard and sent to the engineers. His brother writes to

991
me and says that this man was a first-class shipwright, and he is now in Chatham dockyard learning his drill as a Royal Engineer. Now, in what capacity is that man most useful for the purposes of National Service? In a case of that kind is the man to have the power of referring his case to the Director-General of National Service, and if his appeal is sustained is the Director-General to have the right to say to the War Office that that man must be transferred from the Royal Engineers to his work as a shipwright? The same thing occurs when an individual person is taken off a farm. It is not a question of sweeping a district clear of men. The case given by the hon. Member for East Mayo of a wretched woman who had her sole labourer taken away is a case in point. In a case of that sort is the Director-General to be the adjudicator between the War Office and the requirements of National Service? I am in a real difficulty about that matter. I want to know what the power of the Director-General is to be, and I should like to have a word of explanation from the Homo Secretary on this point. It is not only a question of adjudicating in bulk between two Departments, but upon individual cases, and the legitimate hard-
ship of men being transferred to some other industry to meet the unnecessary demands of the War Office.
Sir G. CAVE: The Army Council have authority to call up men who are liable for military service, and the various Departments have power to exempt them or badge them. A Government Department is quite within its rights in exempting or badging those men. The Army Council may consider that it is in the public interests that certain men should be called up, and the Department may say that they want the men in some particular industry; and that is where the difficulty arises. It is a perfectly bona fide dispute. The Director-General comes in and endeavours to act as mediator between the two views. The case my right hon. Friend puts of a man being actually called up and taken from a shipyard is one where this arrangement would not apply, because that man must have been debadged before he joined the Army. It is only where you have a desire to take men from an industry that this machinery will be applicable.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 177.

Division No. 12.]

AYES.

[7.40 p.m.

Anderson, W. C.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bentham, George Jackson

Hazleton, Richard

O'Doherty, Philip

Boland, John Pius

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

O'Dowd, John

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hogge, James Myles

O'Malley, William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Byrne, Alfred

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Chancellor, Henry George

Keating, Matthew

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Clancy, John Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Pringle, Wiliam M. R.

Clough, William

King, Joseph

Reddy, Michael

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Cosgrave, James

Lardner, James C. R.

Rendall, Athelstan

Crumley, Patrick

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Cullinan, John

Lundon, Thomas

Rowntree, Arnold

Devlin, Joseph

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Scanlan, Thomas

Dillon, John

McGhee, Richard

Sheehy, David

Donovan, John Thomas

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Doris, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Snowden, Philip

Duffy, William J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leifrim, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ffrench, Peter

Molloy, Michael

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Field, William

Muldoon, John

Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien

Glanville, Harold James

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Hackett, John

NOES.

Adamson, William

Barnett, Capt. R. W.

Blair, Reginald

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Slake, Sir Francis Douglas

Agnew, Sir George William

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

Booth, Frederick Handel

Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Boyton, James

Baird, John Lawrence

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Baldwin, Stanley

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Bridgeman, William Clive

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Brookes, Warwick

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Bird, Alfred

Broughton, Urban Hanlon

Brunner, John F. L.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robinson, Sidney

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Hudson, Walter

Rowlands, James

Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

Illingworth, Albert H.

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

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton.)

Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

Johnston, Christopher N.

Shaw, Hon. A.

Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanton, Charles Butt

Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Craik, Sir Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Stewart, Gershom

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Knight, Captain E. A.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

Sutherland, John E.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

Denniss, E. R. B.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

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

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Tickler, T. G.

Elverston, Sir Harold

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Tootill, Robert

Fell, Arthur

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Touche, Sir George Alexander

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Mackinder, Halford J.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Macleod, John Mackintosh

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Ganzoni, Francis John C.

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

Wardle, George J.

Gardner, Ernest

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

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Macpherson, James Ian

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

Maden, Sir John Henry

Watt, Henry A.

Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

Malcolm, Ian

Weston, J. W.

Gretton, John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Whiteley, Herbert J.

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Hanson, Charles Augustin

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Haslam, Lewis

Parkes, Ebanezer

Wolmer, Viscount

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

Henry, Sir Charles

Perkins, Walter F.

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Hendry, Denis S.

Peto, Basil Edward

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

Pratt, J. W.

Younger, Sir George

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

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Primrose

Hills, John Waller

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Hinds, John

CLAUSE 2.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Ministry of National Service.)
(1) The Minister of National Service may adopt an official seal, and describe himself generally by the style and title of the Director-General of National Service; and the seal of the Minister shall be officially and judicially noticed, and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister or of a secretary or some person authorised by the Minister to act in that behalf.
(2) Section ten, Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section eleven, and Sections twelve, thirteen, and fourteen of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and Ministry of National Service and to the office of Director-General of National Service and to Orders in Council made for the purposes of this Act and powers and duties transferred by virtue of this Act, as they apply to the
994
Minister and Ministry of Food and the office of Food Controller and to Orders in Council made for the purposes of that Act and powers and duties transferred by virtue of that Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, a Member of the House of Commons shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance at any time within one month after the commencement of this Act of the office of secretary in the Ministry of National Service.
Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "twelve" ["Section eleven, and Sections twelve, thirteen and fourteen"].
This is another illustration of legislation by reference so frequently objected to in this House. I am compelled to read the Section of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, which I propose shall be omitted. That Section deals with the

995
ability of the Minister and Secretary to sit in Parliament. The first Sub-section is as follows:
"The office of a Minister appointed under this Act, or of Secretary in a Ministry established under this Act, shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting as a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, but not more than one secretary in each Ministry shall sit as a Member of that House at the same time."
Sub-section (2) reads:
"The office of a Minister appointed under this Act shall be deemed to be an office included in Schedule H of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and Schedule H of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and Schedule E of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868."
The third Sub-section says:
"A Minister appointed under this Act shall take oath of allegiance and official oath, and shall be deemed to be included in the first part of the Schedule to the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868."
I move this Amendment in order to raise the question of the appointment of a Secretary to this Ministry. Section 12 of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act is really quite irrelevant, so far as the Minister of National Service is concerned, because he has announced that he does not intend to enter the House of Commons, and it is consequently unnecessary to relieve him of the disqualification which would otherwise rest upon him in regard to sitting in this House. The only part of the Section with which we need be concerned is that dealing with the Parliamentary Secretary. I and others on other stages of this Bill, as well as on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, have taken exception to the appointment of any further office holders by this Government. We have at the present time the largest Administration on record. There are now fifty-five members entitled to sit upon the Front Bench, though, of course, there is not the accommodation for them, and there are a large number who have really no administrative duties to perform. We have a larger number of Whips than any previous Government have had. I think there is a record number of Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. A certain amount of economy was exercised by the
996
last Government, which, I believe, used every Whip for the purpose of representing some Department in the House of Commons. At the present time only one of the Whips represents a Department. It is totally unnecessary to provide for the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary with a salary attached, because it is quite easy for the Government to avail themselves of the services of one of the Whips, who could work in the Department in the morning and reply from that bench to any questions put by Members in this House.
There is the further question whether the Ministers mentioned in Section 12 of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act are to be the only Members of this House who are to hold office in the new Ministry. That is a very important point. Apart from an express statement in this Bill or in the Act to which it refers, no Member in this House is entitled to hold office in the new Ministry. It is common knowledge that in other Departments Members of this House have been appointed to various offices. It is true that these offices are without salary, but I wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government, in addition to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary, to appoint as an official any other Member of this House. I do not attach any importance to the question whether he is paid or not, but I think it well that the Government, before making any such appointment, should have in their mind and before their eyes Sections 25 and 26 of the sixth year of Anne, chapter vii. I have no doubt the Home Secretary has in mind the Sections to which I refer. It is the Place Act. Probably some questions put to the law-officers of the Crown to-day will show that these Sections are not as dead as Queen Anne. The real question is whether, apart from express statutory provision, it is possible for the Government to appoint any Members of this House as office holders in connection with the Ministry, even although they are unpaid. I therefore hope that we shall be able to get an assurance from the Home Secretary on these points: First of all, that the Government have abandoned the intention to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to this Department, but that they will avail themselves of the services of one of the unemployed Whips, and in the second place, that they are going to keep themselves free from any breach of the Place Act and are not going to follow the example of the

997
Minister of Munitions and certain other Departments by appointing as officials Members of this House, thereby committing breaches of the Statute and leading hon. Members unwittingly to incur penalties.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. WATT: I desire to second the Amendment, which has been so ably proposed by my hon. and learned Friend. This particular Sub-section with which we are dealing re-enacts five Sections of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, and the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend is to leave out the re-enactment of Section 12 of that Act. That Section enables the Minister and his Under-Secretary to sit in this House. We gather From observations made from the Front Bench that the Minister appointed under this Act has no desire and has no intention to sit in this House, but it is intended that a new Under-Secretary shall be appointed and shall sit in the House. This Amendment would make it impossible for the Under-Secretary to sit in this House, but, as my hon. and learned Friend has said one of the whips, who are not overburdened with work at the present time, would be able to do the work and represent Mr. Neville Chamberlain in this House. I think the opinion of the House generally is that we have already sufficient Under-Secretaries, though no doubt they are very talented men. No doubt the House thinks the number is sufficient, and I hope it will see its way, therefore, to accept the Amendment and to make it impossible for the Under-Secretary, as Under-Secretary, to be present in this House.
Sir G. CAVE: More than one point has been raised on this Amendment. My hon. Friend who moved it is, I take it, averse to a Secretary being appointed at all but, of course, the appointment is made under another provision altogether, and, therefore, it can be made notwithstanding this Amendment. It is the intention to appoint a Secretary to the Director of National Service. I will not follow the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment in his suggestion as to who the Secretary is to be—
Mr. HAZLETON: Is he to be paid?
Sir G. CAVE: Certainly. The effect of the Amendment would be to disqualify both the Director-General of National Service and the Secretary to the Director-General from sitting in this House, and
998
the result would be that there would be no one connected with this Department in this House. The present Director-General does not for the moment desire to sit in Parliament. Personally, I hope that before long he may reconsider his decision, as I am sure we should all like to see him here. But, at any rate, he may have a successor who may be already a Member, or who may desire to become a Member, and, therefore, I think it would be better that the House should not prevent itself having at any time hereafter the presence of the Director of National Service. In the case of the Secretary the case is equally clear. It is desirable while the Director does not sit in this House we should have someone here to answer questions on his behalf, and I do not think the House would be unwilling that the Department should be so represented. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle), I am aware that the words of the Statute which he quoted disqualified certain people holding offices or places of profit under the Crown from sitting in this House. Whether by some interpretation those words would apply to one who assists a Minister is a point of importance no doubt, otherwise my hon. Friend would not have raised it. But it is not now my duty to deal with matters of law of that kind; it is the business of the Law Officers of the Crown to answer questions of that nature. I understand that a question has been addressed on the point to the Attorney-General, and therefore I do not propose to deal with it.
Mr. HAZLETON: I should like to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the significant position in which we find ourselves at this stage of the Bill. On an earlier Amendment we had the Chief Secretary for Ireland announcing that there was to be an official in this new Department to be appointed for Ireland, and he informed the House that it was his intention to endeavour to get a gentleman in Ireland who would do the work voluntarily and without payment. That was a very good principle to go upon; no doubt it was good enough for the Front Bench to propose for Ireland. They would like to get a man to do their work for them in Ireland for nothing. But the moment you come to England and it is proposed to appoint a Secretary to the Director-General of National Service there is no suggestion that that Secretary is to work in the national interests voluntarily, but

999
it is proposed that he shall be paid a salary. I want to tell the Government that they are carrying this thing to very dangerous lengths indeed. There are more than fifty-five of them entitled to sit on that bench, and if this sort of thing goes on we shall soon have so many paid members of this Government that they will be able to out-vote any likely combination of private Members in various parts of this House. When the Division bell rings it is not from the ordinary Lobbies that Members pour into the House to vote; it is from Ministers' rooms that they come, to out-vote the Irish Members in their appeals for justice and satisfaction, and so arrogant are our Ministers becoming that when we have a Debate extending over an hour and a-half, not one of them will get up to reply to the speeches made. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, after a Debate in this House yesterday, had to run off to see the Director-General (Mr. Neville Chamberlain), and consult with him as to what should be done with regard to an Amendment proposed from this side of the House, and then the right hon. Gentleman had to trot back here and tell the House of Commons that Mr. Neville Chamberlain agreed to the appointment of an Advisory Committee. We proposed an Advisory Committee for Ireland—
Mr. SPEAKER: This has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment. The hon. Member is going over Debates which have taken place at earlier stages.
Mr. HAZLETON: I am pointing out that if we are to have another Minister with another salary added to the large number who sit on the Front Bench opposite, they might at least have the common decency to get up and reply to speeches made by private Members.
Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Amendment at all. The hon. Member has already made his protest upon it.
Mr. HAZLETON: I say that this is a very serious and important matter. I suggest to the House of Commons that if we are to have further additions to the number of paid members of the Government it will be necessary for the House, for its own protection and for the protection of its freedom and independence, to take extra precautions to ensure that paid Ministers shall not be able to override the
1000
declared wishes of the House. If I get an opportunity on this stage of the Bill I will draft and put down an Amendment to the effect that no paid Minister sitting on that bench shall be entitled to vote in any Division. You are going to increase the number of Ministers to an unprecedented degree. You are appointing so-many that they will overflow into two or three benches, and I do suggest that the House will have to take some means to protect itself against these paid Gentlemen, and if they will not do their duty and reply to the speeches that are made, prevent them at any rate from sitting therein silence and then out-voting independent Members who have been labouring to do-the best they can in the interests of their country. In all seriousness I consider that this thing has reached a stage when it has become a public scandal. We never have the Prime Minister here. We have the Home Secretary, of course, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland has long since disappeared from that bench—
Mr. SPEAKER: These matters are irrelevant to the Amendment, and I warn the hon. Member, if he does not keep more closely to the Amendment, I shall have to-put in force the Standing Order.
Mr. HAZLETON: I do think these Gentlemen might take a leaf out of the book of the Chief Secretary for Ireland when they are asking the House of Commons to make an addition to the extraordinary number of Ministers now sitting on that bench and overflowing into the benches behind. I suggest that they should at least have the decency to-appoint a Minister who will receive no salary. It is not an extraordinary suggestion to make, after all. Is there no patriotic gentleman in England who, at this time of national emergency, when the taxation of this country is at its present high figure, when the War expenditure is reaching six millions a day—is there no-patriotic gentleman who will say, "Here is a small undertaking to be attended to, and I am willing to do it for nothing" The Chief Secretary proposed that in the case of Ireland it should be done for nothing—
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment does not raise the question of salary at all. That is raised by another Amendment. This Amendment proposes to omit Subsection (12) of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1956, which does not deaf with salaries at all.
Mr. HAZLETON: We have been told by the Home Secretary, in reply to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, that it is the intention of the Government to appoint another paid Minister, and that is what I want to protest against in the strongest possible manner.
Mr. HOGGE: I am disappointed that the Home Secretary did not give more consideration to the Statute of Queen Anne, which, as the House will remember, was passed by Parliament in order to prevent the then Government overcoming the desire and will of the House of Commons. At that time Governments had a habit of adding to the number of those who sat in the House, certain persons holding certain posts, so that by the aid of their votes they could overthrow the will and desire of Members of the House. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, in directing the attention of the Home Secretary to that Statute, no doubt had that in his mind. But he also had another thing in his mind which I think is of great importance to many Members in this House. We all have, heard of the Common Informer; we have had within the past few months examples of what the Common Informer can do to the inconvenience, personal and financial, of Members of this House. It is a point so much in dispute that the Law Officers of the Crown have taken at least a week in order to reply to a question affecting the position of Parliamentary Secretaries and other individuals holding office in these new Departments, and that is whether or not these Members of the House have not incurred very serious penalties by taking part in the Divisions that have occurred since their appointment. When we are considering the very important question whether or not we shall have a Parliamentary Secretary for this new Department, I think we ought to have more guidance that we have yet had from the Home Secretary. It is quite true that the Home Secretary formerly held the post of Solicitor-General under this Government, and it is a fiction—
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE, SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL.
Order read for Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Sir WALTER ESSEX: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
In taking this course I feel compelled to express regret to this House—a regret in which I think my opponents will join me, that no provision is made in the Constitution of this country for avoiding discussion upon the floor of the House of Commons or in its Committee Rooms of a matter of this importance. We here to-night and during the progress of this Bill, be it long, or, as I hope, be it short, have to carry on our proceedings with the regrettable knowledge that we have no coordinating authority to deal with matters affecting the well-being of the; City of London, which can take into consideration all the various aspects of a proposal affecting its convenience or its amenities, and to resist the invasion of its rights and privileges, as I feel sure a large number of hon. Members in this House will agree with me in believing the proposals of this railway company set before us to-night suggest they should take powers to do. Almost alone of all the great capitals of the world, London stands without this protection. If proposals of this kind had come before the New York State Legislature, provision is made for the protection of New York. If they had come before Washington, that being in the district of Columbia, having full governing powers to protect the rights of the inhabitants of that city, which bids fair to be what its people wish it to be, the handsomest city on earth; they would be able to bring to bear upon the question submitted to their consideration a full, united, and adequate voice, and to control the decision of any matter submitted to them. I believe that our Australian kinsmen are taking similar powers in the question of their new Common wealth Capital of Canberra. That I am not overstating my opinion is clear from words which fell from the lips of the eloquent counsel for the railway company before the Lords Committee in May of last year. He said:

1003
"Do the London County Council oppose on the Preamble? They do not. Indeed, why should they The London County Council has no interest in the river whatever."
There you have baldly, frankly, and, but for the well-known courtesy of the learned counsel, I had almost said brutally, the outstanding fact of the disability of London, stated in most emphatic language. The London County Council has no voice in any matter affecting the convenience and amenity of its river. Notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands of pounds, aye, the millions of pounds which from first to last the London County Council and its predecesssors have spent in cleansing and sweetening the tide-ways of the river, in diverting sewage, and in other ways making it a more wholesome adjunct to London, these things do not count. They do not qualify them to be an authority as against the inroads threatened to them by a railway company. One might point to the Embankment, which cost from one million to one million five hundred thousand pounds, making it, but for the disfigurement of this bridge, one of the handsomest promenades in Europe. One million pounds or more was spent in the vicinity of this House upon the gardens leading down from Millbank to Old Palace Yard. One might also point to Shaftesbury Avenue, to Charing Cross Road, and to the other improvements contiguous to this monstrosity. Yet it is impossible for one to get up and desire that opportunity for authority to the London County Council, as long as the infliction of this injustice on the river is confined to the river air. The unsatisfactory feature of the position was emphasised by the fact that had it not been for the courage of a comparatively small gas company in Wandsworth, attacking the railway company's proposals because of the undoubted infringement that they made of the navigable waterways of the Thames, this proposal need never have come before the House of Commons, and whatever enormity the railway company might have sought to add to the enormity which their bridge already presents, could have been carried out, and there is no power on earth which would have stood in their way once they obtained the sanction of the Port of London Authority, which deals only with matters of navigation.
However much the County Council may spend on the magnificent county palace on the other side of the river, through its windows they may look upon this misbe-
1004
gotten abortion of a bridge, and can do nothing to stop its aggravations, so long as its operation is confined to the air above the river. The House of Lords, knowing how easily public rights may be invaded by the multiplied Rules and Ordinances of the Committee Rooms of the House, were careful to do what one Noble Lord said they had never done for ten years before, namely, to move an Instruction to the Committee which their House was setting up from among its Members- that they should take into consideration certain factors in the problem, first of all, that they should have regard to the vehicular and pedestrian traffic needs of this congested district, and should also consider that adequate evidence should be taken upon what some would call the aesthetic amenities and how far they might be affected by these proposals. The small-ness of the power of a Committee of inquiry in this House is manifested by the-way their Lordships dealt with this very wise and prudent proposal made by Earl' Beauchamp and the Earl of Plymouth. They called one witness only to deal with the enormous traffic in London in this neighbourhood—Sir William Lever, lately a Member of this House. He was called to-deal with a problem which took a Royal Commission many years to go into from first to last, and which furnishes some of the most interesting shelves in our Library with its Reports. One man was thought to be adequate to deal with this side of the question. As for the artistic or aesthetic amenities, only one man—Sir Aston Webb—was allowed to speak upon them, while further testimony was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) and Sir Lionel Earle, of the Office of Works, these being the only additional contributories to the evidence. At any rate, these two gentlemen were alone present in response to the earnest appeal of their Lordships' House. They were heard but heard briefly-Technical evidence was not brought before them, and no other body was consulted.
We have to-day the same scant courtesy paid to London by this railway company as was paid then. They come making the same proposal. I know that in the weariness of hon. Members it does seem the most natural thing in the world to send it to a Committee. I am making these remarks because I invoke the power of this House to defend London against these things. I invoke the power of the Mem-

1005
bers of this House, who represent the whole of the country, which is as deeply interested in the amenities and conveniences of London almost as those who dwell within it—I invoke the help of the House against the measure, because I feel that we are better able than any Committee of ourselves upstairs, controlled and fettered by legal precedents and rules, to deal with a question which I dare say here is, after all is regarded as an inferior question. I understand that the appeal of the railway company is to be supported by my hon. and courteous Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). Is there unconscious irony in the proposal? Why Brentford? One finds it hard to know, saving in the attractive personality of my friend, why the choice was made. A question affecting the traffic of London, the convenience of its thoroughfares, the beauty of its structures— Brentford to the rescue! Brentford comes and says, "You want to deal with the traffic problem of London. See how we do it in the High Street of Brentford." What matters it though we were pilloried for ever by the photographs inserted in the pages in the London Traffic Commission Report as an example of how not to do it? You talk about the amenities of the river in its widest reaches above London Bridge. See how we manage it, and walk beside our muddy and dirty barges at Brentford," No, we cannot leave the question in that form. It has not been sufficiently grasped.
Passing on to another point, we speak in this discussion of one bridge—Charing Cross Bridge. I wish, seeing what the proposals are, that it had been but one. The House does well to be reminded here that there are two bridges there, though colloquially spoken of as one, and it is only one of these bridges with which the railway company proposes to tinker. Their proposal is to take one of them and to build certain masonry, or brickwork, or concrete—it is not clearly set up—bolsters in between the piers, which will go down to the bed of the river, and rise up to a convenient height. If the proposal, bad as it is, had affected all the piers in a line one would have understood, for the two bridges standing closely together are indistinguishable the younger from the older in their general ugliness. But here you are to have these bolsters only between the legs of one of the bridges, and the cantilevers also between the upper arches of one of the bridges, and
1006
as you come along the Embankment on the one side you will see the square head of the bridge broken by an indefinite tracery, and as you come on the other side the same bridge will have mock arches, for they are not arches—cantilevers—joined together for a humbugging symmetry. The whole thing is a flimsy contraption, wholly unregardful of the beauty that is demanded.
Another comment I should like to make as elucidating the difficulties. This bridge, or these bridges, have another quality. They are not only a bridge, they are a railway station in part, and they afford to the station a lay-by for locomotives. All those who know the district well have seen these locomotives as they have passed along the Embankment, smoking away and filling the air with their foulness. The proposals are to increase that nuisance, to add to that abomination. The company's complaint in tendering this request to the House is that the bridge wanted strengthening. I recognise that I have got to do something to answer that claim. First of all, I take leave to say that any man who will read the Report of the proceedings in the House of Lords, I think last May, and will read the literature, which has been pretty liberally distributed to the ends of the earth, in the intervening period—the speeches of the chairman of the company, of the managing director and traffic superintendent, and so on—will be irresistibly drawn to this conclusion, which I hold to be a cardinal fact in the matter, that these are less proposals for a necessary strengthening of the bridge than proposals for a considerable enlargement of traffic amenities. Let me speak on the genesis of this affair. The ambition of the company, which has frequently in past years brought disaster to their shareholders, ran to a very great height. I assume when they became one company—we may practically consider them as one company for the purposes of this Bill—and agreed to pool their interests somewhere in the late eighties, they decided that they would celebrate that event by widening Charing Cross Bridge and enlarging Charing Cross Station. So they came to this House in those far away days—a House much less regardful of the interests of London than I hope this House will prove to be—and they got in 1900 an Act passed enabling them to do this thing. For sixteen years—this will make the seventeenth—that Act has been in existence, but nothing what-

1007
ever has been done under it, so far as this bridge and the station are concerned, and again and again the chairman of the companies has given us the reasons why no action has been taken under these very extensive and valuable powers, and they are these: First, that the cost was well-nigh prohibitive, being about £750,000; and, secondly, that the traffic had declined to such an extent as to make so large an outlay and so great an enlargement unnecessary.
We go on to know that in 1905 the roof of the station fell in, and then, they tell us with a sweet ingenuousness, "we began to look at the bridge." They looked at the bridge. They say they were not satisfied with it. No complaint is made about the new portion of the contraption, and if you throw out this Bill to-night, that can remain and can be used for what convenience it may afford. They determined that they would apply for powers. They did not apply at once, and will it be believed that these powers, when sought and obtained, will probably receive the same treatment as the powers which were given in 1900! It was in 1905 or 1906—I do not know how long their deliberations took —that they found out this trouble, and it was the year 1913 before they came to this House and said, "Our bridge is falling down; for heaven's sake give us a Bill to patch it up" In a time of war, when we are deferring the execution of far more important works than this, does it lie fairly and legitimately in the mouth of a railway company to claim urgency for the immediate carrying out of a tinkering matter like this, when for ten years they have slumbered peacefully in the knowledge, as they affirm and as we deny, that this bridge was perilous to its users? Yes, traffic has declined, but traffic upon this bridge, it is only fair for me to say, as will doubtless be urged with due emphasis presently, was at the request of its directors, limited and restricted. They are restricting their traffic now. It would be no great hardship to them by any manner of means if I show that they can go on with that restriction until this maelstrom of war has settled down, and in calmer waters we can decide as a people what we are going to do with this matter which so affects our comfort and our pleasure. They have been, they say, diverting some of the traffic. At any rate, this declining traffic is going on, and could go on for a considerable time more without
1008
any great hardship. I have heard friends of mine say in regard to this matter, "I cannot be responsible for accepting the risk of an unsafe bridge." They are evidently in doubt as to the safety of the bridge, and if I accepted that doubt I should be a criminal to stand here and advocate the suspension of any proposals intended to remove that doubt and establish the safety of the bridge. But I confute that altogether. In Question 443 before the House of Lords Committee the engineer of the railway company, speaking of this bridge, says:
"Charing Cross bridge has deteriorated less than any I know. I am surprised to discover how small the amount of its depreciation is."
He went on to put it into figures, and he said that in fifty years its total depreciation, as far as He could assess it, amounted to 5 per cent. I suggest to the House that that does not seem a very rapid rate of decay. Mr. Clode, the counsel for the railway company, in the Committee Room, made an interesting admission on this point. Mr. Vesey Knox had been questioning a witness about the bridge and its condition, and he said, "You hear it declared that the bridge is not dangerous" What did Mr. Clode say? He had the whole thing in his hand. He was practically invested with powers equal to making terms or executing a deal with anybody who was opposing him. Everybody knows what are the powers of counsel in a Committee room in charge of a Bill. He said, "Not dangerous, with the restrictions." It comes to this, on his admission, that there is no peril to users of this bridge so long as the railway company use it within their present restrictions. Is that a hardship? Supposing the restriction was 75 per cent. —
An HON. MEMBER: Fifty per cent.
Sir W. ESSEX: Take it at 50 per cent, Whatever it is, let me again remind the House that of all railway companies in the kingdom, this railway company alone has four bridges across the Thames within the London district—four large and unforgivably ugly bridges. With regard to the limitation of the traffic on this one bridge by 50 per cent., I will return to that when I deal with the figures affecting the decline of the traffic of this company. I will take Question 544 before the Lords Committee. Mr. Morgan, the engineer of the Brighton Railway Company, was giving evidence. I wish he had given the benefit of his own enlightened company's practice in

1009
many details to the South-Eastern Company as well as his advice and help to his sore-beset comrade in this matter. Mr. Morgan is an engineer of long practice, and he said of this bridge:
"I do not go so far as to say it is dangerous—"
and here leaks out the real reason for the Bill—
"but yon cannot have full use of it."
I say again, that whatever reason may exist for the repair of the bridge, the proposals laid before the House in this Bill are much less proposals for repairs than proposals for larger traffic facilities. For that reason I ask the House to reject this Bill, to put it aside and have the whole thing brought up again, if it is so desired, and if the need exists for it, when the War is over. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that these repairs are needed, is this the best way of executing them? I say, after reading the evidence, that so far as the curtailment or lessening of the tide-way and navigable parts of the Thames are concerned, there can be no doubt that there is a restriction. How much that restriction is the figures will show, but there is a restriction in that respect. Whatever that restriction may be, whether it be restriction of channel and fairway, the restriction of head room by the cantilever, or of the scour of the river by the acceleration of current which will always occur where there is a straitening of the water-way, this is not the only way, nor is it the best way of making the alteration. Expert witnesses were called in to discuss this matter. There was one very able engineer who came in and gave his acquiescence to the proposals of the company's engineer. Be it understood that the company's proposals were all of them constantly affected by the desire of the company to do nothing to interfere with its traffic. Their instructions to their engineer were that whatever proposals he made before his board, they should not interfere with the traffic.
That is a very natural thing for the railway company to say, but London has to look at it also from the point of view of their river traffic. There were experts on the other side who have no equal in skill, general credibility, in practice and public esteem. Certainly if they have equals they have no superiors. There was Mr. Hall Blyth, whom north-countrymen will know on the Clyde and other northern waters has had unique oppor-
1010
tunities of displaying his great skill. He was President of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Then again we in London, and people in the colonies and all over the world know of the great ability and power of Sir Maurice Fitz-Maurice, a Vice-President of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. These two eminent engineers, in comparing their notes after independent investigation of the problem, came to the conclusion that the better way to effect this change was not the way proposed by the railway company. They admitted that the way proposed by the company was the way that would save them some limitation of traffic, but it was a method which they would suggest was not nearly so good as one which they could make as to this portion of the bridge. If the company would agree to suspend traffic for twelve months, they would put them in possession of a far stronger bridge, which would not affect its sightliness, which would not affect the tideway of the river, and they would do the whole thing at half the cost of the railway company's own proposal. There would be no mock arch, no one-sided cantilevers, and no blocking bolsters in the fairway. On the whole the company prevailed, and in spite of all that could be done by those who were present. this thing went through, and it was left to this House to take the proper view of the whole situation and in the interest of all concerned to reject the measure.
There has been a great deal of stress laid upon this Bill, and a great deal of whipping-up support from Kent. I am very glad to see that the fair county has sent so many of its representatives to-night. I believe one industrious mayor has been for some months past a generous bagman in the company's interests with the various municipalities and local authorities of the fair county. Kent's interests are the interests of a million of people, but on the south side of the Thames there are two and a half millions of people who, if they want to go to Charing Cross station, have to go over the river to it and to face all these terrors and the possibilities of rain and wind and storm that have been urged again and again with such tear-compelling pathos. But even Kent is not solid, and the outlying portions of Surrey served by this railway—I am speaking under correction—have not got a single petition in favour of this Bill. Guildford and Reading have got other

1011
railways to contrast with the South-Eastern. They know something better, and they are not going to ask you to give these powers. But keeping myself to Kent, Folkestone, for instance, the prime Mover in support of this Bill among municipalities and local authorities, has a population of 33,000. Beekenham, which refused to have anything to do with it, has a population of 33,000, and Beckenham uses the railway as a daily business. Folkestone's people do not. Bromley, which is a still larger municipality than either of them, considers it an insult to the Empire to do anything whatever to perpetuate any longer than is absolutely necessary this eyesore, this black-eye for old London.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the Bromley Council passed a resolution in favour of it?
Sir W. ESSEX: Which Bromley Council?
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Rural District Council.
Sir W. ESSEX: My hon. Friend is quite right. The verdant part of the population passed a resolution, but the urban part of the population would have nothing to do with it, and I take it that my hon. Friend, like myself, being a borough Member, will be content to accept this manifestation of the borough mind.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I happen to be a county Member.
Sir W. ESSEX: I am very glad to hear that. The hon. Member combines both. Maidstone has a population of 35,000, and thrust the whole thing aside, and would have nothing to do with this Bill.
Commander BELLAIRS: As I have not spoken yet, may I point out that Maidstone would be quite content if a limiting Clause were put into the Bill which would prevent it standing in the way of a larger scheme later on?
Sir W. ESSEX: My hon. Friend may have later information than I, but I was speaking to the Mayor of Maidstone, who was with me the other day at a public meeting, and he told me—whatever he may have since said, and when I saw his letter I did not read into it what the hon. Member has said—that his council was in the most unqualified way against this
1012
being done in London. May I remind the-House that this railway company, in whose light we are charged with standing, has on the North side of London, Cannon Street, Holborn Viaduct, St. Paul's, Ludgate Hill, and Victoria Stations, serving the county Kent, and London Bridge on the South side, as well as Charing Cross, which is in dispute? There are six good termini exclusive of Charing Cross. If I thought that Kent was solid in this matter I should deeply regret it, but I should think that the daughter of the horse leech lived there. As to the declining traffic of the South-Eastern Railway before the War, in the Traffic Commission Reports, we had it pointed out that of the total number of passengers brought into-London by this company one-fifth would come to Charing Cross. There has been a great deal of talk on behalf of this company about 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 passengers at Charing Cross in a year as being a tremendous number. What does that amount to? Not more than 35,000 a day. It is not the business of a tramway junction in a London street. Yet I am not at all to be taken as saying that it is not to-be considered or to have its proper weight given to it by Members of this House.
The proposal is to divert traffic. It can-be nothing else than to get a larger user of Charing Cross. People now find it quite convenient to go to London Bridge or Cannon Street, but they must turn their faces to Charing Cross. Can we not see the wiliness of this proposal? If at any time, as probably will be the case, London decides to buy out this company's rights over the river, it will, unless it can make better terms, have to pay compensation for the carrying trade of all these people who will have been diverted from stations which they now find convenient enough to use, and will have to pay compensation to the railway company for what we are now asked to give them for nothing. The great decline in the traffic of this railway cannot be measured better than by these figures. The two little tubes the Hampstead Tube and the Bakerloo Tube, between them carry more passengers in a year, by millions, than the whole South-Eastern system carries within the same period. In 1902 the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway carried 74,825,622 passengers, or, say. 75,000,000. In 1912, in the pre-war period, that number had sunk to 55,000,000. There was a slight increase-in 1913, but the Board of Trade warned us

1013
against the 1913 figures, as they were not verified. Taking them anyway, we have a decline of over 20,000,000 in the passenger carrying of these railways.
These figures are only quoted to show how the shrinkage of the traffic has steadily proceeded. I admit that the traffic receipts have not shrunk in the same proportion. That means that the loudly-vaunted claim of the railway company, that they are serving the working man and that the working man's transit is involved, is all fudge. They are serving the working man doubtless, but the diminution of their traffic has been really along the line of the working class traffic, and if they have maintained their traffic receipts as much as they have done, it is clear to the most ordinary observer that that has been done by the increase of the user of their line for long-distance traffic.
We hear the further claim from Sir Francis Dent and Mr. Cosmo Bonsor that after the War they are going to have an enormous inflation of traffic. Where are they going to get it? This railway has been one of the great European gates of this country for a great many years. The bulk of the people coming from Germany and Austria to this country come by the South-Eastern Railway. Will they in future come to this country as freely, or shall we go to their country as freely? Undoubtedly, in Germany, as in Austria, there will not be the same travelling money margin, and no doubt there will be an enormous decrease in the international traffic of this line. Those who come from the north of Europe, the Russians and others, come by the Great Eastern and the Great Northern. If you take France, you will find that they come by the Brighton and South Coast line and the South-Western line; and that the traffic of this railway would very largely increase after the War is very illusory. At any rate, we must wait until after the War, though I do not think that the result will be very great, and this railway company's claim on the expectation after the War of a great increase of traffic is a dream.
9.0 P.M.
Let mo contrast what they have done compared with other railways. I doubt if any railway company in London has got such a splendid territory to exploit as the South-Eastern and Chatham. They have got a splendid county, thickly populated on its margin from London Bridge right down to Hampshire—an area populated by crowds of people, who are a large help to their traffic, and they have their foreign
1014
trade. The London and South-Western Railway Company has not nearly so favourable an opportunity to develop their traffic as the South-Eastern and Chatham The South-Western is concentrated upon one station in London, and the company have made that station in every way effective and efficient to get people quickly to the City, and they have put down tubes in order that their passengers may not have to change to omnibuses or rush about London streets. That railway by itself brings to London thirty-five-million passengers a year, and causes no crowds in the thoroughfares of London. In 1902 it brought to London twelve mil-lion fewer passengers than the South-Eastern and Chatham, In 1912 it brought eleven millions more than the South-Eastern and Chatham. Does not that show what an enlightened railway policy can do-for a railway, especially when you compare the advantages of the South-Eastern-and Chatham railways with the disadvantages of the South-Western. "Oh," says; the South-Eastern, "they have not got our local traffic" "No; but they have built up their own in the interim, and you have lost yours. They have electrified, and they have afforded more conveniences to trade, instead of dissipating their energy and their strength," Let me take the London, Brighton, and South-Coast Railway, whose territory is no better than that of the Kent railways, and they have fewer Continental advantages. In 1902-they brought into London seventeen million of passengers fewer than the South-Eastern and Chatham. In 1912, when they had only just got their earlier electrification, they brought two million more passengers, or a gain of nineteen millions in ten years. While the other company was going back, the Brighton company was going up by leaps and bounds, and now it is in a better condition in respect of passengers' carriage than any railway of the three.
These facts are significant, the handwriting is on the wall, mene mene; and I invite the House to throw out the Bill, largely because there is no-immediate need for it, and in order that this railway company may receive instructions from this Assembly to put its neglected house in order. It has been a blight for fifty years on the area of Kent; it is ill-graded, it is ill-planned, it is ill-equipped, it is ill-managed, and to the railway world it is a jest. It is a

1015
pity it should be so. Nearly all its little towns have two stations, and I wonder that the Minister of Munitions has not taken note of that fact, and commandeered a large amount of the surplus in the permanent ways which this company has extravagantly maintained. Are we to allow such a railway as this to spoil our splendid London? Let us look at what London would gain if some strange genius should come and lift that incubus of ugliness from London, with its ugly approaches, its miserable structures—those sheds and timber stations at Charing Cross and Cannon Street—and give us one big Imperial station in the gateway of the Empire. What a boon that would be to London. I do not know whether the House holds my opinion or not. but I am anxious that we should not give this Bill a Second Reading, for the reasons which I have advanced at very considerable length. I hope in anything I have said I have not uttered anything which would be regarded as personal. I am confident that all I have said is intended to make for the greater convenience of the people who use London as a traffic centre, and for those who dwell in it and desire its beauty and greater pleasure. I hope in what I have said there has not been anything bitter. I have stated what I conceive to be the needs of the people of Kent and of the company's shareholders. We are, I believe, this year to celebrate the centenary of the opening of Waterloo Bridge, and the House, grateful to the descendants and children of those who lived a hundred years ago, have now the opportunity of marking their gratitude to those who are fighting the battle of a Great Deliverance, by opening the way to that which will arise from a greater and a wider scheme for the beautifying of London. For the reasons I have given and for the interests of which I have spoken I confidently ask the House to refuse this Bill a Second Beading.
Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The South-Eastern and Chatham Company has certainly been in the dock for the best part of three-quarters of an hour. I myself was really rather moved by the eloquence of my hon. Friend who moved the rejection, and I wondered whether the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway was really worth saying anything about in this House. I want to get down to facts. I
1016
do not think I need discuss the fact that the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has been asked to support this Bill. I am in no sense connected with the company. I believe that as a trustee I am the owner of a very small amount of preference stock. I am not a railway director of any company of any kind. When my Noble Friend (Lord Stuart of Wortley) who supported the Bill last year went to the other House, I was asked if I would support it, mainly because I was not connected with the railway industry. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave us his opinion of Brentford, but I am afraid that if he gave that opinion to the people of Brentford he would not be returned to this House by them. It seemed to me that while be abused the company because it was bad he desired to prevent the possibility of the company improving itself. I cannot quite understand on which leg he chooses to stand. Is the company so bad that it ought not to be allowed to go on at all, and that there is no chance of traffic increasing or of having to pay greater compensation when the bridge and station are taken over under a new scheme which he outlined, and with which the right hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) is more immediately connected? Or is it that if the directors are allowed to carry out their policy of improving their property, that there will be a large increase of traffic, and that if and when the bridge comes to be taken over the people will have to pay for the value of that increased traffic? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
I ask this House on behalf of the company to say that the bridge requires supporting, and that it is in the interest of the traffic of London and of Kent and of Surrey and of that large Empire traffic which comes from India and Australia and the traffic which comes from the Continent, that this House should grant the Second Reading of this Bill in order that all those numerous questions which the hon. Gentleman has put before the House as to the strength of the bridge, height of the arches, width of the arches, the flow of the tide, and so on, may be inquired into by a Committee upstairs who will hear evidence. It was rather idle of my hon. Friend to claim that there was no real body to deal with these questions. My experience has been, and I think the experience of the whole trading community of Great Britain has been, that there is no better tribunal to which to

1017
appeal for fairness and for a patient hearing than a Committee either of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons. This Bill on the last occasion was before a Committee of the House of Lords, which, after hearing all that was to be said on both sides, unanimously passed it, and the Bill was carried through its Third Reading in that House. It came down here, and, owing largely, I agree, to the somewhat similar eloquence of my hon. Friend, and of the great eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, the Bill was thrown out in this House by what I admit was a very large majority.
I want the House to consider whether of not it is desirable that this improvement in Charing Cross Bridge should take place. Charing Cross railway was brought to Charing Cross in pursuance of public demands in 1859. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea imparts a literary flavour to his speeches, and if he will look at a publication by Samuel Smiles, he will see the whole history of this bridge, and of how the railway came to be brought over because the then South-Eastern Company gave a quasi pledge in the interest of the public that they would do so. It cost over £6,000,000 to bring this terminus to London. It was needed then, and I venture to suggest it is needed at the present time. I am not going to deal with the powers asked for in 1900 for the widening of the bridge at a cost of £750,000, and I agree that that would be very grave extravagance at the present time. What the company now desire to spend is the very much smaller sum of £167,000. That is required to be spent in order to strengthen the bridge, or I would adopt even the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and say in order that the bridge may be more fully utilised. I am not going to say here that the bridge will fall down if the money is not spent. Are those who are opposed to the Bill going to say to the House of Commons that it is a desirable thing that a railway bridge or anything else should not be used up to the full measure of its capacity? If this bridge can be more greatly used in the interests of the public, then I think this House is exercising a very grave responsibility if they refuse power to the company to spend this comparatively small sum in improving the carrying capacity of the bridge.
It is quite true to say that the bridge cannot be used as it once was, a fact for
1018
which the company is not altogether responsible. Locomotive traffic has increased very much in size in recent years. The locomotive of years ago which weighed 50 tons to-day weighs 97 tons, and in ten years' time I venture to prophesy that the locomotive will weigh 120 tons. The weight of the trains has increased in proportion. This company, which has earned the opprobrium of my hon. Friend as a company not up to date, has, up to the present, rebuilt or strengthened 398 bridges on its line. Every single bridge on the South-Eastern Company and nearly every bridge on the Chatham Company have been rebuilt or strengthened during the last ten years, in order to enable those bridges to carry those heavy locomotives. Yet you will not allow, or my hon. Friend asks you not to allow, the company to strengthen the last link which will complete those bridges dealt with in the county of Kent, and which will allow the locomotives which pass over those-bridges to come to Charing Cross. This is the main highway from the Continent.
My hon. Friend thinks that after the War traffic will not increase, so that his argument with regard to further cost in compensation falls to the ground. I think the traffic will increase. I think there will be a large increase of traffic between our Allies, between France, and between Italy, and I hope between ourselves and the Continent, in order that we may get to-know our Allies, and in order that they may get to know us better than we have known each other in the past. But apart from that, this proposal is very essential during the War. There are blocks to-day. There were blocks yesterday, there will be blocks, to-morrow on this bridge, which is being largely used during the War for military purposes. Every day troop trains come in-and go out of Charing Cross, and every afternoon trains of wounded come from the Continent bearing their cargo of those who are only too glad to get back to London. Will the House of Commons say, "You shall not increase the strength of the bridge and make it easier for the company to bring those trains into and out of Charing Cross?" To-day this is the main line between London and those great military centres, Woolwich, Dover and Chatham and others. I do not know whether my hon. Friend did not think much of the opinion of the people of Kent. Let me tell him what bodies of Kent passed resolutions and petitions in-

1019
favour of this Bill, and he agrees, I take it, with the principle of local representation. Those bodies include the Kent County Council, Ashford Urban Council, Bromley Rural Council, Canterbury Council, the Town Council of Chatham, the Town Council of Deal, the Town Council of Dorking, the Urban Council of Dover, the Town Council of the Borough of Deptford, which is not very far from Battersea, only some four or five miles. Then there are Folkestone, Gravesend, Hastings, Hythe, Lewisham (very close to London, showing that a large number of Londoners need to use this bridge), Margate, Ramsgate, Rochester, Sheerness, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, and practically all the small urban and rural district councils in the county of Kent. There may be one or two who have not joined in, but nearly the whole of them, headed by the County Council itself, have passed resolutions or presented petitions in favour of the Bill.
The real opposition to this Bill, and I am quite sure the House would not listen to any other opposition, is that which my hon. Friend mentioned at the close of his speech, the desire for a great new triumphal Empire bridge, sweeping away Charing Cross Bridge, driving the station over the other side of the river, and putting a fine new bridge across the river. All that is in the air and is not really a matter of practical politics at the present moment. On the last occasion when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns) desired to be rather autocratic as to the mode in which these matters should be considered, and desired to take a hilltop view of the matter, he wished there was a Minister of Fine Arts, as there is in Germany and in Austria—rather unfortunate precedents, it seemed to me, to quote to this House at the present time—in order that the Minister of Fine Arts might have prevented this Bill from coming before the representatives of the people at all. I have always looked upon my right hon. Friend as a democrat of the democrats, yet he wishes that there was a Minister of Fine Arts to say that the people who want this Bill shall not be allowed even to come before the House of Commons, and that the representatives of the people of this country shall not be allowed to decide upon it. My right hon. Friend was very certain that he was going to do something in regard to the new scheme in July of last year, and he made a suggestion to the
1020
House that if only it would kill the Bill, —as it did—the London County Council, the architects, the Office of Works, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade, with the City Corporation and the Westminster and Lambeth Councils, should call a conference to be attended by the railway companies. That was his idea, that all these people should come together to consider the extension, the removal, the transfer, or the abolition of Charing Cross station and bridge. He went a little further, and practically guaranteed that such a conference should be held. He said:
"I appeal to the House to give Sir Aston Webb, the architects, the County Council the two borough councils—"
it reads rather like an extract from the chapter of Daniel with all those various musical instruments, which were all to pipe to the right hon. Member's tune—
"the Office of Works, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade, in conjunction with the railway company, a chance to come together and to confer in a sane practical way. If the House will do that … I guarantee on behalf of the public authorities … that we shall find a more excellent way."
I admit that if these various authorities had come together and said to the South-Eastern Company, "We have considered this matter, and agreed upon a scheme, and we ask you to support us in a Bill which we are going to introduce into the House of Commons in 1917, or 1918, or 1919," there would be something to be said for it, but nothing of the kind has been done. The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to produce this united body of public opinion, which would induce the South-Eastern Company, or even Parliament, to throw out this Bill. The real question is the question of future artistic merit versus present utility. I am not opposed to a new bridge. I am not here to say that Charing Cross Bridge is a beautiful object. Nobody has suggested such a thing, but it was passed and approved by this House, and therefore it ill lies with this House to say that it must be destroyed because it is not beautiful. Destroy it if it is not useful if you like, and if you can make something more useful to the people of this country; but at present there is nothing except this vague idea that at some future time somebody, coming along with a dream of Constable's pictures, or influenced by Wordsworth or Burns or some other poet who may be quoted in this House, may come forward with a real practical scheme for this new bridge. The only practical scheme I have heard of, or seen, would

1021
cost, I am told, £15,000,000 sterling, to remove Charing Cross Bridge, to build a new one, to buy an enormous area of land close to Waterloo Station, and to re-erect a new station on the south side of the river. Who is going to provide £15,000,000 sterling at the present time, when we are needing all our money and shall need all the money that the country can afford for many years?
I want now to deal with one other question, and to answer an objection that I think is felt, not merely by my hon. Friend who spoke first, but by other hon. Members of this House, with regard to the unfairness of this company getting this £167,000 as extra compensation after they have spent the money in strengthening the bridge, if at any time this great new scheme is brought before the House. I think I am quite open to say that a week ago a conference was held by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees of this House, at which the railway company, the county council, and other interests were represented. This matter was discussed, and subsequently, without prejudice to either side, the counsel to Mr. Speaker prepared what he thought would be a fair Clause to be inserted in the Bill in regard to this question, and this is the Clause:
"If Charing Cross station and railway bridge are acquired within ten years from the passing of this Act for the improvement of London by any public body, there shall be deducted from the compensation found due to the company or the managing committee, the sum of £167,000."
In other words, if my right hon. Friend's scheme comes forward, the suggestion of counsel to Mr. Speaker was that if it matures within ten years every single penny which is being spent on the improvement of the bridge shall be deducted from the money paid by way of compensation to the company. I do not speak for the London County Council, but I am authorised by the railway company to say to this House that they are prepared to accept that Clause as under the circumstances a fair one, and that when the Bill gets into Committee upstairs that Clause will be inserted. I think that ought to satisfy everybody who feels that the company would be increasing the possibility of compensation by strengthening this bridge. Some hon. Members tell me that this work should not be done during the War, and that the amount of steel required would be great, and that seems to
1022
be now the last ditch in which my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Burns) and his artistic advisers are taking refuge. I saw to-day a letter in the "Times" signed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns), as I suppose the arbiter of all the elegancies of this House, by Sir Aston Webb, the Chairman of the Council of the London Society, and by Mr. Ernest Newton, the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, I may mention, in passing, that the London Society has had this matter in hand since February, 1913, and according to their own petition to the House has been preparing these schemes, and considering what could be done during the whole of that time, yet up to the present nothing has been done. But this is what they say in the "Times" to-day:
"The Bill asks the House for powers to strengthen a portion of the bridge involving the use of a very large amount of steel and labour urgently required for war purposes, while incidentally it would obstruct the carrying out of a much needed public improvement."
I have dealt with the public improvement. I will now deal for a moment with the suggestion of the employment of the large amount of steel and labour needed for war purposes. I have seen a somewhat lengthy interview with the engineer of the South-Eastern Railway Company, in which that gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Bill, said that the work was most urgently necessary for the strengthening of the bridge. "I put," says the interviewer, "this question to him: When are you going to do this work?' He replied, It will take at least a year after Parliament has granted permission to get out my full and complete plans with detailed workings, so that it will be impossible to begin work until at least a year, or a year and a quarter, after the passing of this Bill.'" I venture to suggest to this House that it will not involve a large amount of steel or a large amount of labour during the War. It will involve only a very small amount of steel in all. It will involve a considerable amount of labour when the War is over. I would suggest that it is not an undesirable thing that there should be works of this kind ready to employ people on when demobilisation takes place. We shall have a great demand from our troops when they are being demobilised for public works of this kind. It will be desirable in the interests of the soldiers and in the interests of the community that this work should be ready to put into operation as soon as the War is over. All I ask—and I do very strongly ask and urge

1023
it—is fair play. I ask this having regard to the fact that the Bill has the approval of the Port of London Authority—the authority responsible for the traffic on the river, which makes no further opposition to a Bill of this kind—and of the London County Council, which is the authority representing the mass of the people in London, which is only objecting to certain Clauses of the Bill and not to the object of the Bill itself. It only desires a modification of that Clause which I read out a while ago with regard to the £176,000. All these points in connection with the Clauses may be very much more properly dealt with upstairs in Committee. I have therefore to ask that the House will, for the case of this railway company, give the privilege it affords to all other companies who apply to the House for leave to improve public works, to have their claims considered fairly by a Committee of this House, and that the Bill shall not be thrown out either from prejudice- or—I say it advisedly—in consequence of such an unfair speech as that made by the hon. Member half an hour ago.
Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has allowed the House, in his speech, to assume that a few individuals like Sir Aston Webb, Mr. Newton, Mr. Blomfield, and a number of other distinguished architects—who deserve the thanks and the gratitude of London for their action in this particular matter— these comparatively few people, besides myself and the Member for Stafford, are all who are interested in opposing this particular Bill. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his speech by saying that he would not deal with the aesthetic generalities of my hon. Friend—to whom the House is indebted to the excellent speech he has made this evening. He said he would deal with facts. A great poet, whose name I have the honour to bear, said
"Facts are chiels that winna ding."
The first fact that the hon. Member mentioned to the House was not a fact at all. He alleged that it was a fact. He said that I had assumed the position of arbiter in this particular matter last July, and in that capacity had promised to call a conference, and there had been no conference. Let us deal with facts. I promised the House that if the Bill were rejected I would do my best to bring together the architects, the various interests, the public bodies, and the authorities who had taken
1024
a very creditable interest in this particular measure. How did we keep our promise and provide the facts that were so conspicuously lacking in the statement of the hon. Gentleman? This is what we did to keep our word to the House. On 4th December a conference was held at no less a place than the Mansion House.
An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
Mr. BURNS: Well, I hope that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City will be as wise and public-spirited in his vote tonight as the Mansion House was on that occasion. At the Mansion House conference the following resolution was unanimously passed by representatives of the various interests that, as I said, would consider the matter:
"That the question of the future of Charing Cross Bridge is one of national importance, and in the opinion of this conference any alteration to the existing bridge should be postponed until after the War, but that in the meantime and a soon as possible, the county authority responsible be requested to call a conference of the public authorities concerned, including the City of London, to consider the whole matter."
That is fact No. I. Pact No. 2 was that, following on that conference of 4th December, a conference was called by the London County Council on 15th January, 1917, at the County Hall, Spring Gardens, where it was moved, seconded, and! carried unanimously:
"That as the improvement of Charing Cross, both as regards the traffic requirements and the amenities generally is a matter of national importance, this conference is of opinion that the question should not be prejudiced by giving the railway company power to-alter the existing bridge during the continuance of the War."
What has the hon. Member to say now as to their being no conference and that I have not kept my word, and that, although I was arbiter of this particular subject—a misnomer so far as my position is concerned—nothing had been done? At the Mansion House and at Spring Gardens—
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman perhaps will allow me to interrupt and to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT. There I find the right hon. Gentleman appealing to the House to give> those concerned, in conjunction with the railway company and the County Council a chance to come together. He went on to say:
"I guarantee, on behalf of the public authorities with whom I have consulted on the subject that we shall find a more excellent, way. "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1916, col. 1323, Vol. LXXXIII.]
After all his conferences he has never approached the railway company or found a more excellent way.
Mr. BURNS: The hon. Gentleman really does not know the facts. If he will ask the chairman of the railway company whether I have seen him or he has seen me, both of us can give such an answer that Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and the Member for Battersea knows so well how to give when these two gentlemen agree upon a fact. So the hon, Member has not got a leg to stand upon! So much for the conferences that were not held! Now we come to the opponents of the present bridge. I would like to remind the House of the fact that at the conferences concerned the Office of Works could not be; officially represented, but the head of the Office of Works turned up with his permanent secretary, and I never heard more excellent speeches made against this particular Bill than were made by the representatives of the Office of Works on both occasions. The London Society was present, so was the Institute of Architects, and the Town Planning Association. All those bodies took the view in relation to this particular Bill taken by Lord Grimthorpe, who was chairman of the Lords Committee last year. They also all said, "I think we would have liked to have abolished this bridge if we could. So said the chairman of the Lords Committee last year. The hon. Member was a follower for many years of the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he was Prime Minister. The present Foreign Secretary, speaking at a Royal Academy banquet, once said:
"I never walk along the Thames Embankment without Heeling how monstrous it is that such things should be allowed, and that there should he no power of dealing with them."
He said that in 1892. Since that time there has never been a friend of Charing Cross Bridge in the London Press. I have never heard a directly elected London Member in this House or out of it defend it, and whenever we have had distinguished Conservatives who have taken an interest in the County Council of London, such as Lord Alexander Thynne, when Chairman of the Improvements Committee, and many others I can mention, we find them, when not railway directors, sharing the views so admirably expressed by the hon. Member for Stafford in his excellent speech.
If we are told, as we have been told, that the London County Council has modified ts view, that is an argument for the council to deal with when it meets its constituents. I cannot understand why
1026
last year and in previous years the council should have taken the view that the hon. Member for Stafford and myself now express, and should now modify its view. I sincerely trust the House of Commons will not allow that fact to modify its view, because, after all, we cannot divest ourselves, as a House of Commons and a House of Parliament, from having views and opinions of a bridge that is within sight of the Terrace, and within almost the precincts of Parliament itself, and which everyone, who has any regard for the riparian beauty of the River Thames, and is anxious to add to the enormously costly improvements that have been carried out during the last twenty-five years in and around the House of Commons, admits is an eyesore; and that if possible it should be shifted from its present position, and the inadequate, unsatisfactory, dangerous, inconvenient, and small station at Charing Cross should be merged into a better and a more convenient station on the Surrey side.
I wish to deal, if I may, with the practical facts of this Bill, and may I say, as an engineer, apart from being a London Member, what are some of the objections to this bridge and station that have not been mentioned? Whether this railway company does or does not extend its traffic does not affect the essentials of the problem. Charing Cross bridge and station, being a terminal on the North side of the River Thames, occupies for the trade it has to do too small an area, is incapable of extension west or east, and if extended into the river it is going to add to the danger of the bridge as a structure, and not help it in any way whatsoever. Apart from being too small an area, inconvenient in many ways, it has an absence of sidings for the manipulations of its traffic, and it cannot make up its trains as they can be made up near Victoria, Waterloo, Euston and St. Pancras, models and exemplars as stations for the South-Eastern Railway. [An HON. MEMBER: "King's Cross!"] Also King's Cross. In this matter I can say, if the South-Eastern Railway had stations as good as King's Cross, Euston, St. Pancras, or Liverpool Street we would not find the criticism directed against it as here. Here they are all in a row.
"How happy could I be with either.
With t'other dear charmer away."
There is too small an area, there is an absence of sidings, and they have to go down to New Cross from Charing Cross

1027
to make up their trains. On the admission of Sir Francis Dent in evidence, the platforms are too short, as I said incapable of extension, and a bridge terminus in itself is the initial blunder under which Charing Cross labours, and which was put upon it from the moment the railway was brought across the river.
I want also to put this to practical men in the House. Even if this bridge were strengthened as suggested—and only half of the bridge is to be strengthened—engineers differ as to this being the best way. I think it the worst. What with the vibration, the extra weight, the space needed for traffic, if it grows, and the need for sidings, it seems to me that you have no right over a river, on half a dozen cast-iron stilts, or in large pipes filled with concrete, to have locomotives, even of 50, 70, or 80 tons, besides locomotives of 90 or 120 tons. No strengthening of this bridge will enable you to cope with that difficulty, which can only be coped with in the matter of weight, heavy locomotives and heavy traction by having your sidings and your station on the solid earth, and not across a river and on a bridge, as this railway has its terminus at the present moment. Let us deal with the safety of the bridge as a bridge, and I am going to quote the engineer. Here, may I say, the engineer of the South-Eastern Railway must have been in the mind of the author of the celebrated book and play, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," when he wrote the work. Whenever he wants the Parliamentary interests of the South-Eastern Railway Company advanced, no bridge is so safe, and no bridge has suffered less from corrosion than the South-Eastern bridge; but when it suits his purpose to whisper in the ear that it is dangerous, in the hope that he will get a widening and strengthening of the bridge by any means whatsoever, then he takes the other line. With the permission of the House I am going to deal with our friend the engineer of the company first as Dr. Jekyll and then as Mr. Hyde. In 1899, seventeen years ago—and if the bridge was a cause of anxiety seventeen years ago, surely a competent engineer ought to have seen to its strengthening then—he was anxious about it. In 1906 he varied that attitude, and said emphatically that structurally the bridge was all right. Now which argument is he going to defend? In 1899 he is anxious about it. In 1906 he placed a restriction on working,
1028
not because of its structural danger, because in 1906 there was no structural danger, and the bridge was all right, and then he comes with the statement that the locomotives have increased. On this point the hon. Member for Brentford was talking without his scientific book when he said that locomotives had extended from 50 tons to 70, 80, 90, and probably up to 120 tons, because engineers do not share his view. The South-Western railway do not share his view, because they are getting rid of their locomotives, and what the South-Western can do the South-Eastern and Chatham ought to be taught to follow. A question was put to this gentleman, and he said that he had not met anybody who could suggest any scheme for strengthening the existing bridge. He said:
"I have tried several schemes, but this is the only one which has in my opinion developed satisfactorily."
The hon. Member for Stafford quoted far more distinguished engineers, with wider and greater experience, who testified to the contrary. In answer to Question 222, the same witness was asked if it looked like a pressing matter, and his answer was:
"From 1906 to 1917, eleven years, nothing has happened."
No; of course nothing has happened. The bridge is there. It is not anything like so dangerous as a number of people are saying; and as to this alleged danger of the bridge, it has taken seventeen years to find it out. This argument is now being used as a means of exploiting the War in order to get through that which probably if there was no war would not be considered for five minutes. Sir Francis Dent, in answer to Question 978, in which he was asked if it was advisable to do anything in this scheme until the end of the War, said:
"That is assuming that the Treasury adopt their present attitude that no work is to be done, and it is a reasonable one until the War is over"
Here is the fact on the engineer's own evidence that this bridge is not dangerous. On the evidence of Sir Francis Dent it is shown that minor repairs and strengthening the cross-girders is daily going on, and the chairman of the company has pledged himself on more than one occasion that if power is given to them to pass this Bill they will pledge themselves not to do it during the War even if they get the power. Let us deal with that point. Supposing they were to get the power that is asked for in this Bill. They could not carry the work out because

1029
they are pledged not to do it during the War. Secondly, if they had the power, although pledged not to do it and they altered their mind, they could not get the labour to do it, and, what is more, they could not get the steel to do it. I am not going to tell the facts about the shortage of steel because that is information which might be used elsewhere; but everybody knows that there is not a public building requiring 5 tons of steel, a public factory or works in any of our essential industries that can get a certificate to use any steel at all, and what right have we to give Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and the South-Eastern Railway Company, who pledged themselves not to do anything to the bridge during the War, the power to use from 2,000 to 3,000 tons of steel which are wanted for other and, for the moment, more vitally necessary purposes?
The fact is that the War is being exploited by this company, and the idea of the bridge being structurally unsafe is ridiculous, and is not true. They see that London has made up its mind to have Charing Cross Bridge removed. They see that the House of Commons is unsympathetic to them, and they see that London insists upon having a convenient, safe station, with proper sidings, merged with the South-Western station with a fine river facade on the Surrey side. They know full well that, since this Bill was killed last July in the House of Commons, great progress has been made with this particular scheme apart from the Mansion House conference and the county council conference, and the facts in the evidence which I have mentioned. We have been able to get together a number of semipublic and private interests who, if the County Council were to stick to its guns and persist in doing the work they set out to do—which I trust the House of Commons will make them do—we could have got an amalgamation of the Council of the City—[An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member will pardon me if I say that I know a little about the City. I had the honour of asking the City Corporation to come to the aid of the working people of this City in widening Blackfriars Bridge so that the trams could go over. What did they do? They could have asked the County Council to pay the whole expense of the widening for putting in the trams and making Blackfriars Bridge what it is now, the widest bridge in the world. The City Corporation, acting up to the best of its
1030
traditions, spent £250,000 out of their rates upon the widening of Blackfriars Bridge, allowing the tramways to come over, and they never charged the London County Council a single penny for that particular improvement. I am as convinced as I am standing here that if the City Corporation is properly approached—and I know how to do that—this difficulty can be got over. I had the honour of being the spokesman on that occasion, and of asking them to pay for the expense of the widening of Blackfriars Bridge, and I feel certain that the City Corporation will not object to the extension of their powers and functions of expenditure in regard to the Bridge House Estate, and at least, if they would not give a contribution, I feel sure they would offer no opposition to Charing Cross Station being moved on to the other side of the river, instead of spending some £2,000,000 which some people believe is going to be wasted on the new St. Paul's approach, which cannot be necessary when Southwark Bridge is widened, and when a new bridge is put across the river at Charing Cross for vehicular traffic.
But whether that is true of the City or not, it is a fact that Charing Cross Bridge is not dangerous, and the bridge is not structurally unsound. First of all, it is not going to be strengthened all across; only half of it is to be done. It is not going to be widened, because on their own evidence the company say that the traffic does not warrant them in carrying out the widening which they got the power to do some years ago. On the contrary, they abandon that power, and therefore the simple point is this: Can this bridge suffer by a year or two's delay until we get together all the parties, who only ask for time to produce an alternative scheme. On the fact, on the figures, on the evidence, on the needs of London, and on all the facts and arguments, everything is in favour of rejecting this Bill. We have got to look at London not as if it were a squalid village at the back of beyond, but we have to look at it as the Empire city on which every year £25,000,000 of money is spent in local government. Do not forget that the large expenditure in the last two and a half years, in my judgment, is beginning to teach the people of London that they may be able to afford more money for things of this kind in the future than in the past because it has enlarged their standard of expenditure. At the most what would it cost? To

1031
do it completely it would cost only one day's expenditure of this War, or London's contribution for one week to this War.
When we are told that London cannot afford a thing of this kind, let us look at Paris. Just before the War the Parliament of Paris gave the Municipality of Paris a £50,000,000 long term loan to make Paris even more attractive than it is now. What do you see at Paris in the matter of railway stations? Look at the beautiful railway station at the Quai d'Orsay! Look at the Gare d'Orleans alongside the river! They, like St. Pancras, are models and examples of what stations ought to be. Look at the bridges there, like that marvellous Alexandre III. Bridge, 120 feet wide, something like that which we ought to have at Charing Cross! When I am told that we cannot afford this, I reply that I am proud of London, of its sons, and of its generosity. London's contribution to this War in loans or in taxes has already in two and a half years amounted to £1,000,000,000. A million of its sons have enlisted in the hour of the nation's peril and during the tremendous ordeal through which we have passed. A city rich enough to contribute £1,000,000,000 in taxes and in loans, and a city whose sons have enlisted to the number of one million in two and a half years, may at the end of this war be imbued with a generous impulse and be able to do things. It may well be prepared to get rid of Charing Cross railway bridge, put up a fine station on the Surrey side, and make the new bridge across the Thames the medium of commemorating its appreciation of the gallantry of its sons. It seems to me, viewing the matter from the point of view of public pride, civic spirit, railway convenience, and public amenity, and desiring to make London—which too long has been the Cinderella of all the cities—what I want her to be, the first lady of the Kingdom-that we ought not to allow this Hill to pass, but that we ought to give the authorities concerned an opportunity of putting up a good bridge across the River Thames in place of the present ugly monstrosity, merging Charing Cross Station with Waterloo Station of the South-Western on the south side of the river—a bridge with proper approaches and appropriate to the engineering skill of our race, worthy of the city in which we have our deliberations.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. H. Roberts): It is my duty to explain the attitude of the Board of Trade towards-this Bill. I find myself in hearty accord with much of the speeches which have been delivered, because, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), I do not like to have my aesthetic sense offended by monstrosities wherever they be. But unfortunately those speeches bear very little relation? to the Bill. By giving a Second Heading to this Bill and sending it to a Committee you do not, in my opinion, hinder or hamper the great project which my right hon. Friend has asked us to visualise here to-night; and as far as I am personally concerned I wish him every success in his desire and intention to awaken the people of London to a recognition of the greatness and splendour of London, and as far as I can assist him my services will be gladly placed at his disposal. This Bill, as a matter of fact, is a reproduction-of one discussed in this House last year.
Mr. PETO: And rejected!
10.0 P.M.
Mr. ROBERTS: And rejected, but rejected in a very small House, and I believe by hon. Members without due appreciation of what the Bill meant. They were guided more by the speeches than they were by the provisions of the Bill. I am expressing my own opinion. I remember the Debate last year very well. I was almost persuaded by the eloquence of my right hon. Friend to vote against the Bill, but I refrained from doing so because I took the precaution of obtaining a copy of the Bill, and I was impressed by the fact that the speeches were not very closely related to the Bill. The fact is that the bridge, on the admission of my right hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Stafford (Sir W. Essex), is incapable of being used to its full extent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said that the purpose of the railway company is to effect a full user of the bridge, and I say it is a form of waste to have a bridge in existence which cannot be fully used, with due regard to public safety. That, as I understand it, is the whole point of the Bill. At any rate my understanding has been improved to some extent by the advice that has been tendered to me on the matter. My hon. Friend stated, as did' also the right hon. Gentleman, that it is-only proposed to strengthen one side of

1033
the bridge, and they went on to make the admission that whatever this House did the bridge would remain. If the bridge is necessary and must remain, then I say during that period, at any rate, we ought to afford the railway facilities for making full use of it. We have been assured to-night that certain interests previously opposed to the Bill have now been settled. The London County Council are not opposing the Bill. After all, they, I suppose, are the real custodians of the amenities of London, and I am a little amazed that those who have such great regard for the artistic arrangements of the Metropolis have not succeeded in persuading the London County Council to further their project a great deal more. But there it is. The only objection lodged by the London County Council arose from a desire to safeguard the interests of the people of London in the event of the larger project being embarked upon, and we are able to give the House the assurance that in Committee Clauses will be inserted whereby the expenditure now proposed to be undertaken shall not be estimated whenever the larger project is under consideration, as a means of the railway company obtaining compensation. We must admit, however we view the matter, that the larger schemes, with which I have every sympathy, is not prejudiced by this Bill at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pointed out that the company's traffic had declined. Well it might decline. But may I point out incidentally that his figures were not quite satisfactory—
Sir W. ESSEX: What I said was that in pre-war time the traffic at Charing Cross was not greater than that of a tramway terminus—about 35,000 a day. I also pointed out how the traffic had declined in a given period by 20,000,000.
Mr. ROBERTS: The fact is that only 50 per cent. of the user of this bridge can be exercised unless this strengthening is carried out. I submit that the railway facilities in London are such that we ought to be able to make the fullest possible use of whatever facilities there are in existence. It is quite true that neither the engineer of the company nor anybody else alleges that the bridge is dangerous in its present restricted use. It is only dangerous if the fullest possible use is made of it. Therefore, the bridge is only quite safe because, as a matter of fact, it is never used to its fullest capacity. As to what -will happen after the War is over, we are
1034
all capable of making our own prophecies. We all think there will be a large development in Continental traffic, and, as one of my hon. Friends reminds me, in American traffic also, and certainly that traffic ought not to be prejudiced by the delays which now occur. I happen to live very close to this monstrosity, and therefore have a keen appreciation of all that has been said respecting it. I have had occasion frequently to use this railway. I know the delays that have occurred. I could never understand exactly the cause of them, until I was compelled to go into the matter, when I learnt that if a train is leaving the station no other train can run on either of the other lines laid down to the station. I say that such a state of affairs ought not to be allowed to continue. The most economical way of effecting all that is necessary in order to make this bridge safe for general traffic is pro-vided for by this Bill.
My hon. Friend has urged that this matter ought to stand over until the conclusion of the War. As a matter of fact, if this Bill passes, there is very little that can be done until after the War. Why should we always pursue a policy of unpreparedness? It has been stated that until the company know what Parliament is going to do, they cannot proceed with any planning or any arrangements whatsoever. They could get their contracts out, but it can be confidently asserted that no steel contract can be given until after the war has been ended. I think we may say that the company is simply taking very wise precaution in asking the House at this time to give them the powers sought for under this Bill. The Board of Trade may be acknowledged to Le an impartial body in this matter. Its only concern is to watch over public interests, and to see that those interests are not prejudiced by the existing state of affairs. We suggest that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, and then all the objections which have been preferred here tonight can be threshed out in Committee a great deal better than is possible on the floor of the House of Commons. Therefore I, as representing the Board of Trade, suggest that this Bill should be accorded a Second Reading.
Mr. DICKINSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has appealed to the House to allow this Bill to go to Committee upstairs because, he says, all these matters can be best threshed out in Com-

1035
mittee. But it is precisely because these particular points cannot be threshed out that we have been forced to raise them on the Second Reading in this House. The matter discussed last year, and which to a great extent induced the House to come to the conclusion it did, was that this proposal should not be allowed to go forward without consideration of the far greater question of the improvement of London generally. That point, I venture to say, could not come before the Committee at all. There would be no opponent to it before the Committee. The London County Council, I understand, have taken the course, rightly or wrongly, of deciding that they will only appear on the Clauses. The Association of Architects and Engineers will have no locus standi at all, and, therefore, there will be no opportunity of arguing before the Committee upstairs this general question which we ask the House to decide tonight, namely, the expediency of allowing this particular proposal to go forward notwithstanding the powerful arguments used last year for postponing it until we are in a position to deal with the whole subject as we shall be after the War.
Someone has said that the decision last year was taken under a misapprehension. No doubt it was a small House that considered the Bill, but the majority was a comparatively large one, and those present unquestionably fully understood and realised what was before the House. The matter was decided under rather peculiar circumstances, because the Bill had already passed through the House of Lords, and it was therefore a very serious action which this House took when it threw out a Bill which had been investigated by a Committee of the other House. I submit that, in view of the decision come to last year, the company ought to have accepted it as final, and should have recognised that it was their duty to see whether they could not devise some better plan which would fall in with the wishes of the great mass of Londoners, and which will be achieved sooner or later. With regard to the condition of the station and railway, there is no change in the situation this year as compared with last year. The position is exactly the same. The bridge is not dangerous. It has been explained over and over again there is no real danger in connection with it, so long as it is not used to its fullest capacity.
1036
Again, the bridge is not to be repaired at the present moment. We understand,. and, of course, it stands to reason, that no steps will be taken to renew, widen, or strengthen the bridge until after the War-Even after the War it ought to be, and will be, some time before the company proceeds to carry out its powers under this Bill. Why is there this particular pressure? I submit that it is simply because the company, being disappointed with the decision of the House last year, is anxious, in defiance of the Resolution passed by the House last year, to achieve its object and obtain the powers it desires. In order to achieve that object the company has been engaged, not in trying to devise any better method of dealing with this question, but in trying to stir up public opinion outside and inside this House. They have produced—I have had it circulated to me—a long list of authorities in Kent who express their desire to have this bridge rapidly strengthened and repaired. If the company have succeeded in obtaining the adhesion of the Kent authorities, have they succeeded in getting any support from the London authorities? They have no positive support, although it is true that the county council has resolved not to oppose. How is it that they have obtained the support of the Kent authorities'! They have done it by representing, I presume, because it is in the same papers as the names of the Kent authorities, that there were serious issues involved. I have here an article which says:
"The people of Kent have awakened to the great danger in which they stand."
It goes on to say:
"Let the public remember that the Charing Cross Bridge to-day forms one or the most important links with our Army in France."
Those arguments are entirely beside the mark, as we knew last year. Communication with our Army in France will not be assisted one iota by anything done under this Bill. The dangers to the Kent people are non-existent. There is really no-practical reason why the bridge should be advanced this year beyond that which existed last year, when this House refused to give its approval. If it was so urgent I cannot help thinking that the company would have made a greater effect to alter some of the conditions offered last year. Last year it was distinctly stated that conditions would be offered which would show that no ulterior scheme would be prejudiced and that no financial advantage-would accrue to the company by the power

1037
it would have been granted. We have heard for the first time this evening the suggestion the company has made to meet the financial objection that was raised then. If the matter is as urgent as it is made out to be, the company would have made greater efforts to meet the legitimate objections which were raised last year. If this Bill goes forward, it will undoubtedly prejudice, it must prejudice the settlement of the larger question which is sure to come up in the course of the next few years. Unless real urgency can be shown —I do not think that any has been shown— it would be better, in the circumstances, to wait until after the War, when we shall be able to discuss the question in a totally different atmosphere, and when we may, and I think shall, have some definite proposals brought forward by the authorities of London which will enable the greater scheme to be carried out, of which this will form only a minor part.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: When I listened to the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Essex), consisting of a lament about the constitution of London government, I felt certain that the opponents of this Bill were going to throw their net very wide for reasons and arguments against it, and that impression was not in any way destroyed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns). I want to come nearer home in the matter. The hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Essex) spoke with playful scorn of the support of this Bill being left to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I wonder if he will consent to hear a few words from the Member for Westminster, the locality which is certainly more concerned than any other in London, in which this much abused and, I freely admit, very imperfect station and this very hideous bridge are situated. The Westminster City Council has had this matter under its very careful consideration for some time, and it requested me to support the Bill. I draw particular attention to the words used, because I shall found my remarks in support of the Bill upon the fact implied in these words, that
"Having regard to the vital and immediate importance for the City of Westminster of adequate railway facilities, the Council strongly urges the Members of Parliament representing the City to support this Bill."
I do not think that the opinion of the Westminster City Council ought to be entirely disregarded by this House, because, after all, it is the local authority for the district that is most injured or most benefited, as the case may be, by the
1038
existence of this bridge, and it is a local authority representing an area with a very important population, with a great rateable value, the largest of any municipality in this country, and, moreover, an area that focusses within it a great number of industries and interests, industrial, social and philanthropic, all of which require an adequate and accessible railway service. These interests are constantly increasing, and it seems to me to be unreasonable to ask this House to use its authority to inflict upon them decreasing railway facilities. Then the area represented by this Resolution contains all the public-offices, and those offices have been added to enormously in the course of the War. They represent a vast body of non-resident employés, whose hours of work are long, and to whom a ready and full railway service is a great benefit and boon. Almost all the interests in the country in the course of the year form a sort of centripetal movement to this place, and surely it is unreasonable to put any obstacle in the way of an improvement of the railway facilities of such a locality. I yield to no one, in this House or out of it, certainly not to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), in my ambition for improvement in the architecture of London. I thoroughly approve of this idea of a beautiful roadway-bridge instead of the present hideous structure, and of this idea of a fine station on the southern side, and I believe the Westminister City Council approves of it. but I think it is altogether a false case to put, that it is a question of the present hideous railway bridge and the present inconvenient Charing Cross Station versus the great Imperial bridge and the great Imperial station which have been suggested. The greater part of the arguments of my right hon. Friend were based upon the assumption that we have to choose between one or other of these things. I think it must be patent to the House that that assumption is a false assumption, and that the arguments founded upon that assumption—certainly the strongest arguments of my right hon. Friend were founded upon it—ought not to prevail against the acceptance of this Bill to-night.
The question of steel and labour in War-time has been introduced to prejudice the passing of the Bill. I read the letter referred to in the "Times" this morning,

1039
and I was rather amused by it. It was signed by the representatives of artists, aesthetes, poets, and people who like to be looked upon as combining those three things in one person, and they found for the first time that they had a substantial argument on which to rest their advocacy of this visionary scheme which is going to take twelve years to initiate—that steel would be used by the railway company for their present scheme which was necessary for the War, and that labour would be used which was necessary for the War. We have heard something on that from the hon. Member representing the Board of Trade (Mr. Roberts). I think in using that argument the writers of the letter forgot the institution called the Ministry of Munitions. From what I have seen and what I know of the spirit animating the Ministry of Munitions, I can trust them not to allow any steel to go into the bridge which is wanted for the War, and not to allow any labour to be used which is wanted for the War. I do not think the House ought to be led away by that consideration. They ought to consider the simple, plain facts of the case, that the railway facilities which are now afforded by this bridge are imperfect, that they can be improved, that the improvement will be a great convenience to a vast number of people and a vast number of employés, and that the improvement will not place the slightest obstacle in the way of the ultimate realisation of what is now only a visionary artistic idea.
Mr. THOMAS: I do not think that I have ever before in this House voted for a railway Bill, because I have satisfied myself that there was good reason which would entitle me to oppose that Bill But having considered the whole of the facts in connection with this Bill, I am satisfied that it ought to be given a Second Reading. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns) concluded his speech by saying that he was proud of London. Anyone who knows the public-spirited record of my right hon. Friend would say that London is equally proud of him. But I am going to submit that the arguments presented this evening are really somewhat far - reached. The Mover of the Amendment for rejection, in a very able and eloquent speech, wound up by giving a picture of the return of the lads from the field of battle. He described all they have gone through and all they have suffered, and how they were going to be
1040
rewarded when they returned by having, above everything else, the consolation of knowing the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Bill had been rejected. I put it to the House that an argument of that kind ought not to be necessary when dealing with a Bill of this kind. I have listened with some interest to the testimonials given to the various railway companies. Did the circumstances warrant, I would be able to express an opinion upon that. I was astonished to hear the comparison made by my hon. Friend between an ideal scheme and Charing Cross, Take the case of Euston, St. Pancras, and King's Cross. If there is one thing more than another" that would strike any practical man as a wicked waste of public money it is to find three such stations in the vicinity of Euston Road. Then why argue about an ideal scheme? My right hon. Friend would not dare to suggest that if the Midland, the North-Western, or the Great Northern came to this House for a Bill that Bill should be opposed on the ground that these three stations ought to be pulled down and a more beautiful one put up. No one would listen to it for a moment.
Let us consider the position at Charing Cross from the point of view of a railway man. The Mover of the Amendment said that, not only is this station used for traffic purposes, but that it is used as a stand-by for locomotives. This shows how profoundly ignorant he is of railway matters, because, in the first place, all terminal stations must be used for that purpose. The engines must of necessity stop there until the train is taken out. That happens in every terminal station. Why use it as an argument against this particular Bill? But the very object of the Bill is to remove the very complaint that the hon. Member mentioned to-night. For the reason that at present only two out of three lines can be used, with the result that if a light engine has to travel on any one of those sets of rails it blocks the trains coming in. The evil is aggravated by the present system, and it should be removed, in my judgment, by the powers sought in this particular Bill. If this evening we were considering two schemes, one the South-Eastern Railway Bill and the other the magnificent prospective scheme of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Burns), then I believe the House of Commons would almost unanimously vote in favour of the latter. But there is no

1041
new scheme—only an imaginary scheme. There is no concrete proposal, only something that may happen in the future. Meanwhile, the difficulty from which the railway company are suffering is to be perpetuated until this great scheme is produced. That is not a practical position for this House to take up. It is alleged—I do not think the statement has been definitely made, it has been rather suggested—that this Bill has been sprung upon the House because of the abnormal circumstances created by the War. If that were true, this House ought to say without hesitation that it is not going to allow itself to be taken advantage of in that way. But no one knows better than my right hon. Friend or than the Mover of the rejection of this measure that it is not true. They know perfectly well that this Bill was promoted in 1913, and that it was the Wandsworth Gas Company who prevented the measure going forward at that particular time. I think it is unfair to suggest that this is a mere attempt to take advantage of an abnormal situation. As a practical railway worker I submit that there can be no excuse and no justification for the present system of the company at Charing Cross. I think it is an absurd, scandalous, and wicked waste of time that in four days over forty hours should be wasted on engine power. Labour people are not supposed to be business men, but we know perfectly well that everything, after all, comes from the worker, and we say without hesitation, whether it be a private firm or a railway company, that they ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of using their system to the maximum advantage. That is not being done under the present circumstances. My right hon. Friend suggests that engines have not increased in ten years.
Mr. BURNS: I did not.
Mr. THOMAS: The railway company are handling bigger engines, and my right hon. Friend must admit that the Atlantic type of engine is the best to-day. He must admit that the trains of to-day could not be run with the engines of ten years ago. When you realise that the system at Charing Cross suffers because the heavy engines are not allowed on that bridge, and that the work is done only by light engines, it all goes to show that the company need these powers which they seek. If this Bill proposed that Par-
1042
liament should find the money there would be legitimate reason for saying, "No." This is not a Parliamentary business. This Bill asks that the railway company shall spend their own money to the best advantage. They go beyond that and say that the public interests shall not suffer as a result of this expenditure if the great scheme comes forward within ten years. Upon all those grounds of efficiency and that there is waste to-day and upon the higher and more public ground that it will not interfere with the great beautifying scheme of my right hon. Friend and those who support him I submit there is the strongest reason for giving this Bill a Second Reading.
Colonel Sir R. WILLIAMS: I desire to say a few words from another point of view than that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, from the point of view of a railway man. I wish to say a few practical words from the point of view of one who has been engaged in building new stations, and I should like to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) how long it takes to build a bridge. You have to get your Act, land, plans, and build your bridge. At the same time you have got to clear not only one side, but the other side of the river as well. Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the clearing of a site knows how long that takes. When you have found your site you have got to erect model buildings for every person within a mile of that site who is dispossessed by the station and you have to do that before you clear the site. Having got the site you have to get out your plans, and that takes no inconsiderable time. It was stated that in the case of this new plan of the South-Eastern Railway under this Bill it will take a year to get out plans—working plans—quantities, and contracts, and the time altogether will be somewhat about two years before this necessary improvement can be carried out. The other plan which has been mentioned has not been begun, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend that he knows perfectly well that if he came to-day and obtained an Act of Parliament to make this new bridge it would take seven or eight years at least before you could get your station finished. Remember, also, that you cannot do away with Charing Cross Station until the new-station is absolutely ready. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman another question.

1043
Who is going to benefit most by this new station? It will be the directors of the South-Eastern Railway Company—I mean the company itself, and those who travel by it. We have heard that the existing station is cramped, and that this Bill is necessary to enable them to use the bridge altogether. Is it possible or probable that the directors of the company should deliberately stop a plan which would give them a big, fine station, and which would enable them to carry on their traffic with plenty of siding and afford ample accommodation for the public? Of course, it is manifestly absurd. Then what have the architects got to do with this scheme? Everybody says, "We do not want an architect, we do not want a Sir Aston Webb, to tell us that Charing Cross bridge is an eyesore and a monstrosity." As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), this comparatively small sum of £167,000 is to give the public a greater convenience than they have at the present time, and whereas the company are now able to use only four lines they will then have four or six lines for the convenience of the public. It will enable the public to travel more quickly over the bridge, and it will not prejudice, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) knows perfectly well and cannot deny, the scheme for a new bridge one iota. It does not put it off one single day, and, on the contrary, it will provide for the convenience of the public while this new great scheme is maturing, and therefore the plea that has been urged about the new bridge falls to the ground. On all grounds of common sense and of public convenience the Bill ought to be given a Second Reading.
Mr. PETO: The arguments of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down are very similar to those that were given us by the representative of the Board of Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said we could not tolerate any longer this restriction of traffic, but we have been told that whatever we do with this Bill we are not going to authorise any immediate steps being taken to translate beyond the mere pen, ink, and paper stage any of these projects whatever. In fact, the main argument addressed by the Board of Trade is this, that the House should immediately proceed to a Second Reading of this Bill in the middle of this War because the Ministry of Munitions
1044
will save the House from the ridiculous result of the vote which it starts to give. Nearly a year ago the House considered this scheme. I venture to think it was not the oratory of the right hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns), if I may say so, which was the greatest factor in securing the rejection of the Bill, but it was that the House felt, even a year ago, that we were in the middle of a great war, that already the policy of "Business as usual" was utterly discounted, and that we had got to concentrate ourselves upon other matters, and therefore we broadly decided that we were not going to proceed with this Bill. To-night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea founded his main argument upon the substantial question relating directly to the issue of the Second Reading of this Bill, as to whether this was an appropriate time to pass it or not. It is true that he gave the House other and wider reasons connected with future schemes, but the speeches in support of this Bill, both from the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Treasury Bench and from the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), were oblivious of one thing only, and that is that this country is at war. The hon. Member for Brentford said we must not interfere with the regular user of this bridge, and the Secretary to the Board of Trade said the main argument for the Bill was that at the present moment it was incapable of full user. Sir, the War will go on whether Charing Cross Bridge is capable of full user or not. It is of very little military value. It is perfectly capable of taking into Charing Cross the few trains connected with the War which pass over it. It carries no goods, and Charing Cross is not a goods station. It has nothing whatever to do with anything except the convenience of the passenger traffic. The whole of the arguments that have been addressed, particularly by the hon. Member for Westminster, suggest oblivion of the fact that we are not in a state of profound peace. The hon. Member based his arguments upon a resolution of the Westminster City Council, that it was of vital and immediate importance that Westminster should have adequate railway facilities. For what? For carrying on a full peace passenger traffic into Charing Cross! The hon. Member for Derby said this was the first railway Bill he had ever supported. I am astonished that he should have chosen such a Bill for his

1045
matriculation for a seat on the board of directors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] The hon. Member for Derby—[Interruption.] I am quite sure the hon. Member would know—[Interruption, and HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
Mr. THOMAS: On a point of Order. I did not hear the observation of my hon. Friend, but I am told he rather attributes an ulterior motive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—to my action to-night. If he does, I have only to observe that
I have already given the best evidence that I am not so influenced in matters of this kind.
Mr. PETO: I had not the slightest intention of implying anything of the sort. The hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and interruption.] I desire to point out—
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 56.

Division No. 13.]

AYES.

[10.55 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Glanville, Harold James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenry)

Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Gretton, John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

Hackett, John

O'Doherty, Philip

Baird, John Lawrence

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

O'Malley, William

Baldwin, Stanley

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

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

Banbury. Rt. Hon, Sir F. G.

Hanson, Charles Augustin

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Barnett, Capt. R. W.

Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

Haslam, Lewis

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

Hayden, John Patrick

Parker, James (Halifax)

Bellairs, Commander C. W.

Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Henry, Sir Charles

Perkins, Walter Frank

Boland, John Pius

Hendry, Denis S.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Booth, Frederick Handel

Higham, John Sharp

Pratt, J. W.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Holt, Richard Durning

Randies, Sir John S.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Brookes, Warwick

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Brunner, John F. L.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Roch, Walter F. Pembroke)

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hunt, Major Rowland

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

Butcher, John George

Johnston, Christopher N.

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Byrne, Alfred

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Cator, John

Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

Scanlan, Thomas

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Joyce, Michael

Sheehy, David

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Keating, Matthew

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kenyon, Barnet

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kerry, Earl of

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

Starkey, John R.

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Lardner, James C. R.

Steward, Gershem

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Sutherland, John E.

Cosgrave, James

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

Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

Lundon, Thomas

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Crean, Eugene

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Crumley, Patrick

McGhee, Richard

Thomas J. H.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

M'Kean, John

Thomas-Stanford, Charles

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

Touche, Sir George Alexander

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Macmaster, Donald

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

Walker, Colonel William Hall

Denison-Pender, J. C.

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Wardle, George J.

Devlin, Joseph

Macpherson, James Ian

Weston, J. W,

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

Donovan, John Thomas

Maden, Sir John Henry

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Doris, William

Malcolm, Ian

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duffy, William J.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Whiteley, Herbert James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Meagher, Michael

Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Duncannon, Viscount

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Middlebrook, Sir William

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Fell, Arthur

Molloy, Michael

Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Morison, Hector

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Muldoon, John

Wilson-Fox, Henry

Field, William

Munro, Rt. Hen. Robert

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Younger, Sir George

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Nolan, Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Rowland

Forster, Henry William

Nuttall, Harry

Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

NOES.

Adamson, William

Goldstone, Frank

Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

Anderson, W. C.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Robinson, Sidney

Arnold, Sydney

Hinds, John

Rowntree, Arnold

Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

Hogge, James Myles

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Boyton, James

Ingleby, Holcombe

Shaw, Hon. A.

Bryce, J, Annan

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

Burgoyne, A. H.

Jowett, Frederick William

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Kilbride, Denis

Tootill, Robert

Chancellor, Henry George

King, Joseph

Toulmin, Sir George

Craik, Sir Henry

Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Watt, Henry A.

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dillon, John

Millar, James Duncan

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Wing, Thomas Edward

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wolmer, Viscount

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Pringle, William M. R.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Radford, Sir George Heynes

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Peto and Mr. P. A. Harris

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Gilbert, James Daniel

Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
Postponed proceeding on Amendment proposed on consideration of Bill as amended, resumed.
Question again proposed, "that the word 'twelve' stand part of the Bill."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

AIR SERVICES.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BILLING: I wish to express my regret for again having to detain the House on the question of our Air Services, but I think it is of as great importance as the business which has just been before the House. I should like to take the very first opportunity I have of congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for War on the frank statement which he made in the House this afternoon. Had we had such a frank statement from his predecessor twelve months ago the position of our Air Service would have been very different to what it is to-day. I would like to point
1048
out that, on his own admission the hon. Gentleman was quite unable to give any further facts than those he stated which I am quite sure satisfied this House, that the answer which he gave to my question had been very carefully prepared. I have had some experience in preparing answers to questions when I was at the other end, and I can readily imagine who prepared the answer to that question for the hon. Gentleman to come to this House and read. The answer was prepared by the Director of Military Aeronautics, and I would like to point out that out of his own mouth he stands condemned. If we review the answer quite briefly, what is the first thing we find? It is that in the last six weeks 7.6 of our pilots have been killed, 8.3 have been wounded, and 4.2 are missing. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he could tell me whether that average was taken on the whole of our Air Service, naval and military, including the thousands of airmen and machines which are in this country, or whether it was taken on the machines and men in France, and, if so, whether it was taken on the fighting efficiency of those men and machines in France. Assuming that the Director-General of Military Aeronautics made the very best case that he could in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel), it is a very serious statement. It means that we have lost in six weeks 20 per cent. of our men, because the total comes to 20.2 per cent. of the personnel of the Air Service. It means that if this goes on in this way then in six weeks the whole Air Service will be wiped out. That is rather an alarming statement.
The Director of Military Aeronautics cannot say that he has not been warned. It is twelve months ago to-morrow that I

1049
first presumed to warn him from the floor of this House, and I and other hon. Members have continually warned him, that certain machines were inefficient, and that certain methods which he was employing in France and in this country were inefficient. Yet he persisted in this administration. What is the position to-day? I would like to suggest to the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that the majority of these fatalities can be directly attributed to by machines by being sent up in which I said twelve months ago that our men were being murdered. I stand here twelve months later, and I say even on this very day that men are being murdered by being sent up in these machines. Our men are to-day being sent up in BE 2 gun spotting. These machines are utterly incapable, armed and equipped as they are, of rising over 5,000 ft. They are sent up with two 20 lb. bombs, and two guns fitted on them. The guns, however, are not adequately fitted for fighting. These machines are sent six miles out into the enemy's lines. Only recently I had two or three cases brought to my notice of men sent out gun-spotting, and with them they had two of what are called chasing machines, but they lost the chasing machines, they stopped over the lines at the mercy of the German airmen, and they were eventually shot down. Quite recently two fell in flames in our own lines. I do protest that after twelve months of warning the administration of our Air Service should still permit of this type of machine being used when we have the finest types in the world in this country. We have machines faster than any the Germans have at the front at the present time, while we are sending men up in machines to engage Germans when they have to meet machines which are forty or fifty miles faster and can climb three feet to their one, and which are also properly armed and properly equipped. I want to call the attention of this House to the administration that permits it.
I have frequently said that the administration of Sir D. Henderson is a menace to our Air Service and to this country. I could give the hon. Gentleman lists of the men who surround the Air Service, which is being conducted on party lines, and the intrigue, because it is suppressed, is none the less real. The intrigue in the Hotel Cecil now is worse than ever since the outbreak of war. There are even outward and visible signs. The Royal Naval Air Service (Military Branch) happened
1050
to go in the Hotel Cecil and took up its-quarters there first, and when the Royal Flying Corps came in later they were welcomed with the notice, "Royal Naval Air Service—No Thoroughfare." The other side at once put up a notice,. "Royal Flying Corps—Whoa!" But this is an outward and visible sign of the intrigue which permeates the whole service. We are told we are substituting as quickly as possible other machines for those by which the lives of our men are being thrown away uselessly. But what are the facts? Quite recently an order has been placed for 250 more of these machines with 90 horse-power engines. They will not be delivered for months, and if they were in use to-day these 90 horse-power engines would have to meet 200 horse-power engines of the enemy. On the other side we have the private constructor.
I put a question yesterday as to when the Sopworth tri-plane chaser—one of the Puff machines, as they are called—was first offered to the Admiralty and when it was ordered. Also how many we have got now in the service of these machines, which can make rings round those turned out by the Government. What was the reply? That it was not in the interest of the country that a reply should be given. If the answer had been that it was not in the interest of Sir David Henderson, I think the answer would have been more correct. That machine was brought out in April, 1915. When I was in France at the time that machine was being tested, and the Nieuport was brought out in competition with it. That machine was offered to the Government and sent down to Farnborough to be tested. It was messed and muddled and played with, and yet its performance was perfectly extraordinary, flying about 2,200 ft. in the first minute and reaching a speed of 117 or 118 miles an hour. That was in April, 1915. As a matter of fact, in October, 1915, I understand that the Royal Flying Corps laid down two squadrons of them, on paper. I challenge the hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench to say that there is one of those machines in France to-day. I will challenge him to say that there is one of them that has ever been delivered. Their delivery has been held up while we were taking delivery of these Government-designed machines, which are responsible for the loss of the supremacy of the air—if we ever had it—in France-to-day.

1051
What happened only yesterday? I put down that question, and the order, I understand, has been cancelled. The whole order has been deleted. Hundreds of these machines have been laid down. Of none of them has delivery been taken. What is going to be done with those machines? Are they to be burnt, like we burnt thousands of them? When I asked the hon. Member on the Front Bench yesterday how many orders he had deleted in the last twelve months, he replied that it was not in the public interest to tell me, because, he said, that if Germany knew how many we had burnt they would know how many we had. I fail to follow at all that course of reasoning. We have been buying machines in hundreds. When the Navy had the first call on the 200 Rolls engines they built a series of bomb-droppers that cost the -country some thousands of pounds each. Because the Army could not get possession of the engines they eventually got possession of all these new machines. They sent their pilots down to Eastchurch and they got into these brand new machines, flying them to Farnborough, where they pulled the engines out and burnt the whole lot. They are doing that the whole day long. If any new expert gets temporary power at one of these offices he immediately burns everything the last man built. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]
What is the position as between the two Services? Will the mastery of the air ever be won on partisan lines? There is a naval expert who sits in one room at the Hotel Cecil and a military expert who sits in another room. The stresses, strains and calculations which one expert demands he insists upon. The Navy passes that machine as fit for active service, but if it is handed over to the Army, they immediately scrap it because they say, "We do not approve of these spring lines or that wire." To show that there is no love lost between them, when the Army hand a machine over to the Navy they act in exactly the same manner. The requirements of one Service are entirely different to the requirements laid down by the other Service. I would appeal to the House to take this matter seriously now. We do not want any more public inquiries. We have had quite enough of the fallacy of public inquiries. A Committee of this House might well inquire into the matter —not a Committee appointed by the
1052
people who are in question, but a Committee appointed by the House might inquire into the administration and command of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service with considerable advantage to the cause for which we are fighting. General Henderson—presumably it is he who makes the statement—says:
"The situation in the air on the British front in France at the moment is as undecided as during the winter months."
I understood that during the winter months we were supreme in the air. He said later:
"The situation is very similar to that which obtained in the same period last year, when at that time the Germans, reinforced and rested during the winter, put up a serious opposition."
If that is all the advance we have made in twelve months I am sorry. I think if he had said while we rested the Germans worked and prepared it would give a better answer to what is taking place in France to-day.
"At the opening of last year's campaign the main German concentration was before Verdun."
That is a contradiction in terms. Here, I admit, that last year although we were beaten out of the air for a considerable period in the spring, the main German air offensive was at Verdun, and we claim the supremacy of the air to-day. We do not take into consideration that the German air service is not only keeping the British air service at bay, but the Russian and the French, which is a far greater air service than ours, and it is keeping the air service of Italy and what little Roumania has got and all the various Allies. I do not know whether I shall ever be able to impress upon the House the importance and the urgency of taking up this problem seriously. I do not want to repeat the many arguments I have put forward in support of that, but I appeal to the Under-Secretary to inquire very closely into the actual conditions obtaining in France at the present time, and I tell him that I shall raise this question of the air on every available occasion until such time as we have regained that supremacy which for a few brief months, after as many months' agitation, we gained in the summer of last year.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I have no reason personally to complain of the remarks which my hon. Friend has made about me. I endeavoured, in the answer

1053
which I gave to-day, to give the facts of the case as honestly and as concisely as I possibly could within the limits of a question and answer. But while I am grateful to him for his generous appreciation of what he terms my honesty in my statement, I must say that appreciation is considerably detracted from when I find him making a most violent and bitter attack upon a colleague of mine on the Army Council. He has spoilt what might or might not be a good case fey his exaggeration of statement. He has accused the Army Council of murdering British airmen. I defy him to produce one single instance of the murdering of a British airman in France or in this country. The hon. Gentleman made the same statement before in such a way as to force the Government to appoint a judicial inquiry.
Mr. BILLING: Not judicial at my request.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I am within the recollection of Members of this House. The hon. Gentleman forced the late Government to appoint a judicial inquiry, presided over by a High Court judge, with assessors who were men of skilled knowledge in engineering. He was asked to substantiate the accusations which he made in this House, and nobody knows better than the hon. Gentleman that he failed, and completely failed, to substantiate those accusations. Notwithstanding that lesson which he received at the hand of the judicial tribunal, for which he himself pleaded, he comes forward again and makes the same rash and reckless statements. I can assure my hon. Friend that it does grieve anybody who is anxious that these gallant fellows who are fighting for us at the front should not be handicapped when we find the hon. Member coming forward at this time of night and rashly and recklessly making statements which only serve to impede their gallantry and break down their morale for which they have become famous all over the world. I again ask the hon. Member to come forward and substantiate the statements which he has made.
Mr. BILLING: I shall have very much pleasure in giving my hon. Friend privately a great deal of information which I prefer not to give in this House.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I must say, speaking on behalf of the Air Service, that I am
1054
afraid the evidence which my hon. Friend would bring forward would receive the same fate at the hands of a judicial inquiry as did the evidence which he brought before the other judicial inquiry.
Mr. HOGGE: They had not the power to call witnesses.
Mr. MACPHERSON: We are told now it was not a judicial inquiry.
Mr. HOGGE: I say there was no power to call witnesses.
Mr. MACPHERSON: That fact does not make it any the less judicial. It was for the hon. Member to substantiate the case that he had put forward. He had the power and the opportunity before that inquiry, not only to appear himself with all his facts in support of his statements, but he could produce any evidence he liked. There was no attempt of any sort or kind at that inquiry to prevent the hon. Member coming forward himself with all his facts and bringing forward any witnesses or any evidence he cared to bring before that Committee. That Committee was presided over by one of the most distinguished of our judges, Mr. Justice Baillache. I do not know whether the hon. Member would like us to have another inquiry into the statements which he has so rashly made before the House to-night.
Mr. BILLING: I should, indeed.
Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member said a few minutes ago that he did not want one.
Mr. BILLING: Not a judicial inquiry. I want an inquiry by experts who understand aviation and who have seen flying.
Mr. MACPHERSON: What sort of inquiry does the hon. Member want? He knows perfectly well that he was satisfied with the judicial inquiry when we promised it, and when we promised to appoint a High Court judge to preside, with skilled assessors to assist him.
Mr. BILLING: No; I protested fiercely against it.
Mr. MACPHERSON: In any case the hon. Gentleman came forward and submitted himself to that inquiry, and I hope that he was satisfied with the result. He

1055
went on again to attack Sir David Henderson. He is probably the only man in this country who is supposed to know anything about the Air Service who has gone out of his way to attack Sir David Henderson. Everybody in the country knows that the splendid efficiency of the Air Service is due in the largest measure to Sir David Henderson. He has grown; up with our Air Service. If yon were to ask anybody in the Air Service to-day,
1056
whatever his position, one and all would admit that the one great benefactor of the Service, who has made it the splendid Service which it is, and has made it the envy of the other branches of our Armies, as it is to-day, is Sir David Henderson.
It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.