Commons Sitting of 12 November 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Potatoes (Growers' Returns) Order, 1917, Potatoes Order, 1917 (General Licence), British Cheese Order, 1917, Order of the Food Controller, 1917, revoking the Winter Beans Order, 1917, and the Winter Oats and Rye (Restriction) Order, 1917, and Cattle Feeding Cake and Meal and Millers' Offals (Maximum Prices) Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P.494 to 500, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and infected areas for the purposes of the Wart
2
Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Regulations under the Corn Production Act, 1917, with respect to constitution and proceedings of the Agricultural Wages Board (England and Wales) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF TRADE (COMMERCIAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade by the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence with reference to their Proceedings, October, 1913, to October, 1917, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Copy ordered "of Clauses 5 and 13 of the Bill as they will read if the Government Amendments to be moved on Consideration, as amended, are incorporated."—[Secretary Sir George Cave.].
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 156.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PERA CIGARETTE COMPANY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the whole interest in the Pera Cigarette Company is the property of Reschid Sadi Bey, an alien enemy, who was interned at the request of Lord Kitchener when Secretary of State for War, and what is the special reason why the company is not wound up?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): Yes, ,Sir; Reschid Sadi Bey is the sole proprietor of the business in question. The business has not hitherto been wound up in consequence of the recommendation of the Board's Advisory Committee, who carefully considered the case. Their recommendation was, however, conditional upon further inquiry on certain points as the result of which it has now been decided to make an Order for the winding up of this business.

    RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the frequent recurrence of trouble between the railway companies and their workers, the rates of wages paid, and the hours of work endured, taken together with the diminishing dividends paid to railway shareholders and the increasing freight rates charged to the public, having regard to the fact that the Royal Commission appointed in 1914 failed to perform the function allotted to it and suddenly suspended its sittings on the 25th June. 1914, and having regard to the fact that bonus wages now being paid to railway workers out of Government funds amount to the sum of £25,000,000 per annum, he will arrange for a judicial inquiry into railway administration, to be held without any limiting terms of reference and at which all witnesses are to be examined and cross-examined on oath, and at which full discovery of all documents is to be made, and all claimants to a hearing may be heard?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot accept the arguments in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question as conveying a correct impression of the position. The answer to the latter portion of the question is in the negative.

    NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRIES (GERMAN CONTROL).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation this Session to prevent German companies from obtaining control of metals in the United Kingdom and the Dominions after the War?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, Sir; I trust the Bill dealing with the non-ferrous metal industries which I am introducing to-day will have the effect the hon. Baronet desires as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. The question of corresponding legislation in the Dominions is, of course, a matter for the Dominion Governments, but the hon. Baronet is doubtless aware of the Resolution adopted by the Imperial War Conference on the subject, of which I am sending him a copy.

    DYES.
    General CROFTasked what is the total value of dyes bought from abroad since the beginning of the War, and from what countries they were imported; what is the tonnage of prime materials exported to neutrals from this country to convert into dyes since the beginning of the War; what is the tonnage for prime materials for which a licence has been issued for transit to Switzerland since the restriction of imports and exports; and what is the amount of tonnage for export of prime materials to Switzerland for which licences have been issued or applied for in the coming six months?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I think that it would be contrary to the public interest to give the details asked for, which would convey important information to the enemy.

    PATENTS AND TRADE MARKS.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the

    5
    names of many chemicals formerly made by processes the patents for which have expired are registered as trade marks by alien enemies, who in this way have obtained a prolongation of the limited monopoly granted to inventors by the Statute of Monopolies and Patents Act; and whether he will take steps to see that the names referred to are made available to the public as speedily as possible?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Any person may apply to the Board of Trade under the provisions of the Trade Marks (Temporary) Rules, 1914, for the avoidance or suspension of the registration of any trade mark the proprietor whereof is a subject of any State at war with His Majesty. When any such application has been made and the Board have been satisfied that the trade mark is the only practicable name of an article manufactured under an expired patent, it has been their practice to make an Order avoiding the registration of the trade mark.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the names of patented articles become public property so soon as the patents expire under which the articles are manufactured; whether he is aware that the practice has arisen of registering as trade marks the names of patented articles, and thus preventing the free use by the public upon the expiry of the patent of the names of these articles; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am aware of the abuse to which the hon. Baronet refers and propose to deal with it in a Trade Marks Bill which I hope to introduce shortly.

    CEMENT EXPORTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether lie called the attention of the Blockade Ministry to the shipments of cement to Holland going forward this year as compared with the small quantities in previous years; and whether he was aware that Germany was using quantities of cement in Belgium for military purposes which might possibly lead the Blockade Ministry to prohibit our shipments to Holland if they were made aware of the extent of the shipments?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The facts of the case with regard to the export of cement to Holland have already been fully explained
    6
    by the Minister of Blockade in reply to questions which have been addressed to him in the House to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of the Minister of Blockade to the facts?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot add anything to what has been said.
    General CROFT: Are there ample supplies of cement in this country?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, as far as I know.
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that cement boxes bearing the names of British manufacturers have been found among the German defence works in Belgium; and whether, in view of that fact, he will now take steps to abolish or reduce the number of licences at present existing for the export of cement from this country to Holland?
    General CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an assurance that no further cement will be exported to Holland from the United Kingdom; and whether all licences have been cancelled?
    Colonel YATEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Blockade if he will state why the outstanding licence of cement to Holland was issued on the 9th October, seeing that the Order in Council came into operation the day previously, and it has not been customary in granting licences to consider the date of application, but only the date when the application is dealt with; and will he state the quantity the licence was granted for?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Mr. Leverton Harris): There appears to be some misapprehension regarding the objects of the recent Order in Council which made it obligatory to obtain licences for the export to Scandinavia and Holland of certain commodities which previously could be exported without licence. This Order, which came into force on October 8th, did not preclude the granting of licences for export where that could be done with due regard to the interests of the Allied Governments.
    In fact, only one licence for cement for Holland has been issued, the quantity licensed being 3,110 tons, and, in

    7
    pursuance of the general commercial policy of the Allies, no further licences are now being granted.
    As, however, there is no ground for thinking that any of the cement exported from this country has been, or is likely to be, directly or indirectly of service to our enemies, it is not intended to revoke the licence already granted or to stop any ships which may be loaded under it.
    With regard to the inquiry as to whether any cement boxes bearing the names of British manufacturers have been found among the German defence works in Belgium, inquiries already made into the matter by the military authorities have not resulted in a confirmation of the information in question, but further investigations are being made.
    At the same time I shall be most grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire it he can furnish me with any facts which he may have bearing on the subject.
    General CROFT: Bearing in mind the fact, hitherto suggested, that more cement was being imported into Holland from Germany than was exported from England to Holland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is borne out by the fact that information has recently come from the front showing that there is a great shortage of cement in the German Army, to which orders are being given for greater economy in the use of cement?
    Mr. HARRIS: I would like notice of that question.

    DISORDERLY MOBS (MADRAS).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the disorderly mobs which assemble outside the principal clubs and public buildings in Madras and other cities in India without any interruption by the authorities and police; and if the Government have ascertained the source of the funds used to support the agitation, which has for its object the weakening of the Government and of British rule?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The information at my disposal does not bear out the suggestion that the cities of India are disturbed by disorderly mobs, though in connection with the recent Mohurram celebrations there have been isolated
    8
    Instances of riots in the rural districts. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I fear that I am unable to enlighten him.
    Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these assemblages in front of clubs in Madras have been described in accounts in the Press?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware.
    Mr. FELL: If more strength is not shown by the Government in India, is it not likely to lead to trouble in future?

    PRINCE ALBERT OF SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has ascertained the channel by which Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, now an officer in the German Army, communicates with his relatives in this country; whether any other soldier in the fighting forces of Germany has the like facility of communicating with friends here; and, if not, will he say why Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein enjoys special privileges?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): A letter from Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein recently reached this country through the intermediary of the Swiss Government, who have charge of German interests in this country, and who duly communicated the letter to the Foreign Office. It was submitted to the Censor in the ordinary way. Whichever may be the channels through which letters from Germany reach this country, they are all, so far as I know, controlled by the Censor, who treats all letters on their merits, without regard to the position of the correspondents.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it usual, even subject to the control of the Censor, for enemies, in the ranks of the Kaiser's Army, to hold communication with people in this country, even though they may feel in honour bound to fight against this country?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I confess that I do not admire the taste of the hon. Member in dealing with communications in reference to the death of a parent in the manner which he has seen fit to adopt. Perfectly

    9
    adequate methods of censorship are maintained and I do not think that any abuse is likely to occur.

    FOOD ECONOMY (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can publish any information regarding the food economy policy and campaign in the United States, with a view to stimulating food economy in this country?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Copies have been received of various measures adopted in the United States for conserving and stimulating the production of foodstuffs. The Food Controller is aware of these measures, and full reports have, I believe, appeared in the Press in this country. I do not think, therefore, that any useful purpose would be served by any further publication by the Foreign Office.

    RUSSIA.

      BRITISH AMBASSADOR (PETROGRAD).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in daily telegraphic communication with the British Ambassador in Petrograd, and whether he has information as to the political situation there?
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information he can give the House regarding events that have taken place in Petrograd?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the second part I can at present furnish no other information than that which has appeared in the public Press.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement that the British Ambassador was leaving Petrograd?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No; our Ambassador remains at Petrograd. He is there at this moment.

      KERENSKY GOVERNMENT.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at the time his attention was called to an article which appeared in the "Morning
      10
      Post" newspaper from its Petrograd correspondent on the occasion of the reconstruction of the Kerensky Government in which some of its members were stigmatised as convicts; and, if so, did he take any steps to remove the impression conveyed to the Russian public?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member refers.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will have shown to him the article characterising members of an Allied Government as "gaol birds," and will he then prosecute, as was done in the case of Mr. Arnold Lupton for a very mild censure of the Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have not been able to find the article to which the hon. Member refers.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: If I send it to the right hon. Gentleman, will he take action?
      Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member sends me a copy I will read it and consider it.
      Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take some action, short of a public prosecution, in order to convey to the proprietors and editors of these newspapers the harm they have done to the cause of the Allies by their remarks on the Russian Government?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the proprietors of these papers is going to be rewarded by being made a member of the Government?
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the effect of attacks on the late Government of Russia, particularly by papers under the control of Lord Northcliffe and by the "Morning Post" newspaper, and of their support of the counter-revolution of Korniloff, upon the relations between this country and revolutionary Russia; and if he will state whether the Government intends to take any action to counteract the effects of this propaganda, which has aided the endeavours of the German Government to alienate the sympathies of the Russian people and armies from the cause of the Allies?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to both parts of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when attacks are made on the Russian Government in these newspapers, he is not aware of them, but that when any attack or criticism is made by any other organ, the Public Prosecutor takes action?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we then to take it that the Government are desirous of seeing these attacks continued for the purpose of restoring the Tsar and of destroying the revolution?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

      BRITISH FINANCIAL AND MATERIAL ASSISTANCE.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of our advances in money and material to Russia during the War?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It would be quite unwise to give the amounts asked for.
      Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Have the Government received any assurances from the Russian Government that they will meet their obligations?

    TIMBER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether difficulty is being experienced in securing adequate supplies of English ash timber for aeronautical purposes; whether a certain league has been entrusted by the Air Board with the work of obtaining through voluntary workers particulars as to the number and position of suitable ash trees throughout the country; and, if so, why the existing machinery of the Board of Agriculture is not being utilised for this purpose?
    Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Special efforts are being made to increase supplies of home-grown timber, including ash, and the Aerial League of the British Empire is rendering voluntary assistance in obtaining information, arrangements to this end having been made by the Controller of Aeronautical Supplies, with the concurrence of
    12
    the Controller of Timber Supplies, in whom is now vested the machinery of the late Home-grown Timber Committee of the Board of Agriculture.

    MUNITIONS.

      LOCOMOTIVES (CONSTRUCTION).
      Major DAVIESasked the Minister of Munitions whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the complete material of the twenty-five locomotive engines which have been lying on the premises of Messrs. Beyer, Peacock, and Company, Limited, of Manchester, since 1914?
      Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): A conference on this subject between representatives of the Ministry of Munitions and other parties interested is to be held early this week. It is anticipated that a satisfactory arrangement for the completion of the twenty-five locomotive engines referred to in the question will be arrived at.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) have settled any claims in respect of licensed premises taken over by the Board without such claims having been submitted to the Liquor Losses Commission; and, if so, whether he can state the number of claims so settled; the total amounts claimed; the total amounts paid; and the procedure adopted to secure that such claims were closely scrutinised before payment?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Since the date of Mr. Justice Younger's judgment in the Cannon Brewery case the number of claims for compensation in respect of licensed premises taken over, for which the compensation has been agreed, as the result of negotiations, and the claim paid, is twenty, the total sum thus paid being between £16,000 and £17,000.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Hugo Wiskemann, of the Wool Exchange,

    13
    London, and of Stonebridge Park, the son of a German lawyer of Kemfungen, Hesse Cassel, still had the use of a telephone, two numbers, City 3813 and Willesden 1376; and if the use of the telephone is permitted to alien enemies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George ,Cave): Under Article 22 (a) of the Aliens Restriction Order an alien enemy may not have a telephone without the special permission of the police, which is very rarely given. I am informed that permission to have a telephone was given by the police to this man, who has been thirty-seven years in England, is married to an English wife, and is carrying on, under supervision, a business which is considered to be useful to this country. I propose, however, to reconsider the whole question of granting these permits to alien enemies.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a little more information about the pro-German views of these gentlemen, and put it before the Advisory Committee in regard to the interned men?
    Sir G. CAVE: Any information of that character will receive consideration.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Has this gentleman applied for naturalisation in these thirty-seven years?
    Sir G. CAVE:I cannot say; I would like notice.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether, in every instance, the cases of those persons interned under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Act have been before the Advisory Committee, even where interned persons have not availed themselves of the opportunity to appear before the Committee themselves?
    Sir G. CAVE: Every case has been before the Advisory Committee with the exception of four cases, in which no appeal against the Order was lodged. When there is no appeal the Committee have no jurisdiction under the Regulation.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether certificates of naturalisation have to be registered at the Home Office after the oath of allegiance has been taken by the applicants; whether such certificates can be regarded as final and complete
    14
    until after such oath has been taken; and whether an oath of allegiance falsely taken or subsequently violated should be regarded as a misrepresentation as to the loyalty of the applicant for naturalisation which would entitle the Secretary of State to revoke the certificate of naturalisation under the powers contained in the Act of 1914?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A certificate does not take effect until the oath of allegiance has been taken. As to the last part of the question, I think that it must, under the existing law, be answered in the negative, but the matter will no doubt be dealt with in the legislation now proposed.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the unsatisfactory state of the law, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in legislation?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have just referred to the fact that before legislation can be introduced we must have the assent of the Dominions, who have an interest in this matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Could not the revocation of our own certificates of naturalisation in this country be dealt with, and can he not deal with that generally?
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. and learned Friend is aware, I presume, that under the Act of 1914 what is done in this country takes effect throughout the Dominions, and vice versâ, and therefore we must consult the Dominions.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Did you not communicate with the Dominions nearly four months ago, and has there not been ample time to get an answer?
    Sir G. CAVE: We are endeavouring to get an answer as soon as possible.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Stir them up!
    Mr. G. FABER: Is the communication with the Dominions themselves or through their representatives here?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is a matter which has to be referred to the Dominions themselves.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister when he can give a day for the discussion of the Resolution on the subject of Alien Enemies standing in the names of the Member for Brentford and others? ["That this House is of

    15
    opinion (I) that, on the completion of the third year of the War, a more definite policy should be adopted by the Government for the internment of alien enemies, and, in particular, that no man should be allowed to remain uninterned except for definitely national as opposed to personal reasons; (2) that women and children of enemy origin should, where possible, be repatriated unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary; (3) that the Government should forthwith introduce the promised Bill giving the Secretary of State for the Home Department power to deal with naturalisation certificates in the case of men who would otherwise be alien enemies; (4) that, in any case, when a naturalised alien enemy has been convicted of offences against the Realm power should be given to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the said Act that such naturalisation should be reviewed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with a view to its withdrawal; (5) that under no circumstances should any further certificates of naturalisation be issued to alien enemies during the War."]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject was fully dealt with on the Vote of Credit, and I hope that the House will not consider that any further discussion is necessary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Owing to the fact that the policy on this subject was not very definitely dealt with on the Vote of Credit, and the very strong feeling both inside and outside the House, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be a discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that I hope the House will not consider that further discussion is necessary. I heard the discussion in the House on the Vote of Credit. There certainly would have been no difficulty in lengthening it if hon. Members had closen to discuss the matter then. In any case, an opportunity, if desired, can be found without taking a special day for it—that is, if the House desires that the Session should end at a reasonable time.

    AIR RAIDS.

      BARGE LIGHTS (THAMES).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS askedthe Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
      16
      ment whether he is aware that while during air raids lights in trains and windows are forbidden, tugs, on the Thames drawing a train of barges are brilliantly lighted; and whether, as this, illumination adds to the danger of those living on the river banks, he will issue an order to compel such river traffic either to cease or to put out their lights during the period of the raid?
      Sir G. CAVE: Under the Lights Order all lights on vessels navigating the river, except navigation lights, have to be obscured after the hour when the Order takes effect. There are not now many vessels on the river at night, and the Commissioner of Police is advised by the military authorities that the presence of this inconsiderable number of navigation lights will not be prejudicial to the safety of residents in riverside districts.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has any inquiry been made into this particular case, and has any evidence been sent to the right hon. Gentleman relating to that matter?
      Sir G. CAVE: My answer is the result of the inquiry.
      Mr. BILLING: Who is responsible for control of the lighting of the whole country?
      Sir G. CAVE: There are Orders in Council affecting the whole country.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the military disregard these Orders, and that there are frequent and constant complaints about them?

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the conscientious objectors' periodical the "News Sheet," several numbers of which were circulated before its suppression, bore no printers' imprint; whether the omission is contrary to law; what proceedings, if any, have been taken against the parties responsible for the offence; and, if none have been taken, will he explain why, an exception was made?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; but there appears to be some doubt

      17
      whether a prosecution would be successful, and as the paper has been suppressed it does not appear to be worth while to take proceedings.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were sixteen numbers issued at different periods, covering a long time; and why is it that proceedings were not taken during the whole of that time?
      Sir G. CAVE: It is very doubtful if proceedings would succeed.

      MINISTERS OF RELIGION.
      Mr. HINDSasked the Minister of National Service whether general instructions have been issued to call up for military service all ministers and clergymen, including Anglican clergy and Roman Catholic clergy, who have been ordained subsequently to the appointed day under the Military Service Acts; and, if not, why exceptions have been made in the case of certain regularly ordained Nonconformist ministers in Wales?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): No general instructions have been issued to call up for military service all men in Holy Orders or all regular ministers of a religious denomination who have been ordained subsequently to the appointed date upon which they became liable to military service under the Military Service Acts, 1916, and in this connection I must refer the hon. Member to the very full answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to the hon. Member for East Denbighshire on the 19th July, 1917. While it is not proposed to call up for military service all men who have been ordained or admitted to the ministry after they became subject to the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916, it is considered that men who have been ordained or admitted to the ministry immediately after being refused exemption by the tribunals, or while an application for the withdrawal of their certificates of exemption was pending before a tribunal are in a different position, and that in such cases the decision of the tribunal, making the man in question available for service, should be given effect to. In dealing with cases of this nature no differentiation has been made between the members of the various denominations, and the hon. Member is in error in suggesting that certain regularly
      18
      ordained Nonconformist ministers in Wales have been singled out for exceptional treatment.

    AUGUST REICHWALD,LIMITED.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Home Secretary whether the firm of August Reichwald, Limited, of Finsbury Pavement House, E.C., are Government contractors; whether this firm are or were Krupp's London agents; whether any members of the firm were arrested on the outbreak of war, and, if so, on what grounds they were released; whether he is aware that one of the Reichwald family. served in France as an officer of our Indian Army; that he left France at the request of the French authorities, and thereupon changed his name to Blaker; and whether under that name he is now employed in our Intelligence Department or in any other Government Department?
    Sir G. CAVE: I understand that this firm are not Government contractors, and that prior to the War they were Krupp's London agents for goods other than war material. The senior member of the firm, who became a British subject in 1893 and is now over seventy years of age, was placed under arrest for a short time at the beginning of the War while inquiries were made, about him, but as nothing was found to suggest disloyalty he was released almost at once. The rest of the question relates to matters which do not concern my Department.

    EAST ISLINGTON ELECTION.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the HOMO Secretary whether he has received a statement describing the irregularities which took place at the counting of votes at the East Islington bye-election; if so, whether he will now say whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry; and, if not, will he give his reasons for refusing such inquiry?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. I have no jurisdiction in the matter. An inquiry can only be held by a Court of law in the manner prescribed by the Acts relating to Parliamentary elections.

    RAND GOLD MINES.
    37. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been

    19
    drawn to the fact that German-born financiers control the bulk of the output of the Rand gold mines, and that some of them are resident in this country; and if he will say if any, and, if so, how many of these financiers have been interned?
    Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Member will give me the names of the persons to whom he refers, I will make inquiry.

    PACIFIST MEETING (LLANDRINDOD WELLS).
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. OUTHWAITE:
    38. To ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that recently a meeting at Llandrindod Wells, addressed by a blind preacher, the Reverend J. P. Jones, was broken up, and that when subsequently speaking in the town the Under-Secretary to the Home Office expressed gratification that the pacifist meeting recently attempted in the town was broken up; and if he will state whether it is the policy of the Government to provoke or condone the subversion of law and order?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In the question which I drafted I said that the statement of the Under-Secretary was "as reported in the ' Western Mail.'"
    Sir G. CAVE: My attention had not been drawn to this matter, but I have made inquiries, and I find that the proceedings at this meeting were stopped by the authorities of the chapel in which it was held on the ground that they had been deceived, and that the chapel, which had been lent to the promoters for a religious meeting, was, in fact, being used for pacifist propaganda. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, in his subsequent speech in the same town, did not express gratification that the earlier meeting had been broken up, and a contradiction of this statement has already appeared in the paper concerned. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. G. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting arranged for the Parliamentary Secretary was counter-attacked by the forces inside?

    ANTI-GERMAN LEAGUE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the fact that when the magistrate sentenced the late secretary of the Anti-German League for fraud he pointed out that certain titled people had received large sums for permitting their names to be used as promotors of the league; and, in view of the magistrate's condemnation, will he give the names of these people?
    Sir G. CAVE: I understand that the late Common Serjeant, when passing sentence in this case in July, 1916, expressed his disapproval of the acceptance by certain members of the executive committee of the league of remuneration for acting in that capacity. I do not know who were the persons referred to, and as a considerable time has elapsed since the occurrence mentioned, and no offence against the law is suggested, I see no reason for making inquiry.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: As the executive of this league received large sums of money under circumstances which led to the condemnation by the Common Serjeant, when the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries into various leagues will he let us know who are the people so condemned?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think it is worth while, and the secretary has been prosecuted.

    SHERIFFS-PRINCIPAL (DUTIES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of cases that came before the sheriff principal in the shires of Caithness, Orkney and Shetland in the year 1915 was two, and that the salary paid to the sheriff-principal for deciding such two cases was £775; and whether any consolidation is proposed to be brought about in order to cheapen in war-time the administration of justice?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Beyond saying that the amount of the salary and the number of appeal cases for 1915 are correctly given in the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend on the 8th of this month regarding another sheriffdom.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nobody seriously takes

    21
    his allegation that the sheriff-principal has other duties than judicial duties to perform?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think it would just be as unsafe to measure the activities of the sheriff-principal by the number of appeals he hears as to measure the political activities of my hon. Friend by the number of questions he puts.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (MEDICAL TREATMENT).
    Major DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the urgency and importance of proper provision for the medical treatment of discharged soldiers, he will take steps that will enable the local pensions committees to furnish him with a Return setting forth the total number of men discharged from the Army in Wales and Monmouthshire, the number of those who have received special treatment, and the number who have been recommended for special training to fit them for a new employment?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): In reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member on the 24th October, I expressed the hope that he would not press for this information to be furnished by local war pension committees at the present time. The work of administering allowances to the wives and dependants of sailors and soldiers and of providing for the medical treatment and training of disabled men is very heavy, and a detailed Return of the nature proposed would not, in my opinion, be commensurate in value with the labour involved in preparing it. I am at frequent intervals making inquiry of the representatives of the Ministry in the provinces as to whether any difficulty is experienced in obtaining the necessary institutional accommodation or facilities for treatment or training, and the information thus obtained will enable me to meet such deficiencies as are found to exist.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say if one-tenth of the men who ought are now getting this training?
    Mr. HODGE: My difficulty is to get the men to accept the training, but as a consequence of meeting disabled soldiers and sailors in hospitals as well as in public meetings that difficulty is being overcome.
    Mr. HOGGE: Am I right, therefore, in saying that the Ministry of Pensions is doing practically nothing with regard to the training of men?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Colonel F. HALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that a London telephone operator named E. J. Colling joined the Royal Field Artillery in April, 1915, went to France in the following December, and was battery telephonist until July, 1916, when his health broke down on the Somme; that he was invalided out of the Army in April, 1917, after being in hospital for nearly nine months, and received a total gratuity of £30; and, seeing that this man has had his health ruined in the service of his country, whether he will have the whole matter reopened with the view to granting an adequate pension to this ex-soldier?
    Mr. HODGE: This man was discharged from the Army for neurasthenia caused by his military service and the gratuity of £30 was awarded by the special medical board, who considered that a gratuity would be more to the man's advantage than a pension. I am consulting the President of the Board as to the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that the case should be dealt with by way of pension.
    Colonel HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think a gratuity of £30 to a soldier who has been wounded and has been in hospital nine months is a reasonable allowance to be paid?
    Mr. HODGE: I cannot say without seeing the man's papers, but on principle I am rather opposed to the principle of gratuities.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was the man asked whether he would take a gratuity or a pension?
    Mr. HODGE: I expect that the man himself wanted the gratuity.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the man can appeal to the Special Appeals Tribunal against the award without asking even the permission of the Minister of Pensions?
    Mr. HODGE: That is absolutely so. The man has the right of appeal.
    Colonel HALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that there is considerable delay in receiving replies to communications to his Department; and whether, considering that such letters often contain inquiries for important information regarding pensions to soldiers and sailors, he will give instructions for an improvement in the machinery in his Department in order that delays of such long duration may not continue in the future?
    Mr. HODGE: I am aware that there is frequently delay in answering correspondence. But hon. Members will, I think, agree that during recent months there has been a speeding up in this connection, and we are sparing no efforts to remedy the defects that undoubtedly exist. I am at the present moment arranging with Sir Woodburn Kirby, one of the greatest of organisers, who has placed his services at my disposal, for a thorough reorganisation of Chelsea. The hon. Member will, however, realise some of the difficulties from the fact that an average of 33,000 letters, etc., are dispatched every day, and that out of a staff of over 4,500, mainly women, who deal with pensions and other grants and with the treatment and training of disabled men, less than 2 per cent. had any previous Civil Service experience. I do not fear criticism, but I want the criticism to be helpful to the Department.
    Colonel HALL: As the right hon. Gentleman is desirous that criticism should be helpful, is he aware that only this morning I received a reply to a communication addressed to the Ministry of Pensions in the middle of August?
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it the fact that things are so bad at Chelsea that the Pensions Minister has agreed to shut it down for a week at Christmas, in order to try and put it right?
    Mr. HODGE: That is so, and that is one of the reasons why I have asked Sir Woodburn Kirby, who will, I think, make as good a job at Chelsea as he did at Baker Street.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Is not the Department established now nearly twelve months?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is mow in a position to make any statement with regard to the separation allow
    24
    ances to wives of warrant officers on promotion; and will he say whether the extra cost entailed in respect of uniform is still required to be paid by the men who are promoted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As regards the first part of the question, I am not in a position to say more than that the matter is under consideration by the Committee appointed to consider soldiers' and sailors' pay. As regards the second part of the question, warrant officers on promotion receive an outfit grant of £25, but any additional expense incurred in the provision and upkeep of their uniform is required to be borne by themselves.

    SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' PAY.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to report the result of the reference back to the War Cabinet Sub-Committee of the request made by the Joint Committee of the House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the General Federation of Trade Unions, for increases in the pay of the sailor and the soldier, particularly in respect of the able seaman, the stoker in the Navy, the private in the Marines and the private in the Army?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: For reasons which I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, the Government has not yet been able to, conclude their investigation of this question, but I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say if, as a result of this further inquiry, the increases as from 1st October have been stopped, or are they going on?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are all going on.
    Mr. O'GRADY: When does the right hon. Gentleman really think he will be in a position to make a definite statement, and I will repeat the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would not like to say, but I hope this week. lf, however, my hon. Friend will put a question down for this day week, I am pretty sure I will be able to answer it.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I will repeat the question next Monday.

    ARMED REBELLION.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Government possess, or intend to ask for from Parliament, summary power to deport and intern in a suitable spot outside the United Kingdom those held guilty of endeavouring to foment armed rebellion against the Crown?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to both questions is in the negative.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the Government ask to obtain these powers?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. It is not so proposed.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to the labours of the Irish Convention; and has the Government decided that the enforcement of law and order can no longer be subordinated to a possible successful issue of the Convention's deliberations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    CHILD MORTALITY.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister the official estimate of the number of children dying every week whose death is due to preventible causes; if he will state why the Government delay legislation on this matter; whether the vested interests of large insurance companies is a contributory cause of the delay; and whether he can make a statement as to any future action it is proposed to take?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. In 1916 the number of deaths of children under five years of age registered in England and Wales was 109,966. It is, of course, not possible to state exactly how many of these are due to preventable causes, but I am satisfied that if the local authorities in England and Wales were given the same powers as are now possessed by local authorities in Scotland and Ireland, and if they used them as I have reason to know that they would do, the work which they are now
    26
    doing in regard to infant welfare could be developed so as to effect a great reduction in the number of deaths, and, may I add, not only of infants but of mothers. My Department has for some time been anxious to secure for local authorities this extension of powers, and local authorities have pressed for it, but, owing to opposition from insurance organisations, the legislation has hitherto been delayed.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Seeing that Lord Rhondda has stated that the number of children whose deaths might be prevented is at least 1,000 weekly, is it not the business of the Government at a time like this, despite any opposition from insurance companies, to press forward this most necessary legislation?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figure he gives shows an increase or decrease upon the figures of former years?
    Mr. FISHER: I should like notice of that.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of these men who are taking such an active part in preventing our protecting the lives of the children—can he give the names of the insurance companies?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to put himself into communication with the Treasury or the Board of Education with a view of giving greater grants to local authorities for the purpose of extending the school clinics, which save the lives of the babies and the young children?
    Mr. FISHER: Again, I think I should like notice of that question.

    ALLIED WAR COUNCIL.

      STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister (1) what provisions are operative for securing a unified Allied military command: is there an Allied General Staff; if so, is it located in France, who are its members, and does it control and direct operations in all the spheres of land and sea warfare; (2) whether, as a result of recent events and conferences, any change has been made in the methods by which the military efforts of all the Allies are unified and controlled; and whether he will

      27
      indicate the person or persons who have responsibility for the supreme military command?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: With a view to the better co-ordination of military action, a War Council has been constituted composed of the Prime Minister and a member of the Governments of France, Italy, and Great Britain. The Council will meet normally at Versailles not less than once a month, but may meet oftener and at other places as may from time to time be arranged. The adhesion to other Great Powers to the War Council is under discussion.
      Each Power appoints one permanent military representative as an adviser to the War Council. These representatives will be independent of the General Staffs of their countries, and will have no executive functions, but will advise the War Council on all questions affecting the co-ordination of Allied strategy. The General Staffs and Military Commands of the Armies of each Power charged with the conduct of military operations remain responsible to their respective Governments. The military representatives and their Staffs will be in permanent session at Versailles. The representatives already appointed are as follows:
      For Great Britain: General Sir Henry Wilson.
      For France: General Foch.
      For Italy: I cannot yet give the name of the Italian representative.
      Mr. KING: Are we to understand that it is not proposed that this Council shall meet more frequently than once a month? May I also ask whether an invitation has been sent to the other Great Powers, or whether the question is only under consideration as to whether or not they are to be invited?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said, in my answer, that the Council will meet more frequently if more frequent meetings are required. As regards the last part of the question, I can add nothing to what I have said.
      Colonel C. LOWTHER: Will there be any representative from the United States of America?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, it is hoped that the United States of America will form part of this Council. I have
      28
      nothing to add on this part of the subjects except to say that it is now under discussion.
      Mr. HOGGE: In what relation will Sir William Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig stand to Sir Henry Wilson?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read my answer—it is perfectly plain?
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to me?
      An HON. MEMBER: "Order, order !"
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait till he has read my answer?
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether naval as well as military operations will come under review—I do not think he made that quite clear?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not deal with it at all!
      Mr. KING: It is in the question !
      Mr. BONAR LAW: But all operations connected with the War will be considered by the Council. There has, so far, been no naval council formed; it is purely military.
      Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to have a naval representative on this Council?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I venture to suggest to the House that the utility of this body will not be increased by discussion in this House.
      Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether American military experts have indicated to the War Office or to the War Cabinet that, in their view, the Italian retirement would not have been necessary if one supreme military authority had directed the combined operations of the Allies; and whether it is now proposed to work by means of an inter-Allied staff?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given to Question No. 53 to-day by the hon. Member for North Somerset.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the duties of General Sir Henry Wilson, as a member of the Supreme

      29
      Political Council of the Allies for the whole of the Western Front, will be defined by Order in Council, and whether this appointment will in any degree impinge on the authority of the present Chief of the Staff, Sir William Robertson?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In answer to the first part of the question, the manner of formally constituting the position of General Wilson and his staff is under consideration. I have already answered the second part of the question in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Somerset.
      Mr. TENNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman read his answer again? [Hon. MEMBERS: "No !"] Some of us did not hear it.
      Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who will be responsible for strategy as against policy? I take it that the new Council will be responsible for policy, but who will be responsible for strategy?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is precisely one of the points dealt with in my answer. The new Allied Staff is advisory, and the responsibility for the action of our forces will, as hitherto, leave the responsibility in our case in this country, and we shall be advised by our own Chief of the Staff.
      Mr. P. A. HARRIS: After a decision has been arrived at will the Prime Minister make a statement to this House?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I can see, there is no statement which can be made beyond the answer I have already given.
      Mr. BILLING: To whom will General Haig report for instructions?
      Mr. LYNCH: Why has it taken three years before the Government took this step?

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he has yet ascertained that the Deputies of the French Chamber were informed, without pledge of secrecy, by M. Briand of the peace proposals made through him by the German Government; (2) whether, in view of the public announcement that the peace terms made through M. Briand by the German Government contained an offer for the complete evacuation and restoration
    30
    of Belgium, he will, in view of the importance of this subject, consider the desirability of making an authentic statement in public or private Session as to what the offer really contained?
    Mr. BALFOUR: We know nothing of the alleged communication to the French Deputies. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the fact of peace proposals is denied in Germany; and certainly we are not aware of any peace proposals having been made by the German Government to the French Government.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: How is it that no definite denial has been made as to the newspaper statements which are repeatedly made here that M. Ribot had offers through M. Briand, and that these offers were transmitted to the Allied Governments — that statement has been repeatedly made in this country and in France?
    Mr. BALFOUR: What I have said is that we are not aware of any proposals having been made by the German Government to the French Government. The question as to alleged German advances through the irregular channels of French statesmen who are not members of the French Government must be dealt with in France.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If the Germans have any peace proposals do they not know the proper channels through which to send them?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is perfectly right. If the Germans have any peace proposals to make there is no earthly difficulty in making them.
    Mr. LEES SMITH: Are the British Government made cognizant of any unofficial peace proposals?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have said that unofficial, or alleged unofficial, representations, through the irregular channels of French statesmen, must be dealt with in France. I do not propose to answer any such question.

    POLITICAL FUNDS.
    General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he can give facilities for a Bill which will make obligatory the publication of the names of subscribers and amounts subscribed to all political organisations once a year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which, I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Leominster on the 8th of November.
    General CROFT: Has that not to do with the sale of honours? Is it the opinion of the Government that nothing should be done?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the answer, he will see that I said:
    "The utility or otherwise of the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would require more careful examination than the Government have at the present time to give it."— [OFFICAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917, col. 2315, Vol. XCVIII.]
    General CROFT: Could not a small Committee of all sections of the House be set up to see if something could be done?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:I have already stated that I think this would require a great deal of examination, and I do not consider this is an urgent war measure.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will take such steps as are necessary to render it illegal for any political party to accept donations from persons other than of British birth?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling throughout this country that foreign money has found its way into party funds, and that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in consequence; and will he give an assurance in future that at least German money shall not go into party funds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can give the assurance as to any party funds with which I have to do.

    COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the question of the denunciation of our foreign commercial treaties is a matter of importance and urgency; and if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the action which the Government will take in the matter?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The whole position of this country in regard to its commercial treaty engage-
    32
    ments with foreign countries is at present being carefully examined by the Government with special reference to their bearing on inter-Imperial trade relations and the conservation of resources after the War. This examination is not yet concluded, and I am therefore unable at present to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. TERRELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on the subject?
    Sir A. STANLEY: At the earliest possible moment. I could not give a date now.
    Mr. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a promise was made nearly a fortnight ago in this House that a statement would be published, and that it has not yet been published?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I should hardly say a fortnight is a very long time in order to deal with such a very important matter.

    "COMRADES OF THE GREAT WAR."
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are interested, financially or otherwise, in the formation and/or organisation of the movement known as the "Comrades of the Great War"; and whether he is prepared to state that the Government have no intention of utilising this organisation for any direct or indirect political purpose?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative.
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement in the " Times " this morning, which says that members of the forces in the field can become honorary members of the Comrades of the Great War; whether that is a fact or not; and, if it is a fact, will members of the forces in the field be entitled to become members of other organisations in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen it.
    Mr. HOGGEI will put the question down.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the rate of pay of naval and military officers is based on the purchasing power of a sovereign being 20s., and having regard to the fact that the purchasing power of a sovereign is now approximately 11s., he will review the whole question of officers' pay and allowances?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As already stated in the Prime Minister's letter to the Press of the 29th September, the question of the pay and allowances of the junior ranks of commissioned officers is receiving the attention of a Cabinet Committee, and a decision will be come to as soon as possible.

    LORD MAYOR'S BANQUET.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the menu at the Lord Mayor's banquet; and, if so, what is the text of the Food Controller's Regulations under which the arrangements for this dinner fell?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Care was taken to ensure that the total quantities of meat, flour, bread, and sugar consumed at the dinner should not exceed the amount prescribed by Clause 3 of the Public Meals Order, 1917.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that, owing to the agitation in this House and in the Press, the whole menu was altered at the last moment, and the food, instead of being consumed, was wasted?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is entirely contrary to the fact. When the invitation was sent, the Prime Minister at once raised the question, and from the beginning the menu was declared to be according to the Food Controller's Regulations.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the menu that the Prime Minister received before was identical with the one used at the banquet?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister did not receive any menu, but received an assurance, which has been carried out to the letter.
    Mr. WATT: Was the quality of the food responsible for the quality of the speeches?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the quality of the speeches was as good as the food, there was nothing to complain of.

    INCOME TAX (SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ORGANISATIONS)
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice in arriving at the assessable income under the Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax Laws to allow as part of the expenses of business the subscriptions of business firms to employers' associations, and to such bodies as the Federation of British Industries and the National Alliance of Employers and Employed; whether the analogous contributions of doctors, teachers, and architects to their respective associations are similarly allowed to be deducted from salaries and profits in arriving at the net assessable incomes of these professionals; whether the subscriptions of a workman to his trade union are likewise allowed as a deduction from his gross wages in assessing the amount on which he is to pay Income Tax; and, if any difference is made in the practice of the Inland Revenue as between these three classes or any two of them, whether he will give instructions for all taxable incomes to be treated alike in respect of contributions payable to vocational organisations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Contributions to trade unions, in so far as they relate to superannuation and death benefits, are allowed as deductions. With regard to the other payments referred to in the question, the test to be applied is whether the expenditure is incurred for the purposes of the business, and it has been judicially decided that expenditure which, if incurred by an individual, would constitute a permissible deduction in the computation of the taxable profits, does not cease to be a permissible deduction if incurred by individuals in combination.

    PREMIUM BONDS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the War Savings Committee or any financial authorities, either in the Treasury or outside, have been asked their opinions as to the advantages or advisability of an issue of

    35
    premium or lottery bonds; and, if so, what opinions were given in favour of such issue?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is aware that the desirability of an issue of premium bonds is to be considered by a Select Committee of this House—at least, I hope so. I do not think it would serve any purpose to indicate in answer to a question the various opinions which I have received from diverse quarters on the question.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the rumour that all these authorities have turned the proposal down, and that therefore this Committee which it is proposed to set up is merely a whitewashing Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not heard the rumour, and it does not at all coincide with the advice that has been given to me.

    WAR LOAN ADVERTISEMENTS ("CAMBRIDGE MAGAZINE").
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that full-page advertisements of War Loans, headed Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been inserted in a magazine calling itself the " Cambridge Magazine," and have been paid for out of public money; whether he is aware that this magazine, which calls itself a university weekly, is not printed in Cambridge, but in London, and is the vehicle of pacificists' propaganda of a kind repugnant to the great majority of the members of Cambridge University and of the people of this country; and whether he will give directions that no further advertisements shall be inserted in this Magazine by any Government Department or paid for out of public money?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The National War Savings Committee ceased to insert advertisements in the "Cambridge Magazine" as soon as their attention was called to the nature of its contents. No such advertisement has appeared in the magazine since the 25th August last.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Cambridge Magazine" is one of the most interesting weekly periodicals, and contains translations the foreign Press, collected; impartially from both sides?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have never seen the "Cambridge Magazine," but the question of what is interesting depends on the man who reads it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign Secretary advised us to read the German Press; that this is the only journal which enables us to do so; and why should he penalise it?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend give instructions to the War Savings Committee to be a little more cautious in future as to the character of the magazines in which they advertise?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have really no reason to find fault with the work of the National War Savings Committee, and I think I can safely leave it to their discretion.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Was the National War Savings Committee told to withdraw their advertisement by the hon. Member opposite?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly not.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: It looks like it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They were not invited to withdraw it by me. I have every confidence in the judgment of the War Savings Committee.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what money this Committee has spent on this propaganda, and with what result?

    LIQUOR TRADE (STATE PURCHASE)
    Mr. HINDSasked whether the Committee appointed to consider the financial aspects of the State purchase of the liquor trade has yet made its Report; and, if so, when it is to be presented to the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee for England and Wales has just presented its Report to the Home Secretary, and the question of laying it before the House will be considered as soon as possible. The Scottish and Irish Committees have not yet reported.

    ROYAL NAVY.

      SERVICE IN HOME WATERS (LEAVE).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is.

      37
      aware of a recent Order issued by the War Office sanctioning a fortnight's leave to all soldiers serving in France, as far as military exigencies permit; and will he consider the advisability of making a similar Order respecting men in the Naval service stationed in home waters?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that the exigencies of the Naval Service make it impossible for us to give a definite undertaking that all our men shall have a specific period of leave at certain intervals—much as we should like to be in a position to give that promise. But I am also sure my hon. Friend realises that leave is given as far as the demands of the Service allow.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain amount of disappointment in the Navy with regard to leave?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Subject to the exigencies of the Service, we have tried to give them leave.

      SEAMAN CLASS (INCREASED PAY).
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what ratings are included in the seaman class; whether all these ratings are to receive the benefit of the recent concession of 3d. a day extra after three years' service; and, if not, will he say what ratings are to be excepted and for what reason?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine my hon. Friend wishes to know what were the ratings originally entitled to 3d. a day after six years, and now under the recent concession entitled to the same after three years. Those classes were A.B.'s, signalmen, telegraphists, and stokers 1st class. I should like to say this about the whole scheme of concessions announced in the letter of the Prime Minister to the First Lord of the 29th September. All these concessions came into operation as from 1st October last, so far as the Navy is concerned. It may very well be that administrative difficulties may render it impossible to bring every detail into operation without some little delay. But in every case, of course, the concession will date as from 1st October last.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this concession is not given to equivalent ratings?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is in error. All the men entitled to the extra 3d. a day after six years will now get it after three years—the same classes.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Will he say why equivalent ratings are not given this concession up to date?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have already stated, every class entitled to the 3d. a day after six years will now get it after three years.

    SIR JOHN JELLICOE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement by Sir John Jellicoe on 24th October that there was no need for anxiety, as the War was almost won; and whether, in view of the quality of judgment which such an utterance indicates, and in consideration of the vital nature of the operations under Sir John Jellicoe's control, he will consider the question of the immediate retirement of that officer?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend the First Lord has read the speech made by Sir John Jellicoe at Sheffield on the 24th October, and he has also read the report of the speech made by the hon. Member in this House on Tuesday, the 6th November, in the course of the Debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. My right hon. Friend wishes to point out that both in this question and in his recent speech in this House the hon. Member for West Clare has misquoted—and thereby misrepresented—what Sir John Jellicoe actually did say.
    Mr. LYNCH: If I have misquoted Sir John Jellicoe I beg pardon. I took it from the "Daily Mail."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is the statement in the House. Sir John Jellicoe as recently as the 24th of October last said: "There is no need for anxiety. The War is almost at an end." What he said was (I am quoting from the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph"): "There should be no reason for anxiety as to the result of the enemy's campaign, provided always that we exercise the strictest economy."

    STEAMSHIP "ONITSHA" (SALVAGE MONEY).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked when the salvage money will be distributed in respect of the salvaging of the liner ss. "Onitsha" on the West Coast of Africa some twelve months ago?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The award was made by the Court on the 10th May, 1917. The costs have to be taxed and other formalities gone through, and it was not until 9th August that we received from the other side the amount of the award, plus a sum for interest. The necessary steps having been taken for the allocation of the award in proportion to the services rendered, a notice was published in the "London Gazette" of the 2nd November that distribution would commence the next day.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give particulars of the estimated cost of the proposed new national shipbuilding yards; and whether the Government proposals in regard to these yards will be submitted for the approval of Parliament before definite action is taken?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The construction of national shipyards was approved by the War Cabinet, and definite action was taken forthwith. Etimates of the probable cost were put in hand and are now under consideration, but it is not yet possible to give the estimated cost of the whole undertaking, as the details are not yet settled, and the cost of land and compensation is still under consideration.
    Mr. TERRELL: Can my right hon. Friend state where the shipbuilding yards are to be constructed and the number of them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I only know with regard to one of them. There will be four.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Is it not an extraordinary development of War Cabinet policy, namely, to sanction the establishment of these national shipbuilding yards without the approval of Parliament?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No one has been more urgent in his demand, and properly so, that we must make up the losses from
    40
    submarines as rapidly as possible than my right hon. Friend, and obviously we must get on with all expedition, and we may have to short-circuit some of the traditional methods of peace in getting on as fast as possible.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that the Government management in the past has been of the most wasteful character?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Have the Government considered any scheme for the recovery by the State of the increased value of any land in the immediate neighbourhood of these dockyards?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    BILLS PRESENTED.
    PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL,—"to make further provision for the prolongation of the present Parliament and the postponement of local elections," presented by the CHANCELLOR OF THE Ex-CHEQUER; supported by Sir George Cave, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
    MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL,—" to Secure the better training of Midwives in Ireland and to regulate their practice," presented by Mr. DUKE; supported by the Solicitor-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (TEMPORARY CONTROL) BILL,—"to continue with modifications, for a limited period after the termination of the present War, certain powers in relation to Imports and Exports," presented by Sir ALBERT STANLEY; supported by Mr. Wardle, Dr. Addison, and Mr. Stanley Baldwin; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]
    NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL,—"to restrict temporarily the persons who may engage in business connected with certain non-ferrous metals and metallic ores," presented by Sir ALBERT STANLEY; supported by Mr. Wardle, Lord Robert Cecil, and Dr. Addison; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES CONTROL AGREEMENT (CONFIRMATION) BILL.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [8th November], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Sir J. Walton.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On a point of Order. I make no apology for referring again to a point of Order on the financial aspects of this Bill, because fresh light has been thrown upon the matter which was raised last Thursday by some statements made by Ministers in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and also because of the great importance of the matter from the point of view of precedent. The fourth clause of the agreement which is embodied in the Schedule of the Bill imposes on a public officer, the Coal Controller, the duty of paying certain sums by way of profits to certain coal-owners. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) on 7th November asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "Whether, in any eventuality, the guarantee of profits contained in paragraph 4 of the Schedule of the Coal Mines Control of Agreement (Confirmation) Bill may impose a charge upon the Exchequer?"
  The Home Secretary, answering on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
  "No, Sir; the Government are advised that the guarantee referred to cannot in any circumstances impose a charge upon the Exchequer"[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th November, 1917, col. 215o, Vol. XCVIII.]
  But in debate upon the Bill the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister in charge of the Bill (Sir A. Stanley), said:
  "It is expected, as far as anybody can forecast in a matter of this magnitude, that the sum received from the excess profits will be at least sufficient to compensate those whose profits have fallen, but if that amount is not sufficient, then it will be necessary for us to come to Parliament and ask that the deficit be made good either by a Vote of Credit or in some other way as may be agreed upon."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917. col. 24 6, Vol. XCVIII]
  That is to say, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, that guarantee may in certain eventualities impose a charge upon the Exchequer. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Wardle),
  68
  speaking also on the Second Reading, said:
  "If there is a deficit then, having ratified this agreement, the House of Commons would be responsible to the Coal Controller for the money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1917, cols. 2463–4, Vol XCVIII.]
  And he developed that point. My point is that there is implied in this Bill a contingent guarantee, and that in certain circumstances the Exchequer must be called upon to provide certain funds. It is not proper that guarantee should be merely implied in the Bill. It ought to be put explicitly in a Clause of the Bill. There ought properly to be a Clause printed in italics, not of course in the Schedule, but in the Bill itself, providing, if the funds in the hands of the Coal Controller are not adequate to furnish the guarantee under the agreement, that the necessary funds needed to meet that deficiency will be made good by Parliament. I do not suggest that it is necessary that a Financial Resolution should be moved at this stage before the Second Reading, but I do suggest, with all respect, that the Bill will not be a complete measure in Committee unless a Clause of that kind is inserted, and unless before the Committee stage is concluded a financial Resolution is passed authorising such a Clause in Committee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it does not seem to be a matter for me. It is a matter for the draftsman and the promoters of the Bill. If they think that the chances of the guarantor being called upon are so infinitesimally small that they are really negligible, there does not seem to be any necessity for a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. If, on the other hand, there is a possibility or a probability that the guarantor will be called upon, of course, the measure would be more complete if the contents of it were such as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. I have no inside knowledge of what this fund is likely to be, or what the drain upon it is likely to be. It seems to me a matter which must be left entirely with those who have that knowledge and are, therefore, in a better position to judge of the likelihood of the guarantor ever being called upon.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Might I ask you very respectfully a question upon another Clause in the same direction? Paragraph 3 directs that the money shall be paid to

  69
  the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but there is nothing in the Bill which directs the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to do anything with it. I have looked up the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, and I believe under it the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are bound to pay the money so received into the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have also looked up that Section, and I think the right hon. Baronet would have quoted it if there had been anything in his point. If he looks at it a little more closely he will find, I think, that it does not require the money to be paid ino the Consolidated Fund.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Bill was under discussion for some time on Thursday, and the few hon. Members who were then present were in a position to judge how unsatisfactory was the information which was at the disposal of the House. We had two Ministerial statements. We had a statement from the President of the Board of Trade (Sir A. Stanley) and at the conclusion of the Debate we had a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Wardle), but the explanations of these two Ministers were so conflicting that it was obviously necessary, before giving a Second Reading to this important Bill, that the House should be better advised on the matter, and it is fortunate that on such a complex and technical matter the House should now have the advantage of the services of the Solicitor-General. This Bill raises extremely important points, both with reference to this House and with reference to the interests of the whole of the community. In its present form it purports to be a Bill confirming an agreement between certain parties which is to bind the whole of the coal industry in this country, but when it is examined it is found that it is an abuse of terms to describe it as an agreement which binds the industry. It is an agreement signed by two persons representing on the one hand the Mining Association and what is called the Consultative Committee, and on the other hand the Coal Controller, but neither of the two first-mentioned have any authority whatever to bind the coal industry of this country. It has been stated more than once in Debate that a very large proportion of those who are interested in this industry and who are affected by this Bill were not consulted in relation to the agreement, and were, indeed very
  70
  imperfectly informed regarding it. One of the associations was quoted by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts) as giving its consent, although it did not understand the agreement, and I have information from Scotland that a very large proportion of the coal masters there had no knowledge of the agreement whatever at the time it was concluded. Consequently, it is an abuse of terms to describe this as a Bill confirming an agreement, and to legislate regarding it by the method of placing it as a Schedule in the Bill. The real object of this Bill is to apply the terms of an agreement of other people who are not bound by it. If that is the object, the Government has no right to place this agreement in the Schedule. It ought to include the terms of the agreement in the body of the Bill itself, so that the House may have an opportunity of considering all the provisions individually and amending them, if it so desires. What is the situation? In its present form the agreement is the Schedule to the Bill, and this Schedule cannot be amended, as has been ruled from the Chair; indeed, Mr. Speaker has said that this agreement is similar to a treaty between this country and another foreign State, and that the House is bound to either accept or reject it. In the course of further Debate it was admitted that the only course open to the House, if it desired to amend this Bill, was to introduce Amendments in the body of the Bill itself with reference to the individual paragraphs of the agreement. Obviously, such a course is in the highest degree inconvenient. You will have a series of new Clauses proposed in the Committee stage suggesting that particular paragraphs of the agreement should be withdrawn and other paragraphs substituted in their place, or Amendments to the effect that certain words are to be omitted from certain paragraphs and other words substituted for them. Consequently, you will have the most perplexing system of cross-references imaginable if this agreement is to be amended, as I believe it is necessary to amend it, if it is to pass this House in a satisfactory form. The consequence of this procedure will be that you will have the most perplexing form of legislation it is possible to devise. I do not believe that in relation to any Public Bill there is any precedent for this method of procedure.
  It is true that in the course of the War we have had other cases in which Bills intro-

  71
  duced into this House have been founded upon negotiations. That was so in the case of the original Munitions of War Act, but in that case the terms of the negotiated agreement were embodied in the Bill itself, so that the House had a perfectly free hand in a clear and straight forward way to amend that agreement. That was an agreement made with representatives of different interests. It did not profess to bind the whole of the interests. The Government desire to have this agreement in the form of legislation so that all the interests concerned shall be bound. Why do they not, in the present case, adopt the same procedure and present this agreement in such a form that the House would have complete control over it, and would be able to amend it in an intelligible way? The only reason I can see for the failure to do this is that the Government, by this Agreement, sought to conceal from the House and from the country what they were actually doing. What are they actually doing? They are providing under this Bill for the imposition of additional taxation upon those coal-owners who earn excess profits, in order to secure the payment out of this fund to other coal-owners of sums which will either entirely or partially make up the losses which those coal-owners will incur as a result of the control exercised by the Government. That is the object. But the Agreement is so framed as to conceal from the House the fact that it is imposing additional taxation. In effect, here we are increasing on one interest the Excess Profits Duty under the Budget by 15 per cent. Whatever form that takes, no matter whether technically it is outside Standing Order 71, which deals with taxing measures and renders it necessary to introduce them by a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, the House should scrutinise any such proposal with the greatest care. It is true that in this Bill you have no mention whatever of a tax, a charge, or even of a levy. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule is drawn with the utmost skill in order to conceal this fact, and that is why I think that paragraph beats the record as a model of legislative obscurity. I should like to read it to the House. It says:
  "The owner of an undertaking—"
  that is a coal mine—
  "shall be entitled to retain the profits thereof."
  72
  That is the leading Clause. Then it goes on to say that he shall not,
  "except that if in any accounting period the profits exceed the profits standard by more than the amount mentioned in Section thirty-eight (1) of the Act, the owner shall be entitled to, retain only so much of those profits as is equal to the amount of the profits standard plus the amount so mentioned,. with the addition thereto of an amount equal to one-fourth part of such excess remaining after the deduction there from of a percentage equal to the rate of Excess Profits Duty for the time being in force, and the balance of the profits, less the amount paid or payable for Excess Profits Duty in respect of the accounting period in question, without deduction there from of any set off in respect of any other period, shall be paid by the owner to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as hereinafter provided, and the sums so payable by the owner are in this Agreement referred to as 'coal mines excess payments.'"
  The effect of this paragraph is, in the case of owners of coal mines who earn excess profits, that instead of their being able to retain 20 per cent. of the excess profits they will be able to retain only 5 per cent. If the draftsman of that paragraph had desired to make clear what he intended to do he would never have chosen. the phraseology I have just quoted. Indeed, the only possible justification for that phraseology is that he intended to conceal from the House of Commons, when it came to deal with the agreement, what actually was being done and to keep it outside the Standing Order. He has, indeed, kept it outside of the Standing Order, but if it is outside the Standing Order it necessarily behoves us here to see that an expedient of this kind, which is, as it were, driving a coach and four through the Rules of Procedure of this House, receives the closest scrutiny, because this draftsman has invented a method under which any private Member of this House can impose taxation.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart)indicated dissent.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, he can. He has only to follow this example and he can impose a charge on any industry by means of a Private Bill in this House. It will be very useful, when the piping times of

  73
  peace come again, to those of us who sit on the Back Benches to be able to deal with finance in a freer way than was possible before the War. That undoubtedly is the effect of the method followed. It is possible now, by Amendment in Committee, to provide that the whole of the 20 per cent. shall be taken and not the 15 per cent. That is the condition to which the astute Government draftsman has reduced the financial forms of this House. When you have a result of this kind the House of Commons should examine what is being done in the most careful way. I go on to examine the subject matter of this legislation. I do not desire to discuss this Bill from the point of view of the interests of the coal-owners. That is the least important aspect, although, as a matter of fairness and justice, those representing the coal-owners here are entitled to complain that taxation is imposed upon them in respect of excess profits far exceeding that imposed on other classes of the community, with the single exception of shipping. They are entitled to ask for justice and to say that if the 80 per cent. duty imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon excess profits—which the House only recently adopted as a fair measure of taxation of excess profits—is to be discarded in relation to them, they have strong grounds for asking why they should be selected for this penal taxation, and why, if 90 per cent. is a fair measure of taxation in their case, others are to be exempted from it? Not least, they have a right to ask why this treatment should be meted out to them, when those who are supplying a large part of their raw material are going scot-free from all Excess Profits taxation? We know, for example, that one thing which has contributed, perhaps more than anything else, to the increased cost of coal to the consumers of this country has been the increased cost of the materials that are used in that industry. Let me take pit wood as an example. The cost of pit wood has gone up since the beginning of the War by 700 per cent., yet those owners of woods in this country, who are reaping the benefit of these monstrously inflated prices for pit wood, are escaping excess profits taxation altogether. We are entitled to ask that this injustice and this inequality should be rectified when these, exorbitant terms are being placed upon, the industry.
  74
  I said that I was not going to deal with the Bill specially from the point of view of the mine-owners. The real question we have to consider is, what is the effect of this Bill upon the industry as a whole, and particularly upon the interests of the consuming public? The main question before us in this House is how will it affect the production of coal. We are told now and again that one factor is the vital factor, that one industry is the jugular vein, that food is the most important factor in the War, and so on. If we regard this War, as we are bound to regard it, as a war of machinery, it is obvious that the production of coal is hardly second to any other factor bearing upon the successful prosecution of the War on the part of the Allies. The main contention I am going to put forward is that this Bill is going to decrease the production of coal, and, by decreasing the production of coal, is going to affect adversely every individual consumer in this country, and, at the same time, affect adversely both our own national effort and the whole of the Allied effort in the War. The President of the Board of Trade, in the course of his speech on Thursday night, said that as a result of the control there was more coal available in London at the present time than last year. That seemed to most people a very remarkable statement. I have heard it questioned by some who ought to know something about it. There is no doubt, whatever may be the actual fact regarding London, that at the present time, in many centres the coal available for distribution is by no means equal to what it was at this time last year.
  It is obviously perfectly natural that such a state of things should arise out of the arrangements which we are asked to sanction in this Bill. You, indeed, make it, no one's interest to produce coal. You really discourage production. You are placing a bonus upon the unprofitable management of coal mines. An hon. Member who can speak with greater authority upon the production of coal than I can pointed out on Thursday that that would inevitably be the result, because under this Bill there is going to be no profit accruing to any owner for the careful and productive management of his mine. He might not object to that if this deprivation of profit was going to mean that more money was going to the Exchequer, but it is simply for the purpose of a guarantee fund for other people. The likelihood, in view of human nature, is

  75
  that under such conditions the great majority of mines will be less productively managed than they have been in the past. I have been told by some who ought to know that this result is actually occurring and that there has been a marked deterioration in the quality of the coal produced. That is a very serious matter. I am told by those who ought to know that the quality of coal which is now available for London is far lower than it was at the same time last year. Indeed, I have been told that one Government Department has lodged a complaint with the retailer from whom it purchased as to the quality of the coal, and the retailer simply referred the Department to the Controller, and said he could only obtain the coal which the Controller placed at his service. When you hear complaints of that kind from Government Departments it is perfectly obvious that the effect is being produced which one would naturally expect, first of all that you have not the same economical management of the pits, and, secondly, that there is a deterioration of the quality of the coal which is produced.
  That is the most public interest affected. It affects every consumer and every industry in the country, and those who are inclined to criticise this arrangement have been driven to criticise it very largely on account of the acting of certain local control committees, because, after all, it is in the light of the acting of these committees that one can appreciate the effect of this agreement. I can say, on information on which I can rely, with regard to Scotland, that there the coal control committees are in the hands of the large producers, and that the members of the committees are receiving preferential treatment as compared with coal-owners who are outside these committees. In other. words, the effect of this Government control, acting through the coal control committees, is to drive the industry into monopoly conditions. You are, in fact, freezing out the small man. I can give an example of it. Shipment sales are now practically exclusively in the hands of members of the coal control committees, whereas land sales, upon which the price is lower, are only left, under certain very grievous restrictions, to those who are outside the ranks of the committees. That obviously means that those who are on the coal control committees are getting the more profitable part of the trade, and as the
  76
  others have to sell only for land sale many of them are unable to work their undertakings at a profit at all, and in consequence they will be driven to close up their mines. The fact has already occurred For example, I am told that in one district in Fifeshire there has been so much unemployment that the miners have had to go for relief to the county council, and similar conditions are arising in other parts of the country. Apart altogether from this. tendency towards monopoly, it is obviously, therefore, not in the interests of the men who work the mines to have this system, which is to be confirmed in this Bill, put into force. We are told that these arrangements are made on account of the necessities of transport, but some of the arrangements of which I have been told are such as cannot be justified by such considerations at all and can only be explained by the working of the control by the control committee for the benefit of the members of the committee. The case of one contract was given me where before the control the contract was held by a mine within fourteen miles of Glasgow. It was put an end to by the control committee and the coal is now being brought to Glasgow from a distance of forty-four miles. Obviously that cannot be justified on the ground of economy of transport.
  That all bears out my argument that under this arrangement the larger coal-owners are going to secure a monopoly of the industry, and for that monopoly they are quite prepared to pay, and have agreed to pay the extra taxation. Probably in the immediate future it will not amount to very much, but they are going to secure that many of their competitors are going to be closed down and it is interesting, therefore, to ascertain what is to be the fate of these competitors in terms of this agreement. Has any adequate provision been made under this agreement for these conditions? Apart from this Bill, of course any man who has to close his undertaking as a result of the action of the Coal Controller has certain remedies. He may go to law, as certain shipowners have done in regard to shipping control, and the question is now being settled in the Courts. Or he may go to the War Losses Commission. Consequently, apart from this Bill altogether, there is a charge upon the Exchequer as a result of the action of the Coal Controller whenever an undertaking is adversely affected. But under this agreement

  77
  the owner of an undertaking which is closed is going to be in a worse position than if he were only left to his legal remedy. There is no provision for what is called the guaranteed standard. That is partly in Clause 7 and partly in Clause 10. That is one of the great defects of this agreement, that there is hardly a single Clause that has not a cross-reference to another Clause.
  "The expression 'the guaranteed standard' means—

  (a) When the output of the undertaking in any accounting period is not less than the standard output, the profits standard."

  I do not think there can be any complaint regarding that.

  "(b) Where the output of the undertaking in any accounting period is less than the standard output, but amounts to at least 65 per cent. thereof, the profits standard reduced by a percentage thereof equal to three-fourths of the percentage of the reduction of output."

  That was very clearly explained by the President of the Board of Trade on Thursday, and it is a very fair provision. It is when we come to those whose output is reduced by more than 65 per cent. that we find this agreement extremely vague and indefinite, and we find further ground for belief that these owners are going to have their legal rights seriously prejudiced.

  "(c) Where the output of the undertaking in any accounting period is less than 65 per cent, of the standard output, the profits standard subject to such reduction as may be fixed under Clause 10."

  I turn to Clause 10—it might quite well have been included in Clause 7 if it had not been the intention to confuse the reader.

  "If the output of the undertaking in any accounting period is less than 65 per cent. of the standard output, the guaranteed standard shall be the profits standard, subject to such reduction as the Controller may fix, and may be a sum varying according to the output."

  Here are the very vague and indefinite rules laid down for the man who is in this very important position, namely, the man who is likely to lose most.
  78

  "(a) So far as the decrease in output is due to action by the Controller not common to the whole of the coal industry under his control, the guaranteed standard shall be calculated at a rate per ton of output, regard being had only to the tonnage which would have been raised and the comparative cost of raising it had there been no such action by the Controller."

  What that means I do not understand, and I have not found anyone who can explain exactly what it means—

  "and shall be greater than that which Would be fixed if the rule for ascertaining the guaranteed standard in the case of an undertaking where the reduction of output was 35 per cent. or less applied, so however that the guaranteed standard shall in no such case exceed the amount which would have been the guaranteed standard if the reduction of output had been 35 per cent."

  In other words, the only definite thing in this Clause is that in no case where the reduction of output is 65 per cent. will the profits be up to the amount which they would have been had the reduction only been 35 per cent. That is the only definite statement. Otherwise the owner, who desires to find out what his position is, if left completely in the dark. He may be perfectly sure that he will not get up to the 65 per cent. standard, but that is all. Then—

  "(b) So far as the decrease in output is due to any other cause, the guaranteed standard shall be less than would have been fixed if the said rule applied, and shall be calculated at a rate per ton of output, regard being had only to the tonnage raised and what it would have cost to raise such tonnage in the standard period."

  I think the reading of these Clauses is sufficient to show how absolutely impossible is the position of the man who is really going to be prejudiced under this agreement. Then we have this further provision:

  "(c) In either case, if a mine is closed, the guaranteed standard shall not include any sum in respect of the cost of maintaining the mine in a state of repair or of reopening it, or any rent, royalties, way leaves, management, or other similar charges, in respect thereof."

  79
  In other words, in mines which make water there is going to be no provision whatever for the expenditure to which the owner will be put in keeping his mine free of water—a very heavy charge indeed. Surely if that is left as it stands, the situation is that the man may be absolutely ruined and it may be possible for his competitors at a later period to take over the undertaking at a scrap price. Indeed, the greater part of the machinery may be thrown into the market at scrap price. Surely that is an intolerable situation. If this man were left to his ordinary rights at common law, or even if he took the alternative remedy of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, I am sure he would be in a far better position than if he were left to these alleged guaranteed prices. There is another provision to which some allusion has been made, and it is the most amusing, and I think the most absurd, provision of all. It is Clause 21. The framers of this Bill saw that there is some ground for the view that there is no provision offered for dealing with the case of the man who does not receive anything for the expenses of maintaining the mine —rent, royalties, and so forth—and so they make provision under Clause 21. The provision there is that the owners in a particular district may, out of the goodness of their hearts, meet together and agree to make a voluntary levy on behalf of any unfortunate man whose mine is closed. That is in addition to the 95 per cent. It is very interesting to notice the different way in which this voluntary levy is treated from the 15 per cent. Under the agreement the 15 per cent. levy is treated as taxation for the purposes of Income Tax. It is treated in exactly the same way as Excess Profits Duty under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1915. This voluntary levy is not treated as taxation; therefore it obviously shows, whatever may be the technicalities of the agreement, that the main charge in this agreement is taxation. This voluntary levy, being a different thing, is paid to the Coal Controller and not to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and is not taxation at all. Clause 21 stipulates that:
  "…the Controller shall from time to time, on the application of any association of colliery owners in any district, or of any group of such associations in several districts, cause a levy
  80
  to be made on the owners of all undertakings under his control, in such district or districts at such rate per ton on the output as may be specified in such application, and every such owner shall pay the amount due by him under such levy.
  The proceeds of such levy shall be paid into a fund under the control of the Controller."
  This is very different from the vague provision in the other parts of the Bill regarding the payment to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. There the payment is to be made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but there is nothing in the agreement to show that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are to pay it over to the Coal Controller at all. This is a totally inadequate protection for the small man who is probably going to be ruined as a result of the action of the Coal Controller. What he is to receive under Clause 10 from the guarantee fund is totally inadequate, and it is admittedly inadequate, because under Clause 21 the agreement seeks to make further provision. Under these circumstances it is obviously the duty of this House to ascertain whether under Clause 21 of the agreement there is the slightest chance of the small man who may be ruined having his losses recouped under the voluntary levy. I put it to any hon. Member whether he thinks there is the slightest likelihood that in future, where in any district one or two mines belonging to the smaller owners are closed down, that their richer competitors, to whose action in some cases this has been due, are likely to meet together and to impose upon themselves a voluntary levy in order to recoup their ruined competitor. I do not think that any such thing has ever appeared in any legislation in this House before, and I do not think that anybody in this House believes that any effect will be given to this provision. It is simply an attempt to deceive these poor men into the belief that some provision is being made for them.
  The Secretary to the Board of Trade said that this was a Bill to enable the strong to help the weak. If there had been complete provision from the guarantee fund I would have said there was some fairness in his contention, but as on the face of the agreement there is no such provision, and as under Clause 21

  81
  the small man is left entirely to the tender mercies of his bigger competitors and to their voluntary action, and as he has no legal provision whatever, it is not the duty of this House to pass an agreement which deprives that man of his legal rights, both at Common Law and under the Defence of the Realm Act without seeing that some general provision is made in substitution of his Common Law rights. These, I think, are strong reasons for looking not only narrowly at this Bill, but even for rejecting it upon Second Reading. The House will have no further opportunity of discussing this measure in detail. If the agreement had been embodied in the Bill it might have been fairly said that you could amend it properly in Committee, but, as I have pointed out, it is impossible to amend the Bill in Committee, and it is impossible to amend the agreement in Committee. If you do seek to amend it, you are going to introduce so much confusion and complexity that, unintelligible as the agreement now is, its unintelligibility will be multiplied many-fold in its amended form. That is a very good reason for the rejection of the Bill. Another reason is that the experience we already have of the control is such as to show that there is going to be a falling off in production, and the longer this system obtains you are likely to have a greater falling off. When you remove any inducement to increased production you are likely to diminish production, and as there is no inducement to economical management and the production of the best coal, you must inevitably have uneconomical management and the production of inferior coal, such as the only coal which is available to the consumers in London.
  You have, in addition to that, the position of those who have to work in the mines, which ought not to be left out of account. By this measure of diminishing the working of some mines and of closing down others, you are going to produce irregularity of employment in some places and total unemployment in others. I have been told that in one district during the past few months tens of thousands of pounds have had to be paid in unemployment benefit. I have named Fifeshire where the county council has had to be applied to for relief on account of unemployment. The provisions in this Control agreement are likely to aggravate every one of the causes which are producing these effects to-day, and as they are likely
  82
  to aggravate these causes I think it is the duty of this House to insist on the rejection of the Bill and to call upon the Government to substitute some alternative for it. This is not merely a suggestion that the control should be withdrawn. I do not think it is possible at this time of day to withdraw the control. The control in the first place was introduced in regard to South Wales, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) was at the Board of Trade. That step was taken on quite intelligible grounds, because of labour difficulties there which were so aggravated that it was absolutely necessary for the Government to intervene. This control was extended to the mines of the country in the month of February, although no case was made out for the extension of the control to the other mines. We were informed by the Prime Minister in the speech which he made in this House in December that the control of all the mines was going to take place, but in that speech he alleged no reason whatever for it, and the only ground we can ascertain for the extension of the control to all the mines of the country is the celebrated bargain which took place at the War Office when the Labour party met him on the eve of the formation of his Government, and that body performed a commercial transaction with the Prime Minister.
  Apart from these considerations, I agree that now the control cannot be withdrawn; but if you are going to continue the control, it is surely essential that all the interests concerned, the competing interests of the different owners, the interests of the workmen and the interests of the community as a whole should be equally safeguarded. In this agreement there is no proper safeguard, there is no fairness as between one set of coal-owners and another, there is no safeguard for the maintenance of the production of coal, and there is no safeguard for the even employment of labour. An alternative scheme has been put before the Board of Trade by men who have been engaged in the industry, and I think it deserves some consideration, because it is produced by men who are engaged in the industry, and who are, unlike the Coal Controller, who has only come into the industry recently from railway management. That alternative scheme does not ask for greater profit for any branch of the coal industry, but it would secure that no attempt shall be

  83
  made under cover of control to prejudice the small men in favour of the greater monopolists. If that can be done, I think it is the duty of the Government to consider it. There is another reason why we should have a longer period for deliberation on this matter. Not only are the coal industries affected by this Bill, and, as I have shown, they are imperfectly informed both in regard to the meaning and the effect of the agreement, but the whole trading community of this country are equally interested in the production of coal. It was only to-day, or at the end of last week, that many of the Chambers of Commerce of this country have become aware that such an arrangement has been carried through and is now under the consideration of this House, and several of these Chambers of Commerce have passed resolutions asking for the progress of this Bill to be delayed in order to give them time to see how the arrangement is going to affect the whole trading community. Surely that is a reasonable request to make. In all the circumstances I think the Government would be well advised if, instead of insisting on the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, they postponed its further consideration, because I believe if they did that, they would be driven inevitably to withdraw it, and to substitute something more equitable and more workable in its place.
  Mr. HOUSTON: And more understandable.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If they do not consent to this proposal—if they are going to put upon the coal industry of this country an agreement which the great majority of them do not understand, and which even the Solicitor-General will find some difficulty in making intelligible, an agreement which has been constructed in the interests of a certain section of that industry, and which has not been concerned with the interests of the industry as a whole, and which has left out of sight almost entirely the interests of the community—it will be our duty to divide against the Second Reading.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): I have listened to the whole of the Debate on this Bill, both on Thursday night and to-night. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Pringle) in his concluding words said the Bill was being promoted by and in the
  84
  interests of a section only of the industry who were not considering the industry as a whole. I wonder how far such a statement can be justified? My memory of coal-mining legislation goes back for well over forty years, and I know of no country in the world which during the last thirty years has placed on the Statute book such an output of mining legislation as has the Parliament of Great Britain from 1887 down to the present time. There was a great Coal Mines Regulation Act in the year I have named. Two or three years later we had an Amendment of the Truck Act, and a few years later the first great Compensation Act—that was in 1897. In 1906 there was a second Compensation Act extending the first. In 1907 there was a comprehensive Coal Mines Regulation Act; in 1912 there was a Coal Mines Minimum Wage Act, and in the present year, only two months ago, there was the Workmen's Compensation (War Conditions) Act passed. I could go further back than that if necessary, but what I want to point out is that during these thirty years the one association, the one representative authority, the one body which has spoken for the coal-owners of Great Britain, has been the Mining Association of Great Britain, and during the whole of that time there has never been a whisper in this House that that body did not represent the coal-owners of Great Britain. During the last thirty years the most comprehensive volume of mining and general industrial legislation has been passed which the world has ever known. There have been deputations from the association to Ministers by the score, and Ministers have accepted proposals put forward by this great association. Much of the coal-mining legislation has been the result of definite proposals and of the brain work of this association. Now, forsooth, we are told that this association only represents a section, and that the people who really are speaking for the coal-owners of Great Britain are the two or three malcontents in this House.
  Sir J. WALTON: They produce 100,000,000 tons per year.
  Mr. WALSH: You say so, but I reply that there is no more representative body of employers, and it is rather late in the day for hon. Members now to raise the point that, after all this long period, the Mining Association of Great Britain is not representative of the coal-owners.
  Sir CLIFFORD CORY: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? The fact that the Mining Association of Great Britain has spoken for the coal-owners in the past does not empower them to negotiate for the people.
  Mr. WALSH: I have been trying to point out the representative character of this association. Indeed, one of the complaints of the workmen's representatives is that it is altogether too powerful as an association, and that the very intimate knowledge and great powers of this vast body places the workmen at a very serious disadvantage. But we have never even hinted that they do not most comprehensively represent the great coal-owning interest of Great Britain. What is it we have to think about? There were two or three points submitted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood). He stated that there were three special points in the Bill to which he objected, and one was that new taxation was involved. But there is not a word about taxation in the Bill. The hon. Member also suggested that a new department was being set up. As a matter of fact, the department which is to work the Bill was set up away back in December, 1916, when it took over the coal-mines of South Wales, and in March this year when it took over the mines in the rest of the United Kingdom. The department, therefore, is already in existence, and has been working for a long time. There is one question on which we will all agree, and that is what is to the advantage of the nation, and where does it come in? In considering problems affecting this great industry we must put the national interest first, and after that the rest. Is it possible that in this great industry we can make arrangements with all the individual colliery owners in the kingdom? It was thought, and, indeed, it was known, that the men in the mines were becoming very restive. They complained that although they were working every day in the week in response to the appeals put forward by the Prime Minister of this country and by the late Home Secretary, but although they were doing their best in the mines other people were profiteering at their expense. That was the modicum of truth in the theory that it was necessary for the State to step in. Think for a few moments what would be the condition of things if the great coal-
  86
  mining industry were to be dislocated. I remember only too clearly, with feelings of sadness, what happened in 1912. The conditions, bad as they were then, were nothing at all to what they would be in comparison if the coal-mining industry were to become dislocated to-day. It was under these circumstances that the Controller was compelled, under the powers already granted to him, to take over the control of the mines, and, since then, greatly to the credit of that Department, there has been less trouble in that vast industry than in industries not one-hundredth part so powerful. The coal industry has worked with comparative smoothness, the men have been in a state of decent content, there has been less dissatisfaction, and there have been hardly any strikes. I do not think one-thousandth part of the men have been out on strike, because of the feeling of satisfaction that has been created by the setting up of this Department. But it was clear that satisfaction must extend to the coal-owners as well as to the men. How is satisfaction to be given to them except by treating the industry as a whole? It is. surprising that the hon. Member fir North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), should make so much of the poor colliery-owner, who, he says, is going to be squeezed out. Are the poor colliery-owners represented in this House?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I represent them.
  Mr. WALSH: I deny your credentials.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why?
  Mr. WALSH: I simply say I deny your credentials. I certainly do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) represents the poor colliery-owners, neither do I think the hon. Baronet who spoke for South Wales has been putting forward the grievances of those particular owners. They have been putting forward their own grievances because, like Oliver Twist, they want more than they have been able to obtain.
  Sir J. WALTON: They want everybody to be treated alike.
  Mr. WALSH: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he wanted the 6s. 6d. which his hon. Friend from South Wales has got. He gave the House to understand that if he could get the 6s. 6d. per ton which the hon. Baronet was receiving he would be in a very much more

  87
  amiable frame of mind. I would submit to both hon. Members that it is utterly impossible to get equality at this stage. You can hardly deal with this vast industry, which in times of peace it is of the utmost possible importance to maintain in continuous working order and which in time of war like the present it is vital to the life of the nation to continue, carry on this work continuously and unbroken—I say you can only deal with this vast industry as a whole. You can only deal with it on broad and comprehensive lines; you cannot consider these pettifogging small points, but you must deal with it as a whole on broad lines, and that is what this Bill proposes to do. In regard to the taxation that may come upon the country later on, surely there is no difference in principle between the setting up of the War Losses Commission under the presidency of Sir James Woodhouse and this Department. If, sooner or later, there is a loss, in either case the House will be called upon to make it good in exactly the same way. There will have to be a vote in this House and it will be subject to discussion. There can be no objection to that. We are in this Bill dealing with the industry as a whole and that is the only way in which we can maintain the unbroken and regular working of an occupation upon which almost everything depends. I do not think that more need be said on that point. How else could this industry be dealt with? The hon. Baronet said he wanted perfect freedom of contract. But this Bill does not interfere with freedom of contract any more than did the Coal (Minimum Prices) Act which was passed in 1915. The whole country was in a state of turmoil in that year because prices had soared so high that poor people were utterly unable to obtain coal.
  Mr. WING: It is the same now.
  Mr. WALSH: That may be so, but as the result of the passing of that Act any drastic increase in the selling price of coal has been prevented. I am chairman on the workman's side of a conciliation board for a Federated Area which controls more than one half of the total output, and I tell the House that from January, 1916, until now the selling price at the pit head has increased little more than 1s. per ton. It will therefore be seen that there has been a very drastic limitation, and very properly so, of coal prices.
  88
  The whole country has benefited. There has been no serious set-back to the profits in the mines, the working people have been contented, and everybody is satisfied, for profiteering in this respect has practically disappeared.
  Mr. WING: That is not my point. My interjection was that the people are not getting the coal now.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. WALSH: This Bill will not prevent them getting it and it is to be hoped that, sooner or later, there will be better machinery devised for the distribution of coal. I was speaking on the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley when he said that if he could have had freedom of trade and freedom of contract he could have made a profit. Really, it is altogether too late for Members of this House to begin to talk about perfect freedom of trade and perfect freedom of contract in the fourth year of the most horrible war the world has ever known. Those are small arguments on which to found opposition to this Bill. Hon. Members really must take into consideration the credentials of the association that has negotiated this agreement. They are not here to speak for themselves, but every person must know who has any knowledge of the social and industrial history of the last thirty years that this association represents more closely and with greater authority, I think, than any other body of employers in the country. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir S: Roberts) gave us on Thursday night a very full description of the reports coming from all parts of the country, and from nearly every district in the country. Great play was made by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark with the fact that one of the small districts, West Yorkshire, said that they did not understand the agreement, but were prepared to vote for it. They are prepared to back their representatives, and, of course, that is perfectly understandable. Does every Member of this House understand one-fifth part of the Clauses of a Bill that first comes into the House? That would be too, great a drain on the intellect even of Members of this House.
  Colonel F. HALL: Do you understand these Clauses?
  Mr. WALSH: No; but men who have made it their business all their lives to understand how their mining interests are

  89
  affected have formed themselves into a committee, and during months of negotiations and consultations with the Coal Controller himself, day by day and week by week, they went into these Clauses. These men, under such conditions, are presumed to understand what they are about. It is in these circumstances, not of a temporary or a fleeting hold of the Bill and looking at it, but of months of protracted consultation of the Consultative Committee, of men who are at the head of some of the largest firms in the kingdom, with the Coal Controller himself, that I think we can admit this has been thoroughly discussed, and that this House is incurring no danger in accepting the result of their mature deliberations. I think these points should be taken into consideration by the House, but I do ask them in particular to consider this one point. The safeguarding of the very life of the State falls on this industry. If the Bill is rejected we shall have in a very short time the same fear of profiteering that we thought we had safely laid. That may be right or it may be wrong, but it may have the most injurious effect on the minds of the people engaged in the mining industry, and if in consequence of any action of this House the industry is dislocated, and bad blood is infused once more, the nation in its highest interests is bound to suffer. It is because of that I ask the House to take this into most serious consideration, and not to adopt the suicidal policy of rejecting this Bill on its Second Reading.
  Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend who has just sat down always makes most successful appeals in this House, and I congratulate him on a most successful speech. If the House will just think of it for one moment, however, I think they will feel that the hon. Member covered a very small portion of the ground. For instance, he gave us a recital of the beneficent legislation on behalf of the country which this House has passed. True. He also made out this strong point, that during all this period the Mine-owner's Association has been representative of the colliery owners. That does not give the association a status which warrants it in entering into an agreement of this kind. The point made by the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Cory), and the point which I now desire to make, is that the agreement, as an agreement by the Mine-owners' Association, is ultra vires. They had no right to make such an agreement.
  90
  They are like all the other associations concerned in these matters. I feel indebted to my hon. Friend, who called attention to one or two of the broader aspects of the Bill, and I will ask the House to look at this question from a larger point of view. I have been associated with a few Members of this House who have been greatly struck at the great discontent arising in the country about these controls of vast industries, which are suddenly imposed by the Government; and an agitation of most gigantic proportions is spreading all over the country which must seriously interfere with the progress of the War at its most critical stage if the Government do not do something to assuage it.
  I was at a meeting the other day at the Cannon Street Hotel, and I think it was the most extraordinary meeting I have ever attended. It was not like one arranged by the Government, who had to spend about £3,000 in order to get a successul meeting. This meeting was called by the business men of the country. In a little gallery at the top of the building, usually reserved, I believe, for musicians, I suddenly saw a light turned up, and then it became crowded with people, while all the gangways were similarly crowded. The meeting was dealing with this question of the Government interfering with business men in the discharge of their duties at this critical time. An attempt has been made to discount this agitation, and to assert that the whole thing is a question of profiteering. That is a question which has been dealt with in this House. It was referred to a Committee for Report, and the Committee found no evidence in favour of profiteering at all. The phrase has never been defined and the complaint has never been proved. I was greatly struck in attending that meeting with the fact that I could discover no selfish interest and no selfish note at all in the speeches. made dealing with these great industries. There were timber, iron, tin, copper, tea, sugar, currants, dried fruits, and green fruits, with all of which the Government is interfering, represented. The speakers all complained of a common experience, that the effect of the Government control was to make a thing scarce to the verge of famine, and far dearer than it was before. The view of the business men—and I think it was a most patriotic view—was that in this emergency they, like everybody else, wanted to help the country, but were not allowed to do so, being swept aside and

  91
  clerks who only had experience in Whitehall being put into these most serious businesses. The Bill before us is an example, and the first this House has had to deal with, of this proceeding. I would ask the House to look at it from the broad, national point of view, because no attempt has been made to do that up to the present. This Bill is so peculiar and so cunning that it attracts people like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), who made a rather long speech earlier in the Debate, but I would like to deal with it from a broad point of view.
  What I complain of is that the Government have not given us any sufficient account of the origin of the Bill. They simply commence a recital of the fact that the Government had controlled the mines in 1916, and that now it is necessary to have a Bill. Why is it necessary? My hon. Friend who has just sat down made the point that since 1916 the control has been maintained. Why not let it go on? Why do we want this Bill ten months afterwards? The control was established—and I am here to admit that during a time of war I am not going to deny the necessity of control—but where the Government breaks down is that they do not define the limits of control, do not say what its aims should be or where it should stop. I think in the coal trade we have a sufficient Bill in the measure referred to by my hon. Friend, the Limitations of Coal Prices Bill, which was passed two years ago. Why is he not satisfied with that Bill? Then we had the Controller set up in 1916, and working, as my hon. Friend says, excellently ever since. Why, then, is it necessary to go on with this Bill and the peculiar aspects of it to which the House is giving so much attention? Where I think the Government are making a mistake, and where I think a great many of the people who are dealing with these business methods in Whitehall are making a mistake, is that they do not recognise the vast interests connected with each of these commodities. They do not realise the number of people who depend for their livelihood upon them, the place they occupy in the crisis through which the country is passing; and the Government deal in an offhanded and unsatisfactory manner with a matter of the greatest national importance.
  92
  Let us take this coal business for one. We have been told casually in Debate, without sufficient attention being given to the facts, that there are 1,500 great firms in the country carrying on the business. We know that 250,000,000 tons of coal are turned out every year, and we know that that vast industry has been built up and carried on in its present proportions by the enterprise of the individuals who are conducting it. Suddenly, we get an enterprising individual and give him a title—the "Coal Controller," of whom people had never heard before. He draws up his complicated, and I call it flagrant, agreement upon which criticism of every kind has been poured contemptuously ever since it was brought before the House. He sets himself up, and says, "I can sweep you aside, and deal with this vast national industry myself" It seems to me a terrible thing that this British House of Commons, with its old tradition of business men and trained statesmen, should submit to an argument like that without the most serious examination. I said that we ought to look at the business from the public point of view. What is the public interest in this matter? It resolves itself under only two heads. The first, that there should be plenty of coal, and the second that the prices should be moderate. The public does not want to back up this ingenious Controller in teasing and tormenting the mine-owners, and I see nothing in the agreement that will give us plenty of coal—on the contrary, the argument has been put that it will tend to limit the supply.
  Sir G. HEWART: Why?
  Mr. LOUGH: Because of the worrying nature of the agreement. The Solicitor-General treats that with contempt. That is the way lawyers do with all these business matters. They do not know how difficult it is in these days to carry on a large business, and when you get a Bill like this —I will answer him in a minute as to why it will put great difficulties in the way, although I think the reasons have been stated by every speaker up to the present —I am entitled to put it to the House that friction will be created instead of smooth working, and that that will interfere with the supply. Before I come to the Bill I have one other general remark. My objection to the Bill is I have a shrewd suspicion that it is a political fraud. At the Trade Union Congress, at which my hon. Friend who

  93
  has just sat down always attends regularly, a resolution is passed every year expressing a pious opinion in favour of the nationalisation of the great systems of supply in this country and of communication. My belief is that the Government wants to pretend that it is doing something in the direction of that resolution, and from that point of view the Bill is a fraud. The resolution asserts the right of the nation to take over these industries. I have no objection, on proper terms, and at the right time. I think that the State might very well, in its own interest, take over any industry it thought right; but is this the time, in the midst of a war of this kind? Have the terms ever been discussed? No. And from this point of view I think that the Bill, with all the friction to which it must lead, is a Bill to throw dust in the eyes of a section of the people, and to make them think that the Government is taking some step in favour of nationalisaion. The time has come when this House ought to demand more business treatment of serious subjects from the Government. My right hon. Friend asked why should this Bill cause friction?
  Sir G. HEWART: That is not the question which I asked. I understood it was said that this Bill was bound to discourage production, and I asked why, not in a spirit of contempt, but in a spirit of modest inquiry.
  Mr. LOUGH: My right. hon. Friend is always modest, and I will answer his question. What is the main principle of this Bill? It has not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the House. Clause 22 declares that no dividends shall be paid and no loans repaid in carrying on this industry without the consent of this precious Coal Controller. On what ground of equity should these gentlemen who have established these mines and provided the capital have to come cap in hand to the Controller to ask leave to pay a dividend? It is the most monstrous provision that I have ever seen embodied in any Bill. These mines are exceptional business concerns, if they have not borrowed money and undertaken to repay the money on a certain date. In comes the Coal Controller and he says, "I will make you a bankrupt. I will not let you repay your loan until it is my will and pleasure." My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) points out that if they are prevented from repaying these loans they will not be able
  94
  to borrow more money. Will not every lender say, "It is all very well to come to borrow this money, but you are no longer your own masters; you have got a Controller over you who may come in and take a technical objection and may hang up our money for six or twelve months"? I think that I have given a very good answer to my right hon. Friend.
  The Bill, which is so cunningly drawn, deals with two points. One of them is this payment of no dividends. This House is asked to give by Statute an employé of the Board of Trade the right to say to people who have invested their money in most successful businesses, "You shall not receive any dividend until we please."I want to put this on the ground of right. Why should not the people who own this property be allowed to pay the dividends which they have earned? My second objection to the Bill is, it treats one of the great industries unequally. The Bill is really not a Coal Control Bill. It is a Finance Bill. For a legitimate control the Government have all the power they want already. That is proved by the fact that they have organised distribution in London without this Bill. They can regulate prices under the Bill of 1915. My right hon. Friend (Sir A. Stanley) shakes his head. I have had to deal with him in his absence. In his opening speech he kept his remarks so restricted that he did not give any justification for the Bill, but the case was rather given away by the hon. Gentleman who spoke just before me, and who said, "Look at the advantages we have had under control during the last ten months."I say be satisfied with those advantages. Do not impose these severe, unique restrictions on one particular industry. The House ought to say, "If this is a Finance Bill, if it imposes a taxation on any section of the people, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bring it in, and it ought not to be hustled in here by the President of the Board of Trade in a hurry." It is founded on Section 28 of the Act of 1915. It is a development of that Act to add 15 per cent. to the Excess Profits Tax. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it singles out one industry over all the rest, and in putting on this heavy tax tends to discourage the industry. I would ask my right hon. Friend to deal with that particular point.The House and the country have no idea of what these Controllers are, doing. The business world is commencing to hear,

  95
  about it and they are beginning to make their views heard. Clause 17 of the Schedule says:
  "The owner of every undertaking shall keep and furnish to the Controller at such times and in such form as the Controller may determine such cost accounts, trading accounts, and balance sheets and other accounts as the Controller may require, audited and verified in such manner as he may direct, and if part only of the undertaking is under the control of the Controller, entirely separate accounts of the portion of the undertaking under such control shall be kept, and the price charged on Departmental transactions between the controlled portion of the undertaking and any other portion thereof shall be on a commercial basis, and such as may from time to time be approved by the Controller."
  A more intricate, horrible and impracticable Clause for the business man trying to work a commercial enterprise for the benefit of the people could not be imagined. The forms which we are all getting in the few controlled trades now are a daily terror to the business man. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), who supported the Bill in one of the most humorous speeches perhaps to which this House has listened for a long time, said that it was not very often he differed from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, and then he proceeded to denounce the Bill. He said that they were pressed very hardly and he gave a picture of the troubles of filling up the forms. I go into my room. I have a form on the sofa and another on the piano and another somewhere else, all to be filled up. That was the complaint of my hon. Friend. So that although he was put up to bless the Bill he rather cursed it. There was scarcely a fault which had been pointed out by other hon. Members that my hon. Friend did not refer to. In short, nobody is satisfied with the Bill. For instance, these Gentlemen who think that it tends in the direction of the nationalisation of industries have no reason to be satisfied. There is a newspaper which I always read, though I do not always agree with it, the "New Statesman, "which deals with labour questions, and it says that this is a preposterous measure and that Parliament should throw it out.
  A great deal has been made of the point that the Bill is an agreement. I am sorry
  96
  to say that these details of business are very uninteresting, but the House will have to look into them because so much has been done under them. What is the reason, we have not had this Bill for ten months? It is because the Controller has been feretting about in all parts of the country to try to get this agreement made. It has taken him ten months to get this precious agreement, and if the people who made it had any commonsense, he would not have succeeded. The Resolution, which is in the Bill, in which this agreement was dealt with by the Mining Association of Great Britain records the view that the terms of the agreement with the Controller of Coal Mines should be further modified. They are not further modified, and we find on all sides pressure as to the steps by which this agreement was secured. The hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) made a very eloquent speech on this point dealing with the question of the Coal Controller. He told us exactly what takes place in all the other trades. Whenever the Government want to get hold of a business they go down and get hold of one whom we call in business "a tame rat"— the term is not unknown in this House—with some name in the business and they say, "Look here, we are going to have an agreement entered into with you," and if there is any objection they say, "We are at war and therefore must agree to things we would not agree to in time of peace," and so the most impracticable proposals are worked through. My hon. Friend explained that a meeting of the Mining Association was held on the 21st of June, and the Chairman of the Association, who was expected to look after their interests, has been nobbled by the Coal Controller.
  Sir J. WALTON: I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives. (Sir C. Cory), though I very largely endorse what he said.
  Mr. LOUGH: That is splendid. Whenever I make a statement it generally occurs that I have twice the amount of support that I expected. It was the hon. Baronet who said it. Now we find that my hon. Friend agrees with him. We have not been carved up in the tea trade yet. We are going to be. The first step has been to single out a very popular member of the trade and to put him on as chairman of the Committee. He has now been nobbled, has been made director

  97
  of the tea supply, and can get hold of a whip to scourge us with. I do not know what may happen to these gentlemen who have been nobbled in the coal trade, but I suggest that a great interest like that deserves fair-play. I think the method by which this Bill has been introduced ought to secure its rejection. It is not a straight Bill. My right hon. Friend is a comparatively young member, and although he occupies such an exalted position as that of President of the Board of Trade he should learn to deal with a matter of this kind with more candour, and in a simpler way than is shown by this Bill. I notice that in the course of his speech he was asked whether his Department would have to account to the Treasury. The answer was, "No." Then the question was put, "To whom will it account?" and the reply was, "I will answer that question when the time arrives for dealing with it." That will be some distant date, perhaps, but I suggest my right hon. Friend should answer the questions which Members put to him. It is a very dodgy thing to have brought this Bill in without the money Resolution, and that is a point of Order which was taken here. I believe the best thing to do with the House of Commons, which represents the people, is to be perfectly open and candid with it, and do not try these dodgy ways of getting a Bill through. If the ordinary opportunity were given to the House with regard to the Bill, if the agreement were open and Amendments could be made, and the whole matter discussed, the House would agree that the Bill was totally unnecessary, that the necessary control could be obtained without the Bill, that this measure will help to strike a blow to a great national industry on which we all depend at the present time, and that to introduce it in the midst of a great war is a most disastrous policy to pursue.
  Colonel HALL: I do not happen to be connected with the coal trade, as are some hon. Gentlemen, but I am absolutely impressed by what is going on, and by the manner in which these matters are dealt with in the House of Commons, for it is, in fact, the taking away of the whole position and locus standi of the House of Commons itself. The Coal Controller, like many other Controllers that have been appointed, is apparently to be a dictator in regard to what shall be done or what shall not be done in connection with the great coal industry of this
  98
  country. In these discussions which take place the bugbear of the profiteer is always brought in. Who are the profiteers at the present time? They are the Government represented by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. We have had cases with regard to the shipping industry in which ships were chartered, say, at 7s. on the deadweight of tonnage and charged on the basis of £12 10s. per ton. Into whose pocket does that money go? Into the hands of the would-be profiteers, as is said of shipowners, or does it go into the pockets of the Government itself? I do not think the method of proceeding with this Bill will do, particularly when bringing it forward the point is made that it is for the purpose of stopping profiteering. So far as I have considered the Bill, I think it the most Socialistic measure ever brought into the House of Commons, and I want to enter my protest on the manner in which it is dealt with, for I feel convinced that what has been experienced in the shipping industry is now to be felt in the coal industry.
  I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has got in view any other Socialistic measure which he is likely to produce. If he has, I should like to say this to him, that the House of Commons has always been jealous of guarding its control in respect of Bills which are brought before it., During the time I have been a Member of this Assembly I have never heard any Bill which has been printed and distributed among Members that has been spoken of, irrespective of party or of industries in which hon. Members themselves may be interested, in such terms as have been applied to this Bill. The right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) said that an hon. Baronet who came to bless the Bill finished by, cursing it. There is not a single Clause in the agreement, which I have read, re-read, and re-read again, that anyone can understand. The hon. Gentleman representing the Government said, "We must accept these things exactly as they are; it does not signify what the measure is; it is brought into the House of Commons because we are in the middle of a great war, and we have got to accept it." That is what the business of, the House of Commons has come to. We have got to accept an undigested scheme, and I think that is among the most

  99
  extraordinary propositions ever put forward. There is one point to which I should particularly like to call the attention of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Gordon Hewart), who, I hope, will reply on the Debate will understand the case, and, with his knowledge and known courtesy, will perhaps be able to enlighten us on some of the questions that have been brought forward in the Debate. One thing I want to know—it has been referred to more than once, and I apoligise for mentioning it again, but I am desirous of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman about it—is it the intention in future Bills to confer power to tax the people through measures brought forward in this manner, because, according to the ordinary Rules and Regulations of this House, the question of each tax in the first place should come before the Committee of the Whole House. In that connection I will just refer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker in which he stated:
  "What does 'a charge upon the people' mean? A charge upon the people, as I read it, means a charge which is made in the nature of a tax, which is paid to the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and which is paid by them to the Consolidated Fund and is available for all purposes for which the State may require it—the Army, Navy, Civil Service and what not."
  The President of the Board of Trade has not been in the House long, but all those who know him or have known him will, I am sure, be aware of the fact that before he answers a question he is very particular about his position and about what his reply should be. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Wardle), who apparently has much more knowledge with regard to matters of finance than the President of the Board of Trade, took upon himself to answer the interruption by an hon. Member, "And the officials !" and he said, "That is a mere bagatelle; there is a surplus which we ask to be allowed to hand over to the House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, looking carefully to the interests of this House, asked, "To the House?" to which the hon. Gentleman replied, "The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean, to the National Exchequer." That is an acknowledgment that it is a new tax.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): The hon. Gentleman has entirely misquoted me. I said, "If there was a surplus."
  Colonel HALL: Yes; I read what the hon. Gentleman said, "That is merely a bagatelle; there is a surplus which we ask to hand over to the House." My right hon. Friend the Member for the City said, "To the House?" and the hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said, "The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean, to the National Exchequer." Then the hon. Member for Wolverhampton said, "Then you make it a tax," to which the hon. Gentleman replied, "Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that it is not a tax." I say it is a tax, if ever there was a tax imposed on any portion of the community in this country, and the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that it had to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer. On the ruling of Mr. Speaker himself, whose ruling, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman would not question, it is made perfectly plain that it is a new tax brought forward by this Government itself. I am averse to any special community of persons having any particuar form of taxation placed upon them. There was a sort of taunt made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire this afternoon, which I was rather surprised to hear emanating from him, and that was that the coal-owners must be satisfied with the profits they made. I remember the hon. Member for Wolverhampton said that as far as they were concerned they might take the whole 100 per cent. if they treated all the same, and did not single out special industries to be dealt with in a special manner. Has this House ever before been asked to sanction a Bill under which the whole of the expenses have to be borne by one special part of the community, which, as far as I can make out, is the position of the coal-owners here? If the Government want more money I think the people connected with business would be perfectly prepared to say that they would, if the Government desired, increase the 80 per cent. excess tax, but that the Government must be satisfied that such a proposition is economically sound. I hope that the Government will be careful in future not to single out any special trade and to have it specially mulcted in extra taxation. Let taxation be clearly divided over the whole of the community. I have never come across anyone since the outbreak of war prepared to say, "I am not paying my fair share of taxation," and that is the feeling throughout the whole of the country. Distribute the cost fairly and equitably, and

  101
  if you do that the Bills you bring here will not meet with the criticism directed against this Bill.
  I think it would be a great deal better for the Government to withdraw this Bill —first, because you are singling out a special community to tax; and, secondly, this is the first time any measure has been brought in by which taxation is imposed not through a Financial Resolution of the whole House. I am certain it is inadvisable that that method should be adopted. This House is very jealous of its rights in this matter, and, having regard to all the circumstances, I hope the Government will withdraw the Bill and take the usual steps by which measures relating to taxation are dealt with in this House. I would also ask them, in doing so, not to single out a special community, but deal with the matter more equitably. If the right hon. Gentleman does so, I am sure he will receive the same courtesy, and the same confidence will be reposed in him as has been the case with all other members of the Government since the outbreak of hostilities.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: At the beginning of this discussion the point was raised whether or not this Bill should have originated in Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. Speaker ruled that it was not necessary and referred in his speech to what took place in connection with the Munitions Levy which was raised in 1915. We always bow to the Speaker's ruling and to your own, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As you are aware, it was I who raised that point in 1915, and the decision which was then given I have always held, and humbly held, to be quite wrong. I did not believe, and I do not believe, that it was right, or ever intended, that there should be any taxation levied, or anything in the nature of a levy left in the hands of any Department but the Treasury. What happened? The history of Section 5 of the Munitions Act is very interesting. The very next year, 1916, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the head of the Treasury, was perfectly convinced that I was right and that there should be no levy through any other Department but the Treasury. What did he do? He merged the Munitions Levy in the 1916 Finance Act, and in the Finance Act of 1917 he repealed that particular Section. That is the history of the ruling on a tax charged by another Department other than the Treasury. There has been a good deal of fencing about this as
  102
  to whether it is a levy or a subscription or a tax. The original word, if I remember rightly, does not mention tax at all, but it is described as a Grant from the Sovereign. But whether you call it a levy, a contribution, a subscription, or a tax, if you compel a man to pay it, or compel him to allow it to be deducted, it is a tax, and not all the sophistry in the world can remove it from that position. We go a step further. When my hon. Friend spoke he tried a little bit of a device, but was pinned by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City, who asked, "Where is the money to go?" He replied, "To the Exchequer"; and when asked, "Where is the money to come from if there is a deficit?" said, "Why, from the Exchequer." Therefore, the only man who ought to have anything to do with the levy is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  It is a bad day for this House and a bad day for the country when you allow any Department or any Controller to impose anything in the way of imposition, contribution, levy or fine. There is only one Department in which that should be done, and that is the Exchequer. That is my point against this Bill. I am not a coal-owner and have nothing to do with coal, except to burn it when I can get it. I am only anxious to preserve the rights and duties of this House. There is no earthly reason why this Bill should be brought in now. Mr. Speaker ruled that we cannot correct any part of the agreement. That means that we have got to take the agreement on Second Reading and not correct a word of it in Committee. That is altogether wrong. Everyone knows, of course, that Parliament has over and over again passed Bills to enable a majority to coerce a minority. The company laws, the bankruptcy laws, and any number of other cases do that, but the condition precedent is that the conditions under which that pressure is to be put and coercion applied to the minority shall stand the test and be passed item by item in Committee of this House. If they fail to do that, then I call it an insult to bring in any Bill with that object. I am not interested in this matter in the very slightest, but let me refer to the plea put forward that this was war-time. Of course it is, but you do not require to do injustice because it is war-time and to flout this House and to bring measures before it which you do not allow the House to discuss, and say, "This is war-time; you must pass them." I really

  103
  cannot understand what it all means. You have got these men controlled. There is no earthly reason why you should not go on with that control, except that I think your control is proving to be a very expensive business to the country—there is no doubt about that. There is no reason why you should bring in this Bill, except to rid yourselves of a difficulty with regard to the compensation you are going to pay the coal-owners. Why not leave it alone and go on with the control, and, if you can, get the trade to agree, but, failing that, draw up your own terms, come to this House and ask that item by item should be passed, and I dare say they will be passed without very much difficulty? But to say to this House "Here is a Bill you cannot touch in Committee" is an insult to which I shall be no party, and I shall vote against it.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir G. HEWART: I regret very much that I was absent from the House during the discussion of this Bill on Thursday last, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain that I was absent only for the reason that I was at the time discharging another public duty 200 miles away from London. I was glad, however, of the opportunity of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of that Debate, and I have had the advantage, which is also the pleasure, of listening to the whole of the Debate to-day. May I say, with respect, that it seems a little important to observe the extremely limited character of the question which is really before the House? Judging from some of the speeches which have been delivered in the course of this Debate, both to-day and on the previous day, one might imagine that the House was engaged in an academic discussion of the advantages or disadvantages of State control. It is not even engaged in the far more limited discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the State control of coal mines during an unexampled War. All those decisions have been taken, and taken long ago. May I remind the House of a Regulation that was made so long ago as 29th November of last year under the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914? It is a Regulation mentioned in one of the recitals of the present Bill. It provides as follows:
  "Where the Board of Trade are of opinion that for securing the public safety and the Defence of the Realm, it
  104
  is expedient that this Regulation should be applied to any coal mines, the Board may by Order apply this Regulation, subject to any exceptions for which provision may be made in the Order, either generally to all coal mines or to coal mines in any special area, or in any special coalfields, or to any special coal mines."
  That is the first part of the Regulation, and the second part proceeds to point out the consequences which immediately follow if such an Order as that is made. The second part is this:
  "Any coal mines to which this Regulation is so applied shall, by virtue of the Order, pass into the possession of the Board of Trade as from the date of the Order, or from any later date mentioned in the Order; and the owner, agent, and manager of every such mine and every officer thereof, and where the owner of the mine is a company every director of the company, shall comply with the directions of the Board of Trade as to the management and user of the mine, and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of a summary offence against the Regulations."
  Mr. WATT: If that be so, why do you want this Bill?
  Sir G. HEWART: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to indulge me for a moment or two, I will endeavour to answer his question. That was the Regulation made under the Defence of the Realm Act. It was made so long ago as November of last year. How idle, then, it is upon this Bill to discuss the question whether or not it is desirable to have a Coal Controller, or whether it is desirable that, as matters now stand, there should be control of coal mines. What follows? In the beginning, for reasons of which every Member of this House is perfectly well aware, the Government took control of the coal-fields in South Wales. No doubt one of the main causes of that action was a difficulty in connection with labour. A few months afterwards, that Order having been made on 29th November last, namely, on 22nd February, 1917, a further Order was made which extended the original Order to all coal mines in Great Britain and Ireland. There was good reason for that Order. It was because experience showed two things. The first was that special difficulties arose where

  105
  the State was in control of certain coal mines, and private owners were working certain others; the second was that, in consequence of difficulties that had arisen about transport, it was apparent that the transport of coal within the four corners of the United Kingdom, making as it did, and does, demands so continuous and so heavy upon the railway system, was a matter which must be dealt with, and it was apparent to those who looked into the matter that one could not effectively control distribution of coal without also controlling the output. If you do not control the output, you cannot control the distribution, because it is impossible for you to provide that the shortest journeys shall be taken. That was the position.
  Accordingly by March of this year all the coal mines of the United Kingdom were under the control of the Board of Trade. Whatever may be said of the merits or the demerits of that system, it is, at any rate, a system which does not arise upon and is not in any sense whatever created by the Bill that is now before the House. When these steps had been taken there followed, as there was bound to follow, a further question. The mines were under the control of the Government. The managers and officers of the mines were under the direction of the Government. How were the coal-owners to be compensated? That was the problem which had to be faced. Their property had been taken. The Coal Controller was in possession. How were they to be compensated? In other words, how was payment to be made? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. Henderson) said, what was put a little more obscurely on Thursday last, that the proper course was to let things slide. "Why not?" he said, "leave the coal-owners alone to their remedy?" What does that mean? It means that by proceedings before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, or by proceedings in a Court of Law, each individual coal-owner should put his case forward in the way he thought fit, and obtain for himself a special individual remedy. I can imagine, at any rate, one class in the community that might have regarded that prospect with equanimity. I mean the lawyers. But could there be a plan more certain to produce delay, more certain to involve expense, or more certain to exhibit in the result a lack of uniformity? There was an alternative. The alternative method was to come to an agreement,
  106
  if you could, with the coal-owners. Of course, the merit of that method, if successfully pursued, would be that you would come to an agreement with the coal-owners as a unit. No doubt there were great difficulties in the way. The difficulties have been exaggerated. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), in one of the more rhetorical passages in his speech, calculated that the progress of the matter from the beginning of March to 20th July lasted ten months. I do not make it quite so long.
  In March, April, May, and June there were negotiations. There was correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Coal Controller on the one hand, and the Mining Association on the other. In regard to the Mining Association I am quite sure that I need not add one word to what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ince Division (Mr. Walsh) as to the representative character which that association enjoys. From time to time reference has been made to the Coal Controller, as to whom it is no part of my duty to utter any compliments; but I may say that the Coal Controller is not a solitary individual exercising his own judgment without communication with others. The Coal Controller, amongst other things, has the great advantage of the skilled and unceasing advice of an advisory committee which is thoroughly representative, not only of the miners, but of the mine-owners. It was after, it may be, four months of careful negotiation between; those two parties, as representing all the parties interested, the draft agreement passing from hand to hand and being modelled and remodelled, that at length, upon 20th July, this agreement, which is in the Schedule of this Bill, was agreed to and executed. What remains? There was a body—the phrase is not my own, and I say it as in no way conveying an imputation—there was a body as to the dimensions of which we may not all agree, called the dissentient coal-owners. What was requisite was that that agreement, to which the assent of the great majority had voluntarily been given, should be assented to by the minority. Failing assent that minority should be required to accept the provisions of this agreement. With deference, that is the whole question which is before the House in this Bill. Control having been taken, the mines having passed long ago into the possession and control of the

  107
  Government, the agreement having, after careful discussion, been made between the Government on the one hand and the body which in a unique way represented the coal-owners on the other hand, the question is, whether by force of law, that agreement shall also be accepted by the dissentient coal-owners. Whatever may be one's view upon that question it is, as I have said, a strictly limited question, and it is a question which does not give rise to the many far-reaching topics which have been, at any rate, indicated in the course of this Debate.
  May I say without complaint—because it is far from my desire or disposition to complain—that the critics of this Bill are really a little hard to please. On the one hand, it is said, "Did one ever see such a preamble to a Bill? Why, the recital sets out the whole long antecedent history of this matter." That is perfectly true. The Board of Trade, having to make the draft of this Bill, set out in detail, step by step, with dates and references the antecedent history. My hon. and learned Friend says the Government is not clear. He does not complain of history. He complains of mystery.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: Hear, hear!
  Sir G. HEWART: So far from complaining, as the first critic does, that we have set out the antecedents, he says we have diligently refused to disclose them. The right hon. Gentleman said in one part of his speech that even he failed to understand the provisions of the Bill. I was very glad. though not in the least surprised, to find when he came to what he described as a most difficult Clause, that is Clause 3, that he exhibited a remarkable understanding of it, and was prepared, apparently, in a sentence to give the gist of it. The critics cannot have it both ways. What this Bill has sought to do is, in truth and in fact, to explain the antecedent steps which led to the drafting of the Bill. Now I come to one or two of the specific provisions of the Bill and some of the criticisms which have been passed and some of the questions which have been put about it. May I say at once, with reference to the observation of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) this afternoon, he thought it right—and, of course, he is the best judge—to say that this Bill was nothing less than a political fraud. He
  108
  permitted himself to say that this Bill was introduced for no other reason than that the Government desired falsely to create the impression that it was engaged upon the nationalisation of mines and minerals. If the right hon. Member can venture to say—and, therefore, I suppose, to believe —a thing like that it is a little difficult to address any expostulation to him. Does he not observe that this Bill is necessarily of a temporary kind? The whole power which lies behind this Bill is power derived from the Defence of the Realm Regulation which I have read. The potency of that Regulation is limited by the Defence of the Realm Act. That which is done must be for the safety and Defence of the Realm. Is it not perfectly obvious that the provisions of this Bill are limited, and strictly limited, by the period of the War and such additional period as may be strictly necessary for the purpose mentioned in the Act of 1914?
  Sir C. CORY: There is no date for determining in the Bill.
  Sir G. HEWART: No, Sir; there is not. But that is because hon. Members who read this Bill and who see the Defence of the Realm Regulation mentioned, are supposed to be aware that the potency of that Regulation is limited by the Defence of the Realm Act. I gather from what is said by the hon. Baronet that if there had been a determining date in the Bill that part of his objection would be removed. Then, trust, the observations I am now endeavouring to make, if they are acceptable, will have the effect of meeting the hon. Member on that point.
  Sir C. CORY: In the other Bill the date was put in, namely, six months after the War.
  Sir G. HEWART: I pass from that to say a word about the scheme of this agreement. Once the Government had directed itself to the task of dealing with the compensation of mine-owners by way of agreement, it became necessary to decide the basis upon which that agreement should proceed. And it was not merely the view of the Board of Trade; it was not merely the view of the Coal Controller and his Advisory Committee, that the coal trade in this matter should support itself; it was also the view—to its credit be it said—of the coal trade. It was never thought that the mine-owners, whose coal was not got, or was not got in

  109
  such quantities as might otherwise be expected, should be compensated at the hands of the general body of the public. It was never suggested that a coal-owner could have his coal in his mine and also have the profits paid to him out of the public purse. No such suggestion was ever put forward. But, on the other hand, when it was realised that the national control of output and of distribution involved that certain mines should be worked more, and that certain mines should be worked less than would otherwise be the case, there was bound to be some pecuniary adjustment, some balance, some give and take, and it was agreed that that adjustment, that balance, should be provided within the four corners of the trade itself. That, I submit, was a right and reasonable plan, and it is precisely because that is the plan upon which all parties agreed that this agreement became necessary, and is drawn in the form in which it is.
  Now, with regard to the particular form and phrase of this agreement, I certainly am not going to criticise it. It has passed from hand to hand. It has undergone many revisions, and I am not suggesting that, as it stands, it is a perfect or ideal example of the draftsman's art. But neither is there any reason why it should be. It is well understood by those on both sides whose interests it affects, and in my submission it is well contrived for the end which it has in view. It was said by one of the critics, I think on Thursday, that its title is confusing. I should have thought it was exact. It is a Bill
  "to confirm and give effect to a certain Agreement relating to the compensation to be paid in respect of the Control of Coal Mines and other Matters arising out of such Control."
  That is exactly what the Bill does. The next complaint was that there were certain penalties imposed by the Bill, and that those penalties were retrospective. I cannot help thinking that that criticism also arises from a complete misapprehension. It is quite true that the agreement has been in force since 20th July. The penalty does not come into operation until the Bill is passed, and there is nothing in the Bill to make the penalty it imposes retrospective for the period which will have intervened between the time of the making of the agreement and the time of the passing of the Act. Then, it is said, that it is a great grievance that it is not in the power of this House to amend the
  110
  agreement, and with the impotence of this House in that respect there is contrasted the power of the Coal Controller. It is said that he can amend this agreement, but that the House of Commons cannot. I would ask, in all seriousness, what possible basis is there for that criticism? This agreement has already been made. It was made upon 20th July of this year. This House was not asked to make this agreement. The agreement had already been made. How could this House amend this agreement—a process which involves the presence and the consideration of all the parties concerned? The agreement has been made. The House is invited to ratify it, but it may be there are some minor points which require adjustment.
  I say advisedly "minor points," because Clause 2 was inserted not because there would have to be any alteration of the real fabric of the agreement. What was felt was that there might be some minor point which had not been foreseen, and which might hereafter require revision. What, then, does Clause 2 do? Certainly not what is suggested—that the Coal Controller can make a new agreement. The Coal Controller cannot make a new agreement. It takes two to make an agreement, as it takes two to make a quarrel. What it says is this: "If the Controller of Coal Mines determines the said agreement, the agreement shall have effect," and so on, "and if a new agreement in substitution thereof is made such new agreement shall," etc. But if that new agreement were made, the persons who would make it would be the parties to the old agreement. There is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that the Coal Controller, of his own initiative, and of his own power, could make a new agreement. The Coal Controller, plus the other party to the agreement, may amend the agreement. This House is not invited to amend the agreement, because the agreement has already been made, and an effective alteration of that agreement must come from the parties who have made it.
  Brigadier-General HICKMAN: After what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just told us, are we to presume that there will be no objection en the part of the Board of Trade to our putting down Amendments which will make it quite clear that the penalty shall not be retrospective, and that the Controller shall not make a fresh agreement?
  Sir G. HEWART: I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if Amendments are put on the Paper for the purpose of providing that the penalties shall not be retrospective, and for the purpose of providing that the Coal Controller, by himself, cannot make a new agreement, they will receive our most careful consideration. I would only point out that if the view of this matter which I have been submitting to the House is correct, they would be superfluous. May I pass to another point? It was said—and it has been repeated to-day—that there is no provision in the agreement that the moneys which under Clause 3 of the agreement are paid by the mine-owners to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under the name of coal mines excess payments, shall be under the control of the Coal Controller. To say that is to ignore a large part—and a most important part—of Clause 21 of the agreement. May I be forgiven if I read it to the House? "If the total net amount paid as coal mines excess payments under Clause 3 during the whole period of control is certified by the Controller on the termination of control to exceed the total amount paid by him under Clause 4, together with his administrative expenses, the surplus shall be applied by him in" such-and-such a way. Could, words more clearly show that the coal mines excess payments, which are paid to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Clause 3, are to be a fund from which the Coal Controller may draw, and will draw, in order to pay, if there be need to pay, moneys under the guarantee mentioned in Clause 4? Then it is said, to whom are the Commissioners to account? I suggest that if one reads Clauses 3, 4, and 21, it is plain that the Commissioners are to account to the Coal Controller; that is only another way of saying that the Commissioners are to account to the Board of Trade, by whom the Coal Controller is appointed. It is further said, "Suppose this 15 per cent, which is taken from the 20 per cent. that remains after the 80 per cent. Excess Profits Duty has been subtracted, is not sufficient in the hands of the Controller to discharge his guarantee under Clause 4? From what other source is that deficiency to be met, and who is to be responsible for the balance?" It is not to be supposed that this agreement, which is the result of so much care and negotiation, has been made without the most careful consideration of
  112
  the working of one part in relation to another. Clearly the agreement anticipates, does it not, that it will be self-contained, and that within its own four corners there will be provision made in every way for the expenses to be incurred. It is thought that 15 per cent. of the extra profits which are taken under Clause 3 from those concerned with the more prosperous workings will be sufficient for the guarantee given under Clause 4 to the concerns which are less successful.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No estimates have been given.
  Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend says that no estimates have been given. Does he imagine that this agreement has been made without consultation with chartered accountants of the greatest skill? Of course not. The agreement is the result of the most careful calculation.
  Mr. BILLING: If this assumption is incorrect, where will the money come from?
  Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend asks me, if my assumption is incorrect where will the money come from? Will he allow me to say it is not my assumption; it is the assumption of the agreement agreed upon on the one side and the other. What I am putting is that the agreement contemplates that the fund will be sufficient. If it is not, no doubt the question will arise, but the question does not arise until the fund has proved insufficient, and I will not take it upon myself to anticipate what course will be adopted if and when that should occur. In like manner I am not called upon to say what will happen if the contrary should be the case, and if instead of there being an insufficiency there proved to be a surplus. Some provision with regard to the surplus is made in Clause 21, but if surplus there be I do not imagine it will pass the wit of those concerned or of this House to find a suitable and proper channel for that surplus.
  Mr. BILLING: Will it be dealt with in the manner described by the Under-Secretary for the Board of Trade?
  Sir G. HEWART: I must respectfully decline to be drawn into making any premature predictions. One more word about Clause 21. My hon. and learned Friend has conjured up a picture of the prosperous coal-owners making a levy upon themselves in order to provide funds for those competitors whose mines have to be

  113
  closed. It may be surprising to him to know but I can assure him that it is the fact, as I am told, that this Clause in its present form was approved by all parties to this agreement.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am not surprised at that.
  Sir G. HEWART: There is a sufficient output amongst the prosperous coal-owners to make levy of this kind to provide the fund for the less prosperous. There it is, and it is a happy feature of this agreement.
  Mr. ROCH: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied himself that Clause 21 is sufficient authority to authorise the Inland Revenue to pay over this Excess Profits Duty to the Coal Controller?
  Sir G. HEWART: That is a question to which I have not had my attention specially directed, and I hesitate to express an extempore opinion upon it. However, I see no reason, after carefully considering this agreement, to the contrary. The final criticism was that this agreement ends with a suggestion that it should be altered. I must ask whether that criticism is well founded. No doubt the end of this agreement is a little odd, but it is no worse for that reason; it does not follow the usual form, but in the circumstances which have arisen this particular ending is intended to show that after deliberation the agreement was in fact accepted by the Mining Association, and the way in which it is done is that the resolution of the 21st of June, 1917, asking and suggesting that further modification might be made is set out. But that resolution goes on to provide that the meeting leaves to the consultative committee 'full power to make a definite settlement on the best possible terms, and then there follows another statement which says that subsequently between the 21st of June and the 20th July a definite settlement in the terms of the foregoing agreement was arrived at between the Controller of coal mines and the Consultative Committee. How can it be said in these circumstances that the end is a suggestion that the terms should be altered and modified?
  Sir C. CORY: The Mining Association of Great Britain is made up of a federation of associations and they appointed in the first place a committee. Subsequently a meeting was called of the chairmen and heads of firms, and
  114
  consequently the agreement was not ratified by the local associations or the Mining Association, but by those chairmen and heads of firms, there being a certain number dissenting. I cannot see how the Mining Association can be said to have any authority to pass this resolution.
  Sir G. HEWART: I am much obliged to the hon. Baronet, but what he has said now is repeating what he has already said, and I pass from that part of the matter with the observation that I am no longer concerned to dwell upon the representative character of the Mining Association. I think it was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) that the effect of this Bill and the agreement contained in it must be to diminish the production of coal, and to affect adversely every consumer of coal. I am quite sure he will be gratified to know that its effects have been quite the contrary. This agreement was made as is shown upon its face on the 20th July this year. There has been since that time a steady increase of output, and so far as all the evidence which is available to the President of the Board of Trade is concerned it goes to show that under this agreement there will be a great increase in the output of coal. It is said that the output will be diminished, and that production will be discouraged by the provisions which this Bill contains as to payment of dividends and loans. Whatever fault there may be there is very little in that criticism, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be gratified to know that up to this time, at any rate, no such consequence has arisen.
  Mr. LOUGH: Have they been deferred?
  Sir G. HEWART: I am not prepared to assert that, but anybody who looks at the agreement under Clause 22 will see that no dividends are to be paid and no loans are to be repaid without the consent of the Controller. The suggestion has been made that the Controller might be an unreasonable person whose consent would be unreasonably withheld. If experience proves that consent is unreasonably withheld a mode of dealing with it in the agreement has been provided. I refrain from pursuing further points because the Committee stage would be more appropriate for their consideration. One witnesses in this House as against this Bill a curious combination. There are mine owners who are asking for more—
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to say that I never asked for more, but I did ask that certain things should be made clear in the Bill.
  Sir G. HEWART: If that is so, my observation does not apply to the hon. Baronet.
  Sir J. WALTON: And it does not apply to me. My objection was that you should treat everybody alike.
  Sir G. HEWART: There are mine-owners and land reformers, and those who for some reason are greatly interested in minute and doubtful points of constitutional law. This is an agreement made in an exceptional emergency to dispose of an unexampled problem, and it is a really honest and fair attempt to deal with it. I repeat the observation of my right hon. Friend when he moved the Second Reading. I do not pretend to assert that the agreement is specially favourable to the mine-owners, nor do I see any reason why it should be specially favourable to them. The point is that in the unprecedented circumstances of the time it is an honest endeavour to deal with a real difficulty. Many of the objections that have been. raised are really fanciful, and I trust this House will, with one accord, give to this Bill a Second Reading.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just recommended this Bill to the House has, I fear, missed the importance of the constitutional points which have been raised by hon. Members of this House during the last eight or ten days. The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to our interest in the financial procedure of this House as being matters of minute and doubtful constitutional questions, but I think he misapprehends altogether the basis from which we draw our conclusions, and the duty which is laid on us as the financial chamber in our constitution to watch with great care and to give sanction only after the closest examination to any financial proposals which may be brought before Parliament. I am in agreement with some of the things that the Solicitor-General has said, but I must at once join issue with him as to the method which has been adopted for validating this agreement. In the first place, we are under a debt of gratitude to you for the ruling that you have given, but we are also placed in considerable difficulty by it. We had always understood—I now speak purely as a layman—that no charge in the lay sense, and not in the strictly legal sense, could be laid
  116
  upon the people without the whole of our financial procedure being adopted. No Bill doing this could be introduced without a Resolution taken in Committee of Ways and Means and Reported to the whole House. Until all that stage has been passed never in previous Sessions of Parliament have we been asked to adopt proposals as large and far-reaching as these. Of course, no one would think of questioning your ruling, but I submit that by adopting this method of legalising the terms of the agreement the Government have avoided two stages which at least were customary, if not obligatory, and they have pro tanto reduced the control of this House over great financial transactions in which the State is concerned.
  In the first place, if I am not complaining of what the Solicitor-General called a minute point, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the information which the House has been given on the financial operations which this Bill covers has not always been uniform, even from Ministers. In the absence of the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary informed me, when I put a question to him last Wednesday, that under no circumstances could a charge fall upon the Exchequer. The following day the President of the Board of Trade informed the House, and he was confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that conditions were conceivable under which a charge might fall upon the Exchequer. It was not said that there was anything in this Bill to legalise that. All that was said by the President of the Board of Trade was that when the time came for that charge, if any, to be borne by the Exchequer, then would be the occasion to ask Parliament to sanction it. I should like to make the complaint that at that time Parliament will have been committed, the payments will have been made by the Coal Controller, it will be impossible to withdraw them from those who may have received them, and really the power of Parliament to deal with this charge will have been taken away, and we shall be asked to give sanction to monetary transactions which may have taken place months and months before, the money having changed hands, and some of the companies receiving it having been wound up. Under these circumstances, we are entitled to complain that the control of Parliament over these

  117
  transactions has, I will not say been evaded, but dealt with in a manner not customary in our financial legislation. I take it that the President of the Board of Trade was thoroughly well informed on the operations of this agreement, and his statement being the last that has been made I think we may take it that it is the basis, or one of the conditions, of the operation of this scheme. I would ask the Government, when they come to the Committee stage, to take the necessary steps before the Bill passes out of Committee to legalise in the Bill itself, as we cannot deal with the agreement, the whole of the transactions which are in contemplation and all the liabilities which the State may have to incur.
  There are a number of small constitutional and financial points on which I do not wish to detain the House, as, for instance, the position and responsibility of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General before the Second Reading ought to have considered the position of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It is not sufficient to come down and tell us that the point has not been considered by him. The powers and duties of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are governed by a long series of Statutes, one of the most distinguished of which is the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866. Under that Act the Commissioners are bound to account from day to day, not from year to year, to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is an official of this House, and, as the Commissioners are bound to account from day to day for the gross revenue which they receive, so I would submit they should account for the funds which are to be put into their hands under this Bill. It is of great importance that transactions of this kind outside the ordinary range of our financial control should be legalised in whatever Statute is to give them authority. I am afraid that I can say little or nothing as to the terms of the control. They have been agreed to by the only body which has any authority to speak for the coal-owners in this country. Let it, however, be clearly understood that the contention is held by some members of the Mining Association that the Mining Association is acting ultra vires in committing its members. That may or may not be true. It is also asserted that there is a large number of coal-owners and colliery companies who are not members of or affiliated
  118
  to the Mining Association. From my own experience of dealing with mining matters when I had the honour of presiding over the Board of Trade, I know that there were coal-owners who were not even members of the Mining Association. This agreement, as it stood, and as it was signed by the President of the Mining Association and by the Secretary of the Consultative Committee, could not and did not bind them. To that extent the criticism which has been offered on the title of the Bill is justified.
  This is a Bill not only to confirm an agreement only: it is a Bill to apply an agreement to a large number of persons, companies, and concerns which were not parties to it, and in so far as that is the case it differs from the Railway Bills to which we are accustomed in this House, where the agreement entered into between railway companies and persons and local authorities is put into the Schedule and cannot be dealt with, but which does, in fact, bind all the separate members of these concerns. It is not the case in regard to this agreement. I will put this point to the Leader of the House. Has the Government considered what is likely to be the effect on those colliery proprietors, whether companies or individuals, who are not members of any of the constituent associations and are in no way connected with the Mining Association? There is nothing in the Bill, as it now stands and as I read it, to make it applicable to those who are not members of the Mining Association. Unless the advice which I have received is wrong, and unless words are inserted to say that this agreement may be deemed to apply not only to those who have signed it, but to all coal-owners in the country, it may be held in the Courts that it only applies to those colliery companies or proprietors who are affiliated to the Mining Association. If that is not the case, then I would suggest that it certainly should be cleared up in Committee, because as the Bill stands at present there is doubt. I understood from the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade that it was the intention of the Government not only to confirm the agreement, but to apply it to all coal-owners irrespective of their membership of the Mining Association.
  There are two financial sides of this transaction to which I should like to make reference. The first is the limitation in the repayment of loans. The control exercised over the payment of dividends

  119
  or the withholding of dividends under the control of the Coal Controller has led to considerable inconvenience in many quarters and to hardship in many cases, but what is important to us here is that by controlling the repayment of loans the Government are absolutely placing the banks who have lent to colliery companies in great difficulty. Can it be possible that the Government really intended this agreement, in so far as it covers the repayment of loans, to apply to all banks and finance companies when I venture to say they knew nothing whatever about it until it was printed and circulated ten days ago? Would it not have been as well that they should have consulted those who are involved in financing these great colliery concerns? As I read the agreement, repayment appears to be subject to the control of Sir Guy Calthorp, subject it may be to appeal. The terms under which the loans may be repaid and the times at which they may be repaid pass away from the parties to the agreement, the borrower and the lender, and for the first time in the whole history of banks comes under the control of an official who is not a member of the Treasury or a member of this House. That is a step which ought to have been taken with great caution and not without consulting the financial authorities.
  The guarantee, such as it is, is for the benefit of the non-prosperous coal-owners, who have been rendered non-prosperous by the action of the Controller. The colliery proprietors, however, are not the only persons who are concerned. When I heard my hon Friend (Mr. S. Walsh) this afternoon make a very forcible speech in his usual convincing manner from that Table, he made no reference to the position of the miners. Some collieries now are working only two days, not by reason of any fault of those who control the collieries or of the miners who work them, but simply owing to the operation of the scheme of distribution and shortage of wagons. There are some districts which have distinctly suffered, although they might have sold their output and the miners might have worked in the pits and have earned their normal wages during this period of pressure. These miners get no guarantee. I do not know whether my hon. Friend had thought of that point or had discussed it in private, but I would venture to suggest that it is a curious step to give, the non-prosperous coal-owners a,
  120
  guarantee of their profits and at the same time leave these miners, who are working two days a week and in many cases suffering the pangs of poverty, entirely unprovided for. There is a precedent for dealing with cases of this kind, and it is to be found in the way in which the men engaged in the cotton trade were aided during a time of great shortage. Is it not possible for the Government now to provide not only for the non-prosperous concerns receiving their guarantee, but also for the miners who are suffering because of the control to be covered? Unemployment funds are being drawn upon and even private subscriptions are having to be obtained in one or two isolated cases. These cases of hardship ought not to occur if at the very time that they do occur you are relieving the colliery proprietors of the burdens which fall upon them. I know that is not a criticism against the Bill, but it is a matter that ought to have been under the consideration of the Government, for they are just as much charged to look after the interests of miners as of coal-owners. I hope that my right hon. Friend at some stage or other will be able to satisfy the House that the point will be met.
  The criticisms that I have offered to the Bill, such as they are, deal mainly with the financial control of this House, and I do press once more upon the Government not to adopt this as a precedent for legislation in the future, because, as was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends on Thursday night, if they do, it will be open to the Government to deal with almost every industry in the same way—to take money from every industry and parcel it out amongst those whom they see fit in much the same way and to do it with the minimum of Parliamentary control. I am sure that cannot be the intention of a Government which has shown throughout great respect to the House of Commons, but I am equally certain that, if it were repeated, there would be rebellion in the House against that procedure, not on the merits of the proposal, but on the method by which the proposal was put forward. Control has come, and control throughout the War will have to stay. I differ from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board in believing that control is responsible for the absence of labour troubles in many of the coalfields. From my experience of the Board of Trade I can say without the least hesitation that whether in the federated area, in the

  121
  north-east coast, or in Scotland, or in some smaller coalfields, there was no sign of labour trouble to give us any grave anxiety. Every dispute on wages was settled by arbitrators. The decisions were accepted. If there were negotiations, there was no conflict, and the only area where there was anything in the nature of evil or trouble was in South Wales. It was because of that trouble that I was responsible, at the end of November, for exercising control over the South Wales coalfields. I differ from my hon. Friend purely on that point, that control has not been responsible for peace in the different coalfields.
  Mr. WALSH: Since the right hon. Gentleman left the Board of Trade there have been serious troubles in Durham and in Scotland; indeed, there was trouble in Northumberland, which would have been aggravated if it had not been for the action of the Coal Controller.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not sure that the Coal Controller has acted in the matter of labour troubles in any way different from the course I should have adopted, and it is idle to prophesy.
  Mr. WALSH: I was only comparing.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend is not justified in saying that control means no labour trouble, and that the absence of control does. In South Wales there have been grave disputes and stoppages, one affecting the whole coalfield, even during the period of control. It may be necessary that we should have control to avoid labour troubles. I believe that in South Wales—it was the only way to avoid them —but it is not an omnipotent means of getting rid of trouble in the coal district. My hon. Friend, who has had large experience of arranging these things with his own men, will know that control is not likely to get rid of all the friction with labour. The real reason for this Bill is not to be found in labour control. Control could be and was in operation under the Defence of the Realm Act. The real reason for this Bill is the difficulty of railway transport. There is no other justification or necessity for it The difficulties of railway transport are really very great. For my part I am not prepared to say that control should now be negatived when I know how grave are the troubles of those who are regulating our railways. With the shortage of wagons and the much more serious shortage of locomotives, difficulties
  122
  on the lines are likely to increase rather than diminish. If control is likely to ease the difficulties in the various districts, control we must have, and it must continue.
  I am prepared to support the President of the Board of Trade in such measures as he thinks necessary in order to carry out the proper administration of the railway lines and the coal mines. That does not mean that I support all the provisions of this Bill. When we come to the Committee stage it will be necessary to object to Clause 2, because we cannot agree to go so far as to say we will now give Parliamentary sanction to an agreement which we have never seen, which may never come into force, and which has been described, in colloquial language, as a pig in a poke, and the only safeguard left to us to modify its conditions is that the agreement is to be laid on the Table. That sort of legislation will not be palatable to the House. The Leader of the House must not be surprised if, when we come to the Committee stage, we have a number of Amendments to suggest, and, in particular, that we shall have to ask the Government to drop Clause 2 altogether. I hope I have said nothing which will add to the difficulties of the President of the Board of Trade, whose task, I know, has become increasingly difficult. What I suggest is that his legal advisers have led him in this matter into a line of action which is not consonant with the best traditions of this House. I hope the experiment made and the precedent now set up will not be followed in any future legislation of the Government.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I was quite ready to leave the case for the Second Reading as it was put by my right bon. Friends, but since the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) has appealed to me, with the permission of the House I will say a few words only on the speech to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman says that coal control will not of necessity prevent labour troubles. With that we are all agreed. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) never made any such claim. What he did claim—and I should have thought the experience of the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Trade would have justified it—was that there is less likelihood of trouble when the miners know that there is State control and that in dealing with

  123
  them they are being dealt with from the point of view not of the interests of the employers, but in the interests of the State as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, when I recall it to him, that at the very time when he found it necessary to make that change in regard to South Wales it was freely discussed among his colleagues as to whether it ought not at that very time to be extended to the rest of the Kingdom, and we knew there was a general feeling that sooner or later it would have to be extended all round. I really have no complaint to make of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am inclined to think that, in a time like this, when we are dealing, as the Solicitor-General has said, with a problem of unexampled difficulty in every direction, at all events it is not too much to ask the House of Commons to extend a little more indulgence as to the method in which these things are done than would be extended in normal times.
  Apart from that, I listened to the discussion on the points of Order, and I still am not convinced that the advice which was given to us that a Financial Resolution was not necessary was not correct. I will tell the House precisely why I make that statement. When the point of Order was raised again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), you, Sir, laid down the principle that if the charge on the State was so remote as to seen entirely unlikely, then a Financial Resolution was not necessary. I can assure the House, not from the point of view of the method in which the Bill was being introduced but from the point of view of the essence of the Bill, that that is the information which was given to us. Not only as a member of the Cabinet but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when my right hon. Friend brought these proposals to us, I made it perfectly plain to him that whatever the arrangement was to be, it must be an arrangement which would not mean a demand on the Exchequer in order to carry it out. He assured me that the arrangement was of that character. That being so, the conditions which you, Sir, laid down, are the exact conditions of this Bill. I can, however, assure the House that it was with no desire to save time or to take any short cuts in this matter that we adopted this course. We did it on the usual advice which is given to every Government in cases of this kind. I am ready to say to the House now that, if on further
  124
  consideration—and we will give it further consideration—we have any reason to believe that a Financial Resolution is proper in the circumstances, the Government will not hesitate for a moment to ask the House of Commons in Committee to pass such a Financial Resolution. We have a perfectly open mind with regard to that.
  The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) made another statement which surprised me. It is quite true that this agreement was made with the members of the Federation, and that it is made to apply to every coal-owner whether or not he belongs to the Federation. The right hon. Gentleman says it is doubtful whether it does so apply. I should not have thought there is any doubt. At any rate, our advisers told us there was none. Clearly, when we come to the Committee stage, it will be our duty to see that what was the intention of the Government is carried out, and that there is no doubt whatever that the powers we are now asking for apply to every mine-owner in the Kingdom. The objection in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was almost entirely as to form. I ask the House to consider this Bill on the merits of what we are doing. I have heard a good deal about treating everybody with equality. I do not complain if coal-owners or any other interest think that they are not being treated in the same way as other people. That equality of treatment is what we should all like to see, but there is no man in this House who does not know that it is absolutely impossible, at a time like this, to secure equality of treatment all round. Take, for instance, a much more serious thing, in my judgment, than any tolls of profits—that is, a toll of the lives of men. It is quite obvious that if Conscription applies all round, the hardship in each case is entirely different. It is ten times more in one case than in another. All that the State can do is, so far as it possibly can, to make the conditions equal. The first consideration for any Government carrying on such a War as that in which we are engaged is to see that whatever is necessary for the conduct of the War is given Ito the State, and that must be our guide in these matters.
  Apart from the example of the lives of men, every Member of the House is aware that every week more and more particular trades are being injured to a far greater extent than other trades. In some cases they are being absolutely destroyed by the Regulations we have found

  125
  it necessary to make. We cannot help that. The need of the State is the first call. No one can make a criticism of that kind against the Government unless they can show us a better method by which we can do what is being done. Look at this question. The President of the Board of Trade, in his opening speech, made it quite plain, as it seemed to me, that this control was absolutely necessary. The reason was obvious. The need of the railway communications, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, of necessity required that the coal mines which could be easily served by the railways should be used, and there should not be long transits, even if one colliery could turn out the coal more cheaply than another. That was essential. When my right hon. Friend came to me and the Cabinet one or two things were obvious. We could not do this in any case without making some provision for the mines which we were closing down to meet the convenience of the State. That had to be done. You had to make that provision. It must be made in one of two ways. It must be made either by way of a levy on the trade —treating the trade as a whole and as fairly as we could—or by way of a levy on the State. I put it to the House of Commons, Could any Government have come down to this House and suggested that we should make an allowance to a trade like the coal trade, which, on the whole, has profited by the War, when so many others have suffered, in order to carry out the arrangements we thought necessary? It could not be done. I venture to say that although, of course, this inflicts hardship upon particular coal-owners—as undoubtedly it does—all of them get at least their pre-war profits. When you take into account the number of business men all over the country who are not in that condition, I do not think it is an unfair arrangement to which the Government asks the House to agree. I hope the House of Commons will allow this to go through. This is becoming a very grave business. I do not think the country outside has much, or any, sympathy with sectional interests which feel that they are hurt, and I am convinced that the House of Commons will have the same feeling so long as they believe that in dealing with these difficult problems we have done our best to deal fairly to as great an extent as the exigencies of the State require.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir A. Stanley.]

  AIR FORCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): I beg to move, " That the Bill be now read a second time."
  It was intended that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should move the Second Reading of this Bill, but unfortunately he is indisposed and will be unable to come to the House for a couple of days, and I ask the indulgence of the House in the difficult task which has fallen to my lot. It may be desirable to sketch the progress of our organisation for dealing with aviation matters up to the present point. In 1912 the Royal Flying Corps was formed, and provision was made for a Naval Wing and a Military Wing, to be maintained and administered by the Admiralty and the War Office respectively. The Central Flying School was also formed, and a reserve on as large a scale as possible. In order to secure cooperation between the two Services a joint Committee, called the Air Committee, was formed, composed of the Under-Secretary of State for War as President, the Commandant of the Central Flying School, the Officer Commanding the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, the Commandant of the Military Wing, the Director of Operations in the Admiralty War Staff, the Director of Military Training, and the Director of Fortifications and Works. It is not to be wondered at that this Committee proved to be somewhat unwieldy and the members tended to range themselves into two parties—a naval and a military party. The tendency was throughout to separate the Services more and more, and in 1914, before the outbreak of the War, the Naval Wing of the Royal Flying Corps was changed into the Royal Naval Air Service, and on the outbreak of hostilities the separation was practically complete. With the enormous extension which was rendered necessary by active operations in our Air Services competition was bound to take place, and it can hardly be denied that that competition

  127
  was bad for both Services. The Joint Air Committee continued to exist but never sat, and eventually a Committee was appointed under Lord Derby to arbitrate between the claims of the two Services. The powers of that Committee proved inadequate, and its career was terminated by the resignation of its chairman. A few months later, in May, 1916, an Air Board was appointed under the presidency of Lord Curzon. It made an exhaustive and careful study of the situation, and made recommendations which resulted in another Board, with extended and increased powers and a different personnel, being appointed in December of last year. That Board, which is the existing Board, consists of a President, a Parliamentary Secretary, a representative of the Board of Admiralty, who is the Fifth Sea Lord, a representative of the Army Council, the Director-General of Military Aeronautics, and two representatives of the Ministry of Munitions. The outstanding feature of that development was the transfer of the Naval Air Service to the control of an officer raised to the rank of Sea Lord of the Admiralty—the Fifth Sea Lord—who was one of the earliest officers connected with aviation, and the first Commandant of the Central Flying School; and another important change was the transfer of the duty of supply to the Ministry of Munitions, the Air Board becoming responsible for the design of aircraft, engines, and accessories.
  That state of affairs has continued up to the present date, and the whole tendency has been to amalgamate and centralise the different branches of aeronautics. The first thing that happened, which has been undoubtedly extremely useful, was that we all came and lived together, or as many of us as there was room for, under one roof in the Hotel Cecil, but the accommodation was quite inadequate. We are making efforts to extend, and undoubtedly the outstanding feature of this Board, which will cease to exist when this Bill passes and the Council is created, has been that by bringing the members of the two Services together under the same roof, together with the officials of the Ministry of Munitions who are responsible for supply, the officers and everyone concerned have got to know not only each other, but also the different methods of the Service, and it is necessary to put on record that nothing
  128
  could be more satisfactory than the extremely harmonious relations which prevail between all branches of the Air Service at the Hotel Cecil. No one who knows anything about the situation questions that. Another satisfactory thing is the extremely valuable services rendered by the Ministry of Munitions. There was some nervousness at the start lest the transfer to a separate Ministry and a separate organisation of the duty of supplying highly technical things like aircraft and air engines might lead either to delays or to falling behind the times and failure to supply our flying men with the most up-to-date machines. That is always the great difficulty in connection with aeronautic supplies. If you could turn out to your satisfaction large quantities of machines such as are being used to-day there would be no difficulty whatever in the task, but the machines in use to-day will probably be obsolete, and certainly obsolescent, nine months hence, and preparations have to be made to-day for what we are going to have, as to quality and quantity, nine months hence. That makes supply an extremely difficult matter, and the closest possible co-operation between the designer, the user, and the manufacturer is absolutely essential in this branch of warfare. That we have secured to an astounding extent at the Hotel Cecil.
  That is the good side. But looking at the problem of developing to the utmost extent our aeronautic resources with a view to hitting the enemy hardest from the air as often as we can and as much as we can, there is no doubt that the present system entails a great deal of divided responsibility. For instance, the Royal Flying Corps is continually expanding. The Air Board has to supply all materiel, and the Army Council has to supply the personnel. The division of responsibility goes even further. In order to train pilots, for which the Army Council is responsible, the Air Board must supply training aeroplanes, for which the Air Board is responsible. If there was a shortage of training aeroplanes, or engines, there would be a shortage of pilots. If there was a shortage of pilots all the efforts of the Air Board to provide more aeroplanes and engines would be wasted. In the same way, for training pilots new aerodromes are required. The Army Council has to provide them. If the Department of Fortifications and Works at the War Office should fail to supply,

  129
  the, aerodromes the Military Aeronautical Director of the Royal Flying Corps would fail to supply the pilots, and all the efforts of the Air Board would be wasted owing to the failure, which is quite outside their control or jurisdiction. That is only an instance of the difficulty and an example of the need for co-ordination in this matter. The duty of the Air Board is to co-ordinate the demands of the Navy and the Army, and, unfortunately, we have no staff to advise us on technical matters of that sort. That will be provided by this Bill. If there is disagreement under present circumstances between the Navy and the Army as to the allocation of aircraft the dissatisfied officer, be he the Fifth Sea Lord or the. Director-General of Military Aeronautics, can appeal to the Army Council, but it says a good deal for the harmony which prevails at the Air Board that on no single occasion has either of these officers availed himself of that right.
  There are other problems which require to be unified and dealt with as a whole. I might mention, for example, one which, I think, will interest Members and certainly will give no information to the enemy. One of the most important needs is a specialised medical service. It has been found by experience that flying men are subject to many peculiar physical disabilities, and research into the methods of prevention and cure of these disabilities has advanced very rapidly. So long, however, as the flying service remains merely as appendages of the Army and Navy, it is very difficult to provide for the study of these medical matters and for the special treatment of the patient. Knowledge on the subject is limited almost entirely to those few medical officers and civil practitioners who have had considerable numbers of flying men continuously under their care, and it is necessary at once to take special measures to provide separate accommodation for the cases and separate staffs to concentrate on the problems which have arisen. The mere selection of candidates for the flying services has become a highly specialised business, and the standard of fitness required for flying is diverging from the standard required for the ordinary naval and military services. There are many minor physical imperfections which render a man unfit for flying, but which if taken in time might be removed or cured. Still more important, many precautions have to be taken to enable pilots
  130
  who have obtained their certificates to maintain their fitness under the severe conditions of modern air warfare. These are only examples of the necessity for securing a body of men whose sole business shall be to concentrate on that particular branch of medical science which is necessary for the welfare and well-being of our flying men.
  It might be asked whether this change might not have been brought about sooner. I think nobody who has really been in close contact with the flying services would agree that the change could have been brought about sooner. People are apt to forget what the strain is under which the officers and men are working, whose co-operation must be used in order to bring about this change. To change a service rendering highly specialised and vital service to the Army and the Navy such as the Flying Corps of both branches is doing at the present time, except by the advice of those who are really competent to judge, would in time of war be an extremely dangerous thing to do Until you had an organisation bringing everybody together as we have now at the Hotel Cecil, I am perfectly certain it would have been quite impossible to have devised a satisfactory scheme without running very great risk of dislocation, which might have had disastrous effects in the field.
  Mr. LYNCH: Impossible for whom?
  Major BAIRD: I mean the people who are responsible for these things. I do not know that any civilian would have done it. I should have been very loath to have entrusted this work to any body of amateurs. These are the people who, after all, must have the guidance of the flying men. Those of us who have been concerned with the Flying Corps entirely endorse what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the 16th May, when he was advocating the creation of the original Air Board. He said:
  "Even if I believed an Air Minister was the right thing in the end—I think an Air Ministry may come out of it—I should say the right way to get it is to make some arrangement of this kind, to let it grow and gradually absorb more and more all the air services."
  This view has been absolutely justified. Now I come to the Bill. We have endeavoured to draw a Bill which will create an air force and an authority responsible in air matters by using all the existing machinery so far as it affects our flying men to the utmost extent, with a

  131
  view to the least possible dislocation and the smallest amount of innovation. The first Clause of the Bill is the usual form adopted on the creation of any new force. It was used when the Territorial and Reserve Force was created in 1907. That applies to Clause 2 except as regards pensions. Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 seeks to ensure that pensions which under various Acts go to soldiers will go to the airmen when they transfer from the Army and come under the Air Act. In the same way we have eliminated in Sub-section (2) the word "corps" and substituted the word "units," because it is not contemplated that airmen will be organised into corps. Disablement pensions are excepted because those pensions fall within the sphere of the Ministry of Pensions.
  Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the effect on a man who transfers from the Navy? Does he fall under the Army rule or under the Navy rule?
  Major BAIRD: I am coming to that. It is set forth in the Bill. Clause 3 is the really important one, as it refers to the transfer of officers and men from the existing air services into the new force. There are two forms. An officer or a man can either be transferred, in which case he ceases to be a sailor or soldier and becomes a member of the air force, or he may be attached, in which case he is in the position of an officer or man seconded or lent by one service to another. He is very much in the position of officers of the Army who are seconded for service with the Egyptian Army. It has been thought necessary to secure that men who have engaged for a particular kind of service should not and cannot be forcibly transferred to another kind of service; therefore it is provided that the transfer can only take place in the first place with the consent of the officer or man, and in the second place with the consent of the Admiralty or the War Office as the case may be, and, obviously, with the consent and at the request of the Air Council. I think that is the gist of Clause 3. We are making provision for taking over the air forces of the Navy and of the Army subject to the consent of the Admiralty and the War Office, and subject to the consent of the officers and men whom it is proposed to take over. The transfer does not affect their term of service. If a man enlisted in the Army for
  132
  seven years with the Colours and at the time of his transferment had four years Army service he could only be kept in the Air Service three years. Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 equally safeguards the right to pay pension, gratuities, retired and half-pay, decorations and rewards depending upon length of service which have been earned in the Service from which the man has been transferred. Equally, when an officer or man is attached to the Air Service, the fact that he is so attached shall not affect any right to any pay, pension, gratuity or so on which he has already earned, and he is precisely in the position that he would be if he joined the Egyptian Army or was seconded or lent for service in any other force. Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 provides:
  "Regulations by the Air Council may provide that in the case of a person so transferred, the time during which he held a commission or served in the force from which he is transferred shall, for such purposes as may be prescribed, be aggregated with the time during which he holds a commission or serves in the Air Force, and that his entry into or enlistment in the force from which he is transferred shall, for such purposes as may be prescribed, be treated as enlistment into the Air Force."
  The object of that is to enable officers to serve on courts-martial if they have sufficient Army or naval service to entitle them to do so, but would not have the necessary service if it counted from the date of their transfer.
  Mr. BILLING: Does that seniority count in the corps service or only for the purpose of court-martial?
  Major BAIRD: For such purpose as may be prescribed. It is put in with that definite object in view. There may be other reasons, but they are not at the present moment obvious. If the hon. Member can think of any, perhaps we might put them in. I am explaining certain provisions in this measure. Clause 4 affects various rights and powers enjoyed by commissioned officers under different Acts of Parliament, and in addition to that certain privileges conferred by common law. They are all safeguarded, and the object is to put officers of the Air Force in precisely the same position as officers of the Army and Navy.
  Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Member deal with the proviso in Clause 3—
  Major BAIRD: There is going to be a Committee stage, and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to proceed. Clause 5 deals with the application of the Military Service Acts, and is quite clear. Obviously, the Military Service Acts would not apply to the Air Force unless provision is made. The allocation of men as between the Army and the Air Force is a matter which must be settled by the War Cabinet and the Ministry of National Service, in pursuance of the general instructions which will carry out the allocation. The present arrangement as between the Navy and the Army, under the Military Service Acts, is that information must be obtained from the men as to their preference for naval service, and the Admiralty have first call upon the men who express that preference, in case their services are needed for that purpose. Clause 6 makes it possible to raise a Reserve and an Auxiliary Air Force. Obviously, in time of war, that would be inoperative, but it is necessary to provide in the Bill for time of peace. Clause 7 provides for any consequential Amendments of the Naval Discipline Acts and the Army Act. Amendments are made in both Acts regulating the relations between the Air Force and the Navy and the Air Force and the Army respectively. There is one Amendment which does not fall within this category, and it is an Amendment of the Army Act, which will deprive the military authority of the power of requisitioning aircraft. It was not quite obvious to us what they would do with the aircraft, and it was not necessary to put that in. Clause 8 establishes the Air Council. The President of the Air Council is to be a Secretary of State, and a Secretary of State is, according to constitutional practice and precedent, created under the prerogative of the Sovereign. Therefore power is not taken in the Bill.
  The other members of the Air Council will be fixed according to Order in Council very much on the lines of the Army Council, and the Order in Council will allocate their duties. We have not mentioned what is very important, but which it would not be proper to put into the Bill—i.e., that the representative of the Ministry of Munitions will obviously continue to sit as a member of the Air Council, because there is no question of disturbing the admirable arrangement under which aircraft are now supplied by that Ministry. With regard to the other members of the Council they will be
  134
  officers charged with duties analogous to those performed by members of the Army Council. The distribution of those duties will be made known and the composition of the Council will be laid down in the Order in Council.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if it is intended to provide that any member or members of the Air Council shall continue to sit one on the Army Council and one on the Board of Admiralty, to act as intermediaries?
  Major BAIRD: There is no such intention, and for this reason: that when you create a separate Air Force the Army and the Navy will make their demands on the Air Council for their requirements, and the Air Council will then exercise the function now exercised by the Air Board and allocate to the Army and the Navy, not only aircraft, but the whole personnel, and will have to keep up the units and be responsible for them. There will be nothing, as far as we know, analogous to the present Department of Military Aeronautics. The Council will take over in the same way the powers of the Department of the Director of the Air Service. Therefore I think that the necessity for a member of the Army Council to be also a member of the Air Council does not arise. I do not know whether any special point arises on this Clause except the one to which my hon. Friend has called attention. I may mention that Sub-section (4) refers to aerodromes and other property now vested in the Army Council or Board of Admiralty, and also to contracts for large works which are at present being carried out. Clauses 9 and 10 are common forms, and are taken direct from the Military Pensions Act of last year. Clause 11 enables the Fifth Secretary of State to sit in the House of Commons as well as his Under-Secretary, and at the same time the provisions of the New Ministries Act are safeguarded.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Why is it necessary to create a new Secretary of State for Air and not for Munitions?
  Major BAIRD: The head of the fighting service will have to discharge various duties now discharged by the Secretary for War, and which cannot be performed under our Constitution except by a Secretary of State. I will give one example. I believe the channel of communication between the Sovereign and an officer who feels himself aggrieved or the officer

  135
  who has the right of reply is only through a Secretary of State. It would not be satisfactory if an officer of the Air Service felt aggrieved that he should have to apply to his Sovereign through the Secretary of State of another Department. Another reason is to give to the Air Force the same status as we give to the Army and Navy, to recognise that the air is an element in which it is as necessary to make provision for national defence and offence as it is for us to do on sea and land. These are the main reasons why it was thought wise to have a Secretary of State instead of a Minister of lesser rank. Clause 12 applies the Army Act, subject to certain modifications, to the Air Force. We were confronted, when we decided to have a separate Air Force, with having to choose between either the Navy Act or the Army Act, or creating some new Act for the purpose of enforcing discipline in the Force. After consideration, and on the advice of people well qualified to give it, we decided to adopt the Army Act, with such modifications as would make it applicable and suitable to the Air Service. These modifications are set out in the Schedule, and hon. Members will find in the Vote Office the Act printed as a whole, that is to say, the Army Act, with the Amendments introduced under this Clause, and in the Schedule underlined in that Act. Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to run through the main changes to be made in the Army Act. They fall under the following heads: Those which are required to translate military terms into Air Force terms. These constitute the bulk. Those which create certain new offences, for example, causing the destruction or capture of aircraft or loss thereof, tampering with air signals, and so on. There is nothing analogous to that obviously in the Army Act. Then you will require to extend to the Air Force certain provisions in the Navy Regulations, due to uncertainty as to the nature and organisation of the Air Force. At the present time they are not sufficiently clear as to the duties to be discharged by certain officers. This is due to the comparatively small numbers of the Air Force. For instance, there is a reduction of the number of officers required to constitute a general court-martial from nine to seven, and authorising the sitting of military or naval officers on a court-martial where there is an insufficient number of Air Force officers available. There are also various
  136
  miscellaneous Amendments, those introducing necessary definitions, and so on. These are the main modifications of the Act. The Act will automatically come into force annually with the passing of the Army Act. Provision is made in Sub-section (4) to ensure that the Act shall be kept up to date by making it necessary that Amendments to the Army Act, in so far as it is necessary to adapt the same to the Air Force, shall be introduced by Order in Council into the Air Force Act. The power is strictly limited by confining these Amendments to those which are definitely stated to be necessary for the Air Force. Clause 13 refers to a very large number of Acts relating to the Army which will have to be applied to the Air Force. They are over one hundred in number, and the most practical way to deal with them was to leave the matter to be dealt with by Order in Council. There are Acts relating to the acquisition of land, to military savings banks, to privileges and exemptions of soldiers, Acts relating to the property of soldiers, provisions as to wills, and so on. There are upwards of a hundred Acts in that category, and power is taken in Clause 13 to apply them by Order in Council to the Air Force.
  I have explained very briefly the nature of the Schedule and I have endeavoured to explain the provisions of the Clauses of the Bill. I should like to make it clear that this Bill is not brought forward as a sign that the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service is a failure. Anything but that. It is brought forward because it is felt that the moment has arrived when the existing organisation is incapable to discharge the duties which in the national interest it seems necessary should be discharged. In particular it is necessary to create an authority whose exclusive duty it shall be to study and deal with the general problem of war in the air. That authority will be exercised by the General Staff Branch of the Air Council. At the present time the study of these aerial war problems is confined to two separate watertight compartments, each of which is limited to the assistance which can be given by the Air Force to another arm—that means the assistance that can be given, on the one hand, to the Navy and, on the other hand, to the Army. But it is nobody's business under the present organisation to think out air problems as a whole. In the second place, it is necessary to provide a unified system for ensuring

  137
  the most rapid, scientific, technical, and tactical progress in aeronautics. In the third place, it is desired to provide a unified system of administration to replace the present duplication of Staff and divergence of methods. These, briefly, are the reasons which have weighed with the Government in bringing forward this Bill. But, if the House will allow me, I would appeal to them most strongly to look upon this as a war measure in the first instance —that is to say, that the urgency of passing it is great. It is a measure which undoubtedly ought to supply an organisation that will largely increase the effectiveness of our national resources, and consequently help towards a peace which can only come after victory. But much more than that. It lays down the principle for all time that we recognise that we are no longer solely an Island, and, so far as the air is concerned, we have to take measures for the protection of the realm and the maintenance of our rights in the air just as far-reaching and as permanent as we have to on the land or on the sea. More than that. I think anybody who has made a close study of this question will realise two things. In the first place, supremacy in the air is as essential to our national existence as supremacy at sea; and, in the second place, Providence has endowed Britons of all climes, be they born in Canada or Australia or in these Islands or in South Africa, with a special aptitude for airmanship which gives us a field for great work in the future.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I for a few minutes trouble the House, and begin by congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend on his introduction of this Bill. If he will allow me to say so, he told us all that could properly be told us with reference to it. He explained it as amply and as fully as it could be explained, and I think everyone here in this House is convinced, after his explanation, that the Bill is in every way a desirable measure. There is another thing I should like to say also, and not merely in regard to my hon. and gallant Friend, but to the whole of the Air Board, which is apparently now going out of existence, and that is how much we are indebted to them for the work they have put in on behalf of the country and the Air Services in the last ten months. I have been in the past a critic, and at times a severe critic, but I should like to acknowledge, as I do fully and frankly, how much
  138
  we are indebted to the Air Board, and in particular to its chief, Lord Cowdray, for what they have done within the ambit of their powers to improve the Air Services during the period of their existence. I am not going to criticise now. I hope rather to make a speech on the Air Service without criticising, perhaps for the first time in this House. The Bill is, in effect, a skeleton Bill. It is a Bill which must be clothed by Orders in Council. It depends entirely upon the manner in which this Bill is clothed, the flesh that is put upon the skeleton, and the spirit which is breathed into it, whether the Bill will really be a great success or not.
  I am not going to criticise that. I realise that in time of war it is quite impossible to introduce a Bill creating in the fullest and most complete manner an Air Service which would be as great in its personnel as the Navy and as great in its importance as the Army. That would, indeed, need an enormous Bill, and I have considered carefully what course I ought to adopt in regard to the idea of proposing various Amendments. I think the better course, the proper course for one who is so keenly desirous of having an Air Ministry and a complete Air Service established, is to leave the Bill largely in its present form and not in any way attempt to amend it in the direction of making it a complete Bill. On the other hand, I think we are entitled—I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will not think I am in any way critical—to ask a few questions with regard to the Orders in Council, the course he proposes to adopt in those Orders in Council, and the time those Orders will be brought out. I see throughout the Bill that the consent of the Army Council and the Secretary of State for War, and of the Board of Admiralty, is from time to time required. In the second Clause of the Bill no man or officer can be transferred to the Air Service without this consent. I am quite sure it is almost unnecessary to ask him to assure us that the consent has already been in effect granted to a complete transfer of the existing personnel of the Royal Flying Corps and Royal Naval Air Service to the new Air Force.
  Major BAIRD: The Bill has been approved in principle by both Services.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not quite the point. I want to be quite clear that there is going to be no residuum left

  139
  of the Royal Flying Corps under the control of the Army Council and no residuum of the Royal Naval Air Service under the control of the Board of Admiralty. I hope I may have an assurance from my hon. and gallant Friend that so far as he knows it will be a complete and absolute transfer. I am quite entitled to ask that question. That is a claim that some of us on this side of the House have been pressing for some time past. If I were in a critical mood the latter part of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, in regard to the period of creating a new Air Service and the period of creating the Air War Staff, would afford me grounds for the criticism that it might have been created many months, if not years, before. I am going thankfully to welcome the Bill, however, now that it has come, and the new Imperial Air Service which is going to be, as we hope, a vast measure for winning this War. One point I would like to mention is whether it would not really be desirable, at all events in the first few years of the existence of this new force, that one member for the Air Council should have the right to attend and sit upon the Army Council, and that one member of the Air Council should have the right to attend and sit upon the Board of Admiralty.
  There must be for certainly many months—probably a year or two—many questions arising between the three departments, and I would venture to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider whether it would not be desirable that there should be some kind of liason officer established between the old Services and the new Service. I take it, of course, that there will be the closest touch and co-operation between the new Air War Staff and the General Staff of the Army and the War Staff of the Navy. While I have pressed most strenuously for an independent strategic striking force in the air, I realise—and my hon. and gallant Friend, perhaps, has not put this very clearly—that the greater portion of the Air Service must for some years to come be loaned partly to the Army and partly to the Navy. The great bulk of the Royal Flying Corps, after it has once been transferred to the new Air Service, will be loaned to the Army for use in the field; and I take it that the Air Council and the Secretary of State for the Air will, while that force is in the field under General Trenchard, or whoever may be the leading general, leave the disposition
  140
  and discipline of that force to the commander in Flanders or elsewhere. That is an important point, and one which affects the position of men and officers transferred to the new Service, and who must be during the period of this War, as I take it, loaned to the Army in Flanders, in Mesopotamia, in Egypt or elsewhere.
  I was very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend placed the foundation of this Bill upon what can be the only real foundation, namely, that there is a new force fighting in a new dimension, and the time has come for those of the Army and Navy, who have very gallantly co-operated with the air force in the last few years, to realise that there is a distinct difference between the air force and any other force connected with the Army or Navy. Only last week a high Staff officer from the Front complained to me, in discussing this Bill, that there should be created a new Air Ministry and Air Service. "Why," he said, "don't you create a new Ministry for tanks, or a new Ministry for Artillery?" Obviously, my gallant Friend who made that remark was one of the old school or Army officers, who think in one dimension only, and cannot get out of the idea that the aeroplane is only a kind of aerial motor-car, and that everything that applies to artillery or motor cars which live in one dimension only must necessarily apply to the aeroplane, which lives and fights in an entirely different dimension. That is, I think, the real foundation principle upon which it is necessary to create this new Air Service. I take it that the Air Service will take command and control of all that is now done in the air by the Army and the Navy, and that there will be two separate forces under the general supreme control of the Air Board—one allocated to the Army and one allocated to the Navy, and under the jurisdiction of the respective Commanders in-Chief of the Army and Navy. There is one point my hon. and gallant Friend did not mention, and that is the defence of England against hostile aircraft, and whether it is proposed in any way to transfer this defence of England to the Air Board and to the Secretary of State for the Air, and in particular what is proposed to be done in regard to anti-aircraft artillery; whether it will remain under the Army or be turned over to the Air Board so as to make one complete controlling factor having control of everything to do with the defence of England against aircraft.

  141
  The last point I imagine will be dealt with by the new Board is the strategic offensive. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that I have from time to time advocated a strategic offensive apart altogether from the Navy or the Army, and it is because of that that I have felt it was absolutely essential we should create a new air command, separate from the Army or Navy, with a fleet of machines of its own. The military view is necessarily confined to military matters. It is necessarily a short view. The military view takes notice only of the trenches and thirty or forty miles behind the trenches— the dumps and collecting ground of the rival forces—but we want this new Service to take into the scope of its care a great strategical offensive far beyond what the existing Army forces are doing at the present time, or what the Army rightly do. I quite agree that the Army should have all the aeroplanes that it needs for its use in carrying out the work it is doing—for artillery observation and photography and short bombing raids close behind the lines, and so on But I want to put it to my hon. and gallant Friend as a soldier, and to carry all the soldiers in the House with me and the soldiers at the front too, in saying that the question of the strategic offensive is really a question of psychology and not a question of military expediency. There is where I think we have gone wrong up to the present moment. The question of whether it is north while for Great Britain to institute such proceedings as have been instituted by Germany over the City of London is a question not for the Commander-in-Chief in Flanders, but for the War Cabinet here. It is a question not of whether we could exercise such military effect in Germany as could be exercised by dropping bombs on dumps or aerodromes behind the German lines, but whether we can affect the psychology of the German nation and affect their moral, for I am convinced that the result of this War will depend on the moral of the men in the trenches as it must be affected by the morale of the respective nations.
  The point I want to press is that the new Air Service should consider, apart entirely from the views of the military authorities at the front, whether it is not desirable from the pyschological point of view to get behind the enemy forces and smash, as I think we could do, the moral of the German nation and so produce a great effect upon the moral of the German
  142
  troops in the trenches. I know that up to the present we have devoted ourselves to bombing dumps, but it seems to me it is better to bomb the place where the munitions are manufactured, than to bomb the completed article in the dumps behind the German lines. I will not say more than that, because I do not want to say anything which could give assistance to the enemy, but I want my hon. and gallant Friend and those associated with him in the command of this new Air Force to realise that the people here in London and throughout the country are not quite satisfied, not at all satisfied, with the mere bombing behind German lines; but we feel that if it was good enough for the German High Command to spare machines in order to try to affect the moral of the people here—thank God they have not done it. I do not think they will succeed in doing it. I think that the moral of Great Britain is altogether different from the moral of the people of Germany; but, from my knowledge of German psychology, it would be worth while to transfer from the needs of the Army sufficient machines to try to affect their moral.
  All this comes back to the question of production. The new Secretary of State with his Air Council must first, after he has got over the initial difficulties of instituting his new forces, devote himself, in conjunction with the Ministry of Munitions, to production. I have pleaded before this House, and I am going to plead very shortly again, for bigger machines and more high-power engines Over and over again during the last four years I have raised the point, and I plead with my hon. and gallant Friend that the new force should not be content to get equal with the Germans, to make machines as good as the latest German machines, but should go boldly one better, jump over the heads of the Germans, and have machines bigger, faster, and better than the German machines. Everybody knows that the Germans are devoting all their manufacturing efforts at the present time to the creation of a still larger air service for use against Great Britain and our forces both at the front and at home in the spring of next year. If we are to meet them, the only possible means of doing so is to create an equally large and equally strong Air Force. I am not giving away any secret in what I am going to say, because the whole of it has been mentioned in our Press in a report from

  143
  General Headquarters published a few days ago. We know that the Germans are enlarging their plant for air purposes, that they have placed large numbers of orders in Switzerland for the production of air engines, that the Fokker Company itself has taken over an enormous guano factory in Schwerin in order to manufacture aeroplanes, that they are building three-seater bombers carrying over a ton of bombing material, that they are now building two- and three-engined machines provided with electric heaters, and that in the six months prior to August this year no fewer than twenty-nine new aircraft factories have been opened by our German rivals.
  I am not going to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to tell us what we are doing. I merely want on this occasion of the starting of this new Imperial Air Service to press upon him that he must go to the Ministry of Munitions and ask them, if possible, to consider whether they can really divert some of the men and women who are now working at other forms of munitions to a great output of aeroplanes and aeroplane engines. I know that I have been regarded in the past as a fanatic on this point. Perhaps the Ministry of Munitions may say, "We cannot spare them from the creation of guns and shells." The rival armies have now had three and a half years work with guns and shells, trying to beat one another and up to the present moment it is fair to say that the War is not yet decided. Many of us who may be called fanatics have felt that there is a chance of the War being decided in the air. I for one say quite frankly that if the present Prime Minister, when he took in hand two and a half years ago the supply of munitions, when he put into that work that wonderful imagination and wonderful driving force of his, greater perhaps than that of any other man of the nation, had applied some portion of those qualities, while he was dealing with the production of shells and guns, to the production of aeroplanes and high-power engines, I for one feel that the War might have been ended in the air before the present moment. I feel most strongly that there is a very definite chance of the War being ended in the air next summer by whichever of these two great rival countries gets supremacy in the Air. My hon. and gallant Friend told us just now that we in this country were particularly and peculiarly suited to maintain supremacy
  144
  in the air, from the way in which our men, both in our colonial forces and our own forces, took naturally to flying. He cannot say too much for me in praise of our aid services and our men.
  I want for a moment to refer to the speech of my right hon. leader in this House on the last occasion when he spoke. He possesses the great faculty of speaking without notes. He possesses also, if I may say so, the somewhat dangerous faculty of speaking without notes. He quoted a speech of mine, I am perfectly certain not intentionally, but very gravely, distorting what I said and attributing to me, what I had never said. Neither in this place or any other place, have I ever said one single word derogatory to the verve, bravery, courage and skill of our flying men. Only that very afternoon my right hon. leader accused me of having spoken in derogatory terms when I had only a half-hour before made what I may call, if it were not vainglorious to say so, a glowing speech in regard to the work of the Air Service. I want to-night, when I feel that the work on which I have been engaged for so many years is now almost completed, when I see —I hope that the House will not think me conceited for saying so—the fruition in this Bill of much for which I have fought and pressed in season and out of season, in the presence of contumely, attacks in the Press, inuendoes of one kind or another with regard to my personal object in it, when I see to-night the fruition of my hopes in that respect, I desire to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend, I desire to congratulate the Government for having brought in this measure, and I desire to say that while the Bill is going through the House there will be no obstruction of any kind by myself, and that I shall do my utmost to get it through as quickly as possible in every possible respect I can. One thing more: The work is only half done, but I believe that it will be completed by the spring or summer of next year, and I am convinced that when this new Air Service gets to work, when the new push, with the new drive that must come into it from whoever may constitute the new Air Council, coupled with the bravery, which no words of mine or of anybody else in this House can paint too highly of the men in Flanders and our other fronts who are flying and fighting there, if next spring or summer means that victory which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, the

  145
  victory which will lead to peace, that victory will, I believe, be brought about in the air through the gallantry of those young men who have fought and are going to fight under this new scheme.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that he has every right to congratulate himself on this evening, for he says no more than what is true, that he has always urged the desirability of building up an Air Service for the country out of the existing Air Services and placing it under one authority. Naturally he expressed the pleasure he feels on this occasion. His interest in matters connected with the Air Services has always been that of one thoroughly disinterested and thoroughly anxious to promote what he believes to be the benefit of his country. I am certain that he always had in view what he could best do to promote that interest, in the important part he has taken in the Air Debates in this House. I have not always been able to agree with him, but I have no doubt about the thoroughness and sincerity of his view. I am a strong supporter of the Bill, and I think the case might be put less extremely, but more poignantly, in favour of this Bill than it perhaps could be put by my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke from the Treasury Bench. He said that there could be no doubt that the utmost harmony existed in the Air Services or of the good will of those who served the Ministry. That is no doubt true, but I must add that in my belief the Air Services are one of those institutions in which, by the exhibition of good will, you will manage to make work a method which is the worst perhaps that the mind of man could devise. I am not speaking at all of what takes place over the Channel, but of the administration here in London. What is the existing administration of the Air Services, worked, no doubt, with excellent good will and with results immensely more favourable than we were entitled to expect? It consists of two Sub-Departments—a Sub-Department of the War Office and a Sub-Department of the Admiralty, which are linked together by the Supply Department, which is also under a board.
  None of these three Sub-Departments has any independent power, excepts perhaps over the design of air engines and aeroplanes, while they have to administer the Air Services as well. Power resides
  146
  in the War Office and in the Admiralty. The organisation which has intelligence has not any authority, and the organisation which has authority has not got the intelligence. When I say intelligence, I do not mean that they have not intellectual ability, but I mean that they have not intelligence in respect of knowledge and acquaintanceship with the subject. The War Office and the Admiralty have constantly displayed the utmost good will and utmost pains to administer the Air Services as well as they can be administer ed. But it is only a slight exaggeration to say that you might just as well have the Air Services in the hands of two Boards of civilians—Judges of the High Court and members of the Bench of Bishops. Knowledge with authority is absent. My hon. Friend who has just spoken said he had discussed these matters with an official of position and ability, who said, "Why not have a tank service under one control, or other services?" That is a fundamental error, and my hon. Friend could have said in answer to him, "Supposing a proposal were made to you to take over the management, of the Navy, why should you shrink from the task?" The officer would have replied probably, to begin with, that though he knew in general terms what were "Dreadnoughts" and torpedo boats, and torpedo destroyers, in regard to the range of services and their needs, all these were matters with which he was as unfitted to deal as any civilian. He could have gone on also to reply, that just as he could not understand the great machine of the Navy, neither could he take the point of view of an ordinary sailor who had developed the professional point of view. Every word of that would be true about the work of the Flying Services. Both on the side of the mechanism involved and on the side of the personnel, the Flying Service is quite as unique and peculiar as the Services of the Army and Navy.
  That is just as true of this Flying Force being under the control of the War Office and the Admiralty as of the Navy being under the control of the War Office or the Army under the control of the Admiralty. But, as my hon. Friend said just now, this Bill does not achieve, or anything like achieve, the object of building up an independent Air Force. He called it a skeleton Bill. It is, at any rate, only a beginning. It is inevitable that, in time of war, to set up a complete organisation by Act of Parliament, would be quite out of the question; but it is a desirable thing to do,

  147
  because when first your Air Service is set up, it should be able to study all the problems involved, and that should take bit by hit the position now occupied by the Army Council and the Admiralty. But you should not fall into the mistake of supposing that you can cut loose the Air Service from the Army and Navy. You require most careful scrutiny and the most delicate judgment to determine whether a particular thing is really essential from the military or naval point of view. It would be very hasty to say, without much more scrutiny, how far it may be possible to take away particular functions from the Army and Navy, and how far it would be in the interests of the country to leave the Air Services as they are. It is a difficult problem, requiring the utmost care and good will. It is, therefore, desirable that there should be an Air Minister, having the handling of the machinery which already exists, who should be able to scrutinise and investigate the whole matter, and then seek to gradually draw out the threads which at present connect the Air Services to the Army and Navy.
  The question which my hon. Friend naturally asked on such an occasion is how far and how soon will it affect the position of the fighting forces abroad? I would rather that my hon. and gallant Friend would not answer that question, and I am not sure that he could answer that question, because it is obvious that that would be precisely one of the problems that the Air Service in future will have to deal with, in consultation, of course, with the Army Council. It would be precisely one of the matters that the Air Board and the Army Council together would have to solve. But I do not myself imagine that there would be any substantial change in the position of the Royal Flying Corps in the field, because anyone who has happened to be in France and connected with flying matters knows that the Royal Flying Corps is already a distinct service to a degree not attained in any other part of our military forces. The general control of the corps in the field, and its general management and organisation, are as independent as they can be under the conditions, nor does anyone contemplate, and certainly it would be very inadvisable that anything should be done to interfere with the supreme control of the Commander-in-Chief both in matters of strategy and in tactics, and in matters of discipline. Therefore, I do not myself imagine that
  148
  there will be any substantial change in the position of the Royal Flying Corps in the field except in so far as improved administration reacts, as it ultimately must react, on the efficiency of the force. I do imagine that the new Ministry at home will be like putting a new heart into the body and that instead of the heart functioning rather feebly as in the past that is will be a new and strong organ and will drive the blood through the whole body more quickly than before, and that in a variety of ways it will react on the efficiency of the force abroad. Nevertheless, everything depends, as my hon. Friend truly said, on how the new Air Ministry carries out the work assigned to it. The building of a new force will be difficult and anxious and will require the utmost tact and consideration.
  My hon. Friend desired most patriotically not to say anything which would give comfort to the King's enemies. There is another thing of which my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench must think, and that is of not giving discomfort to the King's friends. It is necessary for him to avoid saying anything which would add to the difficulties of the Air Ministry by raising any degree of suspicion or ill-feeling in any quarter. Therefore, I do not anticipate that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to go very deeply into these matters. What I am sure is true is that by unifying the Air Board and by centralising its administration and giving real authority to an Air Ministry, instead of making an Air Board a merely consultative body with certain powers of conciliation, we are putting the mainspring into the machine and we are really giving a vigorous and efficient administration such as the gallantry and great services of the Royal Flying Corps deserve. The future is anxious. I am sure that if my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is the nation with most moral that wins in the end we shall not be defeated. Our moral is, I think, singularly unchanged by all the events through which we have passed. Nevertheless, the prospect is necessarily anxious, and we who sit in Parliament debating on the well-being of the nation owe it to those who fight our battles abroad to make the administration that controls the service in which they serve as efficient as it can be made. We owe this Bill as a tribute that is due to their noble work. I earnestly hope that the Government will press it forward with all the rapidity

  149
  possible. It is, as my hon. Friend said, only a beginning. The sooner it is passed the sooner the new life can run through the veins and the sooner the new strength can begin to come into effect. Let us pass it as soon as we can and raise no points that are not really necessary to improve the Bill and make it more efficient than it is. If we display such a spirit, we shall not be unworthy of the gallantry of those who fight our battles and we shall in our humble capacity play our part.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: My hon. and gallant Friend in introducing the Bill rightly anticipated a very warm welcome for it from all parts of the House. If any of us had any criticism or reproach to offer it would only have been that the Bill was not introduced before. We have waited for it very anxiously indeed. Anyone who has taken any interest in the Air Service must know that there has been nobody or no individual sufficiently free from the trying task of the day to devote himself to the air or to envisage the questions of the air on the great scale in which they must be looked at. We know that our enemies are making very great preparations and we know that every week is of the greatest importance. Therefore I am sure the Noble Lord will have expressed the feeling of everyone here when he said that the best tribute we can pay to the men who have fought for us is to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible and to avoid everything in the nature of unnecessary criticism. I only desire to raise one point, and I do so particularly because it has been raised in a striking fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), about whom I should like in passing to he allowed to add my word of congratulation to the congratulations so charmingly expressed by the Noble Lord. The point is this: My hon. Friend said that he hoped that there would not be left any residuum of the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service, and that that was what the Bill did. The Bill in my understanding, and I raise this point to be corrected if I am wrong, does nothing of the kind. It is permissive. It may do it in the future, but the Bill, as it stands, may leave both the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service precisely as they are to-day. It might have the effect only of creating a third Air Service, because at the end of Clause 8, Sub-section (4) it is stated,
  150
  "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, transfer … such property, rights and liabilities of the Admiralty or Army Council or Secretary of State as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty or the Army Council, as the case may be."
  Lord H. CECIL: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken; that Clause only refers to the property rights and liabilities; it does not refer to the Air Forces or personnel Those are dealt with in Clause 13.
  Sir H. NORMAN: Is not the personnel under precisely the same provision? The personnel may be taken over if the man is willing himself or if the Army Council or Admiralty consent. Is not that the case?
  An HON. MEMBER: Yes.
  Sir H. NORMAN: The personnel is on precisely or practically the same footing as the property rights and liabilities spoken of in Clause 8.
  Mr. BILLING: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would clear up the point at once?
  Major BAIRD: It is absolutely true. We are dealing with men in the Army and Navy, and we cannot, even by this Bill, take them without the consent of the Army and the Navy.
  Lord H. CECIL: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I do not gather from the Bill that there will be any air force except the one air force created when this Bill becomes law.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for his explanation. The matter seemed to me so clear that, it hardly needed his confirmation. But on the point raised by the Noble Lord—I put that because the suggestion is that there will be no Air Service except service in the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service. It seems to me that under this Bill—and on Second Reading a Bill of so novel a character one is always, of course, a little vague—there may be a third Air Service formed under the new Secretary of State. Suppose that the Royal Flying Corps on the one hand, when approached with a request, or an offer, from the new Secretary of State, says in correct, official, technical language that it does not agree, then, so far as they are concerned, is the thing to remain there? The same would be true of the Admiralty. That is in the Bill.
  Major BAIRD: There is the War Cabinet. Undoubtedly, if the Army or the Admiralty refused to grant the airmen required by the Secretary of State, he will go to the War Cabinet, and, the War Cabinet having decided the matter, the Army or the Navy will have to give him what he asks for.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I am very glad of that, because that clears away to a certain extent the only point I desired to raise.
  Major BAIRD: It is a very important point. There may be certain officers, naval or military, who obviously are doing admirable service where they are, as naval or military officers. We cannot—it would not be fair— arbitrarily take them away from the Army or the Navy if they are doing better service with the Army or the Navy. If, on the other hand, the Army or the Navy should in an obstructive way—and they have shown no signs of it—refuse to hand over large numbers of officers who are now training as airmen, the whole thing becomes confused. Then we shall go to the War Council, and place the matter before them.
  Sir H. NORMAN: That, of course, as I say, makes clear to me the difficulty that I wished to solve, and answers the one point I desired to raise. We are then left with this situation: that this Bill may only create a third Air Service, leaving the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service as they are, except in case of the intervention of the War Cabinet. That states it accurately. The matter is really, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, one of very great importance, because most of us who are interested in the air look forward to the time, not far distant, when by the natural development of events, certainly not by any arbitrary action on the part of the coming Secretary of State, by the natural course of events and developments there would be, not a third Air Service but one great Air Service precisely as there have been one land service and one sea service. Many of us feel that if the War is going on for many months longer—counting it in months—it may be demonstrated, almost mathematically demonstrated, that the War can be won in the air. For that purpose it is necessary that there should be an absolutely uniform command and control in the air.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. BILLING: Much as I appreciate the introduction of this Bill, it is not my intention to join the society of mutual admiration to whose efforts I have listened to-night. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is piloting this Bill through that not only in the view of certain Members of this House, but certainly in the view of quite a number of Service Members, the Bill leaves very much to be desired. While I appreciate the fact that anyone who purposely obstructed this Bill would be doing his country and, as the Noble Lord opposite me particularly stated, the gallant men who are actually flying and fighting for this country, a great disservice, one would be doing them a far greater disservice by not seeing that the Bill when it passed met with their views and did them justice. I think it is seven years since the Government first dimly realised the necessity for creating an Air Fleet. At Barrow, to be correct, they built a large, cumbersome airship, which they called the " Mayfly." It did not. Here, on this occasion, we are dealing with an Act which, instead of saying a thing " shall " be done constantly says things " may " be done. Posterity may well refer to this Act as the " May " Act. I only hope they will. Before we come to the Committee stage there are a number of points which I think need to be very satisfactorily cleared up. I regret, if I may say so, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was unable to pilot this. Bill through himself, as it would have been more satisfactory had we had on the Front Bench opposite a responsible member of the Cabinet who could have satisfied us on all the points which this House and hon. Members really feel, despite anything said to the contrary, it is necessary and just should be cleared up
  In the first instance we have in the title of the Bill itself. Here was an opportunity to embody in the Bill not only a grateful compliment to the Dominions, but even in the Preamble of the Bill there might have been a happier and more comprehensive title than the one we have. The Bill might have been called the "Imperial Air Forces Bill." On the other hand, it might have been called the "Imperial Air Service," because, if the hopes which have been expressed in the House this afternoon materialise I trust that the aeroplane, even as it is to-day, the most punitive weapon which has ever been placed in the hands of mankind, may

  153
  eventually render war so terrible as to result in its abolition altogether. Under these circumstances the word "Force" would be an unhappy one. The word "Service" would be infinitely better. I sincerely trust, when this War is eventually brought to a close by the medium of and through the dominion of the air that we shall discover a happier word than "Force" for referring to that Service. Imperial Air Service would have a more real meaning than Air Force.
  I would suggest to this House that when the Air Service is in being directly the War ceases, if we are to keep the establishment which is absolutely necessary for us to be prepared for any eventuality or any invasion by air, some means will have to be found for employing aeroplanes on more productive work than mere flying from aerodrome to aerodrome to keep the skill of the pilot up-to-date and the machines themselves in flying order. I suggest that it will be found most probable that all the mails of this country, and possibly the mails of the Empire, will within the next few years be carried by the very service, to introduce which we are now debating the Second Reading of this Bill. So far as that is concerned, I would recommend with due humility to the Government, and with a proper appreciation of the source from which the recommendation comes, the suggestion that "Imperial Air Service," or, if the word "Imperial" is distasteful in the minds of the Government, "Air Service" rather than "Air Force" should be introduced as the name for that Service.
  The next point that arises is that, throughout the whole of this Bill, it seems to have been the determination of the gentlemen who framed it, under the direction, presumably, of the Officers of the Crown, to confer upon the War Cabinet or by Order in Council, whatever that may be, powers of dictatorship, and to remove from this House any opportunity whatsoever of controlling their future actions, their movements, or the destiny of the force which we now propose to create. Personally, although possibly, on some occasions, some speeches of mine suggested that there was a certain lack of respect on my behalf for the methods and the system of this House of Commons, I very strongly deprecate, and I should very strongly oppose, any action on the part of the present Government to deprive the Members of this House of what few privi-
  154
  leges they still retain. Unless we are going to be handed over into a condition of bureaucracy, without any effort on our part, I would suggest that the Members of this House should watch this Bill, as an instance, very carefully, and not allow it to become a precedent of actions on behalf of the War Council, under the plea, which we hear so frequently at that box that it has almost lost its meaning, that all these things are necessary be cause we are in a state of war. To a very great extent there is some foundation for that remark, but it is more particularly necessary because it has been said from that box for three years. It is because we have been late—always too late—in everything that we have undertaken that it is becoming even more necessary to expedite all measures, even at the expense of doing those concerned an injustice. Therefore, I do trust that when we come to the Committee stage there will be found Members of this House who are sufficiently interested in the privileges that a Member should respect to support Amendments on many Clauses which it is necessary to support if the House of Commons and Parliament are to retain the control of this Service. When the hon. Gentleman who is piloting this Bill referred to Clause 3, I noticed that he quite omitted, although I called his attention to the fact, the proviso of that Clause. Surely there is a proviso which is quite unnecessary. He states very loudly, with a considerable amount of satisfaction, that no man will be called into this Service against his will. He reads Clause 3, Sub-section (1), very carefully, that no man shall be called into this Service against his will, and he utterly fails—I suggest almost to the point of deceiving the House—to read the proviso of that Clause which says that if that consent is not forthcoming from the man he shall be forcibly introduced into the Service. What is the next proviso? If, after three months, he has not become acclimatised, he is to be allowed to go back to his original job. I call that playing with the matter.
  Major BAIRD: I must settle that point. The hon. Member must realise that there are certain people at the present time who are prisoners of war and you cannot get at them, but if anybody within three months of receiving notice states he does not wish to be transferred, then the transfer is annulled.
  Mr. BILLING: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, and I take it from his reply that this House can take it as sure and certain that provisos (a) and (b) of Clause 3 apply only to prisoners of war, and that no other member of His Majesty's Forces can be transferred to the Air Force against his own will. Is that so?
  Major BAIRD: Nobody can be transferred to the Air Force against his will, prisoner of war or otherwise. This is to make it watertight.
  Mr. BILLING: I am very glad this point has been cleared up, because it was a point which operated on my mind to some extent. With regard to Sub-section (2), the question of seniority, I should equally like the hon. Gentleman to clear up that point once and for all. He stated in his speech that the idea of allowing men to carry their seniority from the Army or Navy, respectively, into this Air Force was purely for the purposes of court-martial. I do not know whether it would be more facile under Order in Council or the Defence of the Realm Act—which seems to cover everything for the support of the Government's policy—that for the purposes of the Air Force one day's service should rank for purposes of court-martial. If, on the other hand, it is not only for the purposes of court-martial that this seniority shall rank, I consider the Clause is most invidious and unfair. It puts power in the hands of a person or persons unknown, because I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, so far as this Bill is concerned, the people to whom we are transferring this power are quite strangers to us. I have heard it suggested that Lord Northcliffe is to be Air Minister—he is a man of imagination and considerable force—and I have heard it suggested that the late Director of Military Aeronautics is to be the Minister. I have also heard it suggested that General Smuts is to adorn that post. At any rate, by this Clause it would be possible to transfer one man of five years' or three years' service and rank him of no years' service in the Air Force, and to transfer another man of perhaps one month's service in the Royal Naval Air Service and make him senior to the other.
  Members of this House may consider that I am laying undue stress on the question of seniority, but I am quite sure those who are members of the Army or the Navy will appreciate that it is impossible to
  156
  place too much stress upon the questions which vex and trouble a man in his professional career. If it is placed in the power of any Council to rob a man of ten years' seniority without the right of a court-martial or appeal, you are not doing: anything that will add to the harmony which is said to exist in such large quantities at the Hotel Cecil to-day. There are differences of opinion as to that harmony, but it is not part of my duty to-refer to that now, and I am addressing myself purely and simply to the Bill. We have the question of pay and pensions. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that questions of naval and military pay and allowances are important, and under these circumstances it would be interesting to have cleared up what acts on the decision of the Air Council in transferring naval or military men to the Air Service. If it is going to be a considerable decrease and they are going to, suffer financially, it is reasonable to assume, in view of the ridiculously low pay compared with the cost of living, that by transfer they are going to suffer financial loss, you are not going to encourage the best men to come forward. I should like. that point cleared up, and I wish the pay and allowances of the officers of this new Air Service could be embodied in the Bill.
  Another point is that even now I utterly fail to see what the position of this new Air Service is to the Army and Navy, respectively. It is absolutely essential to the well-being of the Service that so far as possible the Naval Air Service should remain under the control of the Admiralty. I think it would be fatal to transfer the control or the policy of the Naval Air Service, so far as it is necessary to operate with the Grand Fleet, into the hands either of amateurs, as the hon. Member suggests, or into the hands of the Army officials, or anyone else. If the Grand Fleet by now does not know what it wants so far as the Air Service is concerned, it never will, and certainly it will not be taught by the War Office or the new Council. For the purposes of the Grand Fleet it is necessary that there should be a complete and unified Service under the supreme command of the Navy, and not at the command of any Air Minister. It is equally necessary that in regard to the work on the Western Front so far as it affects the operations of the Army in the field—which may be taken to be from the enemy's front line to the base which is supplying them, that is the actual mobile army of the

  157
  enemy in the field—that there should be complete control, without reference or discussion with any other body, in the hands of the commanding officer of that area. Just as the guns of battleships are under the supreme command of the officers in command of the ship, and the guns of an army are under the command of the army officers, so surely aeroplanes which are necessary for the operation of these respective Services ought to be under those commands. That is no argument against a complete and entire Air Service operating in connection with both those Services.
  It is not my intention to claim any special credit for the introduction of this Bill, but there is one thing which I have been pleading for the last nine years, and that is a separate Service. This Bill does not give the faintest hope that that thing is about to be accomplished. This measure is one of the most nebulous things which in my brief Parliamentary experience I have examined, for it simply provides that His Majesty may by Order in Council do this, and then if sufficient pressure is brought to bear on the gentlemen interested, His Majesty may not do this. We want to know what the policy of the Air Council is going to be and what are its powers. How will it stand when it gets up against the Army Council or the Admiralty? Surely any hon. Member who has any inside knowledge of what the Air Board has been up against when it had no power, when it had to go from one side of Whitehall to the other and appeal on its knees for recognition and utterly failed to get it—surely anybody who knows anything of the brief and tragic life of the last and the present Air Board and knows anything of what is going on with the overlapping which still exists, and the opposition which the Air Board received both from the Army and the Navy respectively, must see what is the position of the new Air Council when it comes into conflict with the champion of the new Service. Having snatched the Cinderella away from both her elder and spiteful sisters, what is going to be the attitude and the power of this Air Minister?
  I would like it laid down in the Bill that he shall not only have the right to request but to demand that every piece of material which is not absolutely essential to the well-being of the Grand Fleet and to the requirements of the Expeditionary Forces shall be immediately
  158
  transferred to the complete and supreme, control of the Air Council. I would like to see, instead of the new Ministry being dependent upon the good graces of the Ministry of Munitions, a certain proportion of the firms capable of increasing aeroplane output transferred to the Air Council. This Bill tells us absolutely and utterly nothing. First of all, it should, have cleared up the relationship between the Royal Flying Corps and the War Office. Is the Royal Flying Corps still going to exist after this Bill has been passed into law? Are we simply going to bleed the Royal Flying Corps of its best men, or are we going to take the sweepings of the Royal Flying Corps to form the nucleus of the great Imperial Air Service? What is going to be the relationship between the Royal Air Service and the Admiralty? Are we going to have put into the Imperial Air Service all the direct entry men? Are the pukka men going to be allowed to transfer to this Service, or, if they volunteer, are they going to be allowed to transfer? As far as I can see, nothing can be done unless everybody agrees. First of all, the man has to agree, then his immediate superior officer has to allow him to go, then the Admiralty have to allow him to depart, and then the Air Council have to agree to accept him. It will be the first experience I have had of military and naval Departments in every case being in complete unity about such a matter. The Bill should definitely lay down that any man or any officer who is suitable as a pilot and who wishes to transfer to the Air Forces should be allowed to do so. Are we creating a real thing or are we simply creating a name—just a Ministry which is going to have the spare men of the two forces and any direct entries which they can get? If so, then the Service itself, quite apart from the Act upon which it is founded, is doomed to failure.
  How many men are there left in this, country to-day, after nearly two years of Conscription, who are at all suited, either physically or in any other way, to engage in this new service? If this new service is going to increase and multiply in the way that the hon. Member suggests, it is perfectly obvious that it will have to draw its recruits either from the Army or the Navy. It is suggested that these recruits should only be allowed to go provided that the Army and the Navy respectively agree to let them go. This will be the first instance that either the Army or the.

  159
  Navy have allowed a good man to transfer to some other service. Unless there is going to be something definite about this Bill, far better that we should not pass it at all. If the Bill is purely and simply a blind, or a sort of answer to the two years' agitation for a new portfolio, to keep the public quiet, then the sooner the matter is cleared up in the interests not only of the public, but more particularly of the Air Service and the men with whose careers we are juggling, the better. I know that the public, when once this new portfolio is granted, will to a certain extent feel that they can turn over and sleep safely in their beds, that there will be no more air raids, and that everything will be quite all right. But I would like to take the opportunity of saying, no matter how able the Air Minister, and how excellent may be his qualifications, that he has a great and terrible task before him, and, whatever we do, it would be not only cruel but a disservice to this country to criticise him for the first six months. He must be given a chance. On the other hand, if we are going to allow the privilege of criticism to pass from us for six months, it is most essential that w e should see that the warrant which gives him power is such as to render it at least possible for the right man to assert his authority and to acomplish the will of the people.
  The Bill before us does not even say what the relationship of the Royal Naval Air Service to the Royal Flying Corps is going to be. Above all, it does not say what the relationship of the Air Ministry to these four distinct and separate services is going to be, beyond the fact that they should mutually agree what is the greatest good for themselves. Any member of the War Office who did not look after the interests of the War Office would be a traitor to the War Office. There is a certain rivalry between all corps, and there is a certain feeling, if you are a naval officer, that you want to keep the Navy end up. It is the same with the War Office. What is the poor little Air Service going to do, starting off with no power? There is no power given it by this Bill. It has simply got power to plead, and as far as I can see, in most oases it will plead in vain. I appreciate, and I want the House to give me credit for appreciating, that it would be a most dangerous thing to interfere with the
  160
  actual war necessities of the Army and. Navy in so far as the Grand Fleet and the Army in the field are concerned, but over and above that there is a vast army of young fellows under twenty-five years of age willing and anxious to come forward and join this Service. I would like this Bill to lay it down that any young fellow under twenty-five years of age who is capable of passing the medical examination necessary for this peculiarly trying and exhausting service shall be received by the new Air Force with open arms, whether his commanding officer wishes to let him go or not. Surely this is not a question whether a commanding officer wishes to sacrifice a man or not. Surely there is not a Member of this House who will say that a young fellow of 25, 22, 21, or 19 is not doing much more useful work as a pilot right over the enemy's lines than sitting up to his waist in mud in the trenches. I can testify that a pilot is worth twenty men in the trenches for military value, and it is the young men in the country whom we must select and train for this purpose. It is a waste of money and of human material to throw away in the trenches the life of any young man who is a potential pilot.
  I would not like to suggest that the framers of this Bill have had more regard for the personal effect it will have upon individuals than for its future value as an instrument of war and as an effort to victory, but in this country, whenever one watches any legislative measure, one always feels that the one thing which has occupied the minds of the people who drafted it is the effect it will have on Smith, Brown, Jones or Robinson, rather than the effect it will have on victory. I do not know who has been consulted in the drawing up of this Bill. Presumably the only people who could have been consulted are the senior naval and military officers in the respective Air Services. Had I been responsible for the drafting of this Bill, I would have called a council of 200 or 300 of the squadron-commanders of both the Navy and the Army, and 1 would have endeavoured to draft a Bill based on the actual war experience of those men. It was absolutely necessary, especially in a young service such as this. where there is very little experience and which has not yet given any man an opportunity of making or gaining a public reputation for himself, that all those men who are directly interested in the failure or success of the aeroplane as a fighting

  161
  arm should have been consulted in so important a matter as the drafting of the first Air Bill. I would suggest, from what I see in the Bill, that that has not been done.
  Another question, which I might ask the hon. Gentleman now, is whether it is proposed that the men who are appointed to this Council are to be appointed under what, I believe, is called the Great Seal. I do not know very much about these matters, but I do know that there is a certain dignity attaching to all officials who are appointed under the Great Seal, and I would suggest that it might be advantageous to give the members of this Council the same status as members of the War Council, or the members of the Admiralty itself. The Bill should state definitely—it need not be by name—what kind of a Council the Air Minister is to have under him, and what are to be the respective duties of those men. For example, if a Director of Operations is going to be on the Council, it would have been just as well to have stated it in the Bill. If a Director of Air Defences is going to be on the Council, it would have been just as well to have stated it in the Bill. By a Director of Air Defences I mean a man in the Air Ministry in supreme command of all the air defences of the country against invasion by the air. I certainly think that such a man should be appointed to the Council. That a Director of Construction should be appointed to the Council is most important, and that should be done rather than leave the constructive side of the whole of this vast service, which is to be in the hands of any official in the Ministry of Munitions. If this official in the Ministry of Munitions is competent to accomplish this task, it might be as well if he were transferred to the Air Council as the Director of Construction, with supreme powers. The Air Minister could then look, not to a Department, but to an individual, and could say: " This thing has not been done; why?" So far as I can see the present method in all official undertakings is to get as many signatures to every document as you can, and that if you have a hundred signatures on all the documents and everything goes right, they all claim credit for it, while if anything goes wrong, they all say it was the other man. That has been, in my experience, one of the great failings of official departments. I should like to see the Air Minister turn to one man only for the
  162
  supreme duty of organising and directing the defences of this country from invasion and attack by air.
  Presumably there will be a Director of Personnel on the Council. If that is so, perhaps the hon. Member will say whether the Director of Personnel of the Air Force will have any authority over those members of the Air Force who are serving in the Army and Navy respectively. This is a rather important point, because all this sort of thing has a great bearing on the feeling of the members of a force. Every man knows that the only way of gaining promotion—presumably even officers of the Army are human—is to keep well before those people who are responsible for recommending him for promotion. If the Director of Personnel of the Air Service is going to lend officers to the Army and the Navy, they will pass out of his vision, and we shall have, what is quite a common thing now, namely. officers who have been sent out as lieutenants or flight-commanders to distant parts of the world, and who are still lieutenants and still commanders, while other officers, who have managed to do their bit around the War Office or the Admiralty, have gone up in promotion rather more rapidly, like the right hon. Gentleman who recently joined the Royal Flying Corps from the Front Opposition Bench. There is also the question of a Director of Equipment. I hope, even if the hon. Gentleman is not following all that I say, that he will do the House the compliment of reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. A Director of Equipment is a most important point. It is absolutely essential that the Air Council shall consist of certain men who shall be responsible for these different duties. What is even more important is that a representative of the Army and of the Navy should be associate members of the Council. It has been suggested by the hon. Member that it will not be necessary, that the unity and harmony will be so complete throughout the whole Service that it will not be necessary for the Army or the Navy to make representations to the Air Service, and that everything will go so sweetly and harmoniously that things will just happen. If he will allow me to contradict him from actual experience, I would tell him that is not the case, and that the Army will be making constant demands on the Air Service, that the Navy will be making constant demands on the Air Service, and that unless

  163
  there are representatives sitting on the Council—let him call them walking delegates if he likes—from the Army and Navy respectively, I am afraid that nothing but friction will occur.
  I presume that there will be the customary Parliamentary Secretary and Financial Secretary, because there will be a considerable question arising as to the financial position of these respective Services. If the Navy is to have the use of a large part of the Air Force, and if the Army is to have the use of another large part, are the Army and Navy going to hire them from the Air Service? If not, how is their Vote going to be taken? Are the Army and Navy going to pay these men, or will an Air Service Vote provide for their pay while they are loaned for these respective operations. If the latter is the case, I can see the enormous difficulty and utter chaos that existed in the Royal Naval Air Service in its earlier days being accentuated, when no one could make out who ought to have paid certain accounts, and whether they related to the Naval Air Service, or what they were. A point which the hon. Member might take an early opportunity of clearing up is the financial relation of the Air Council to its own members and to those who are either loaned or who have never even volunteered from the Army or Navy respectively. Presumably it will be necessary to have a series of superintendents for the purpose of carrying out the work which will evolve on this new Air Council. It would be interesting to know whether this work is going to be duplicated or whether it is going to be centralised and unified. There will have to be superintendents of aeroplane and seaplane construction. Presumably that work is now being carried out by the Munitions Department. Are we to understand that in future it will be carried out by the Air Council It says nothing about it in the Bill. It will be necessary to have superintendents of airship and balloon construction. What are we going to do about that? At present even the Air Board has nothing to do with balloon or airship construction. The Admiralty absolutely refused to hand it over to the Air Department, and to avoid an absolutely open rupture the Air Board gave way, and though the majority of the people of this country think to this day that the Air Board has control of airships, I take this opportunity of assur-
  164
  ing them that they are wrong. The Admiralty still retains the supreme control of the construction and operations of airships. Presumably this Bill is to allow, the Air Council to take over the functions and duties of the Air Board. Does it include that? I see the hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone. Perhaps there is someone on the Treasury Bench who is not in complete ignorance of the Bill. If so, I hope he will advise the Rouse whether the Air Council takes over balloons and airships.
  We come now to the Superintendent of Engine Construction. Balloons and airships need engines. Aeroplanes need engines. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Service need engines. Who is going to be the Superintendent of Engine Construction? Where is he going to be? What Council is he going to be on, and is he going to take his orders from the Air Minister, the Minister of Munitions, or the Army or the Navy? That is a point I should very much like cleared up. Another important point is as to the Superintendent of Armament Construction. The armament of aeroplanes is a most important thing. Fighting machines want very special forms of armament. So far as the present bomb-dropper is concerned, it is almost a secondary consideration. In observation machines, where they are accompanied by fast fighting scouts, the armament is even less. Really, so far as armament is concerned, the Army and the Navy would be much more interested in the development of armament than the Air Service itself, whose functions would be really those of a great raiding squadron. If you are going to hand over the armament to the Imperial Air Service with no representation from either the Army or the Navy on the Board, I can see a great deal of friction arising, and surely now is the time to clear it up. Is the Superintendent of Armaments going to be on the Air Council, in the Navy or in the War Office, or are they going to have three; and if they are, are they going to conduct their own experiments, and, if so, are they going to exercise the same secrecy as was exercised for nearly two years by the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service? They were both experimenting with the same invention, and neither knew that the other was doing it, and both took jolly good care they did not.
  We come next to the question of the Superintendent of Laboratories. Presumably he will conduct his experiments under

  165
  the Air Council. Will he conduct aero- plane experiments and the various experiments which are necessary for observation with gun-spotting machines? These are the things which I am perfectly confident the Services themselves, as distinct possibly from Members of this House, want cleared up. What they want to know, when this Bill is passed is, where the Services stands as a service. It is most essential that we should have an Air Service, and that it should be made worth a man's while to join it and that he should be able to take up flying, the same as a man can take up the Army or the Navy, as a career. The present system is to snatch a man out of either Service, slip him into the Royal Flying Corps, rush him through the training, and push him into a job. He comes down and crashes. He is said to be medically unfit. He is pushed down, and within a week is probably called up as a private under the Military Service Act because he is unfit for a pilot. We want to stop that now. We want to create a career for the men of this country who are making the great sacrifice. I am not talking Jingoism. At present the direct entrant into the Naval Air Service has a very thin time. He is known as a pukka service officer, and it is very much the same with the direct entrant into the Army itself. I know a small club in London frequented by naval officers where it is not considered the thing for a Royal Naval Air Service man with a bird on his buttons to come in. They only have an anchor. They are different from the pukka service officer who is transferred to the Royal Naval Air Service. The uninitiated cannot tell the difference, but the men in the Service can. They recognise the bird as distinct from the anchor on the button. We want to sweep away all these little jealousies and intrigues and the seniority business. We want to sweep away the naval "dug-out," with years of seniority, who has been planted in the Naval Air Service to introduce disciplinary measures. Disciplinary measures are very fine providing they are all leading to one end, but if they only arrest the development of the Service and kill imagination and individual effort they are working the destruction of the Air Service rather than its salvation.
  Then there is the question of the Air-craft Factory. Where does that stand? Is it to be handed over to the Royal Air Service or is it going to be retained by the Flying Corps. There is nothing in the
  166
  Bill. That is a most important thing. It has never been my job in this House to plead the cause of a trade, but there is a very important work going on at this moment which has a very great bearing on the whole future of aviation in this country. The Government is putting up huge factories all over this country which are nothing more nor less than Government factories. They are putting up all the money to build them and are supplying all the material for the purpose of building the aeroplanes, they are paying all the wages bills, and putting fictitious names over the doors to make people believe that they are private enterprises. I can give the names of four of them in private who have no more financial control than the office boys. They simply draw a small commission on the machines that come out. Their names are used as a blind to deceive the trade. It may be in the interests of this country to set up these vast factories and to produce under these conditions, but if you stifle enterprise and arrest its development you will find that other countries, which have not arrested private effort, and have not endeavoured to stamp out individual ingenuity, will leave us trailing behind in the fight for the supremacy of the air. I am not going to waste the time of the House perorating about the needs of an Air Service to this Empire. That they are essential to our existence there can be no doubt in the minds of reasoning men.
  So far as transport works and buildings are concerned, the Royal Naval Air Service have decorated the coast of these Islands at intervals of about two miles with vast buildings that contain, among other things, some thousands of engines which, unfortunately, are obsolete or obsolescent, and a considerable number of very excellent seaplanes and flying boats. What is going to happen to all these? Are they to be handed over to this new Service? Surely these are matters of very grave importance, and the Bill ought to inform the House what is to happen in regard to them. So far as the duties of these men are concerned, I do not think it is necessary to develop them to any great extent; but that the Air Ministry should have supreme control of policy and general supervision of the whole service, in so far as it does not infringe on the Army and Navy respectively, is absolutely necessary. Such a straight statement from the Treasury Bench would do more to accelerate the passage of this Bill than anything else

  167
  would do. They have clothed the skeleton of this Bill in a wilderness of words. A perfectly straight statement is all that is necessary. If they say that the Air Minister shall have supreme control of everything appertaining to the Air Service irrespective of the needs of the Army in the field and the Grand Fleet, then we can get the matter cleared up. As to the respective functions and duties of other members of the Air Board, I cannot see why it cannot be provided in the Bill what they should be responsible for and what duties can be expected of them. So far as the Bill is concerned, one finds absolutely nothing which guides one in the slightest degree. It is so vague and nebulous that one is almost tempted to sit down and, by way of Amendment, practically write or create an entirely new Bill, and a Bill which would convey something to those people who are interested.
  The Bill does not provide the name or the rank that the various officers in this Service should carry. It does not provide whether this Service is to have a distinctive uniform. Hon. Members may think that is a matter of small importance but I can assure them it is nothing of the kind. The question of uniform has caused considerable friction. The question now as to whether this Air Service shall be given distinctive uniform is one of very considerable moment to the men who will come forward to join the new Service. We do not want a burlesque. We do not want to put them into a uniform which will cause them to be mistaken for Belgian or French flying officers; but an alteration of uniform which will provide something distinct from both naval and military uniforms will do more to remove friction than anything else this Bill could do. Then we come to the question of title. You have lieutenants Royal Navy who rank with the senior two captains in the Army, and you have hundreds of lieutenants R.N.V.B. who presumably take the same rank with officers in the Army. Are you going to transfer these men piecemeal into the new Service? Captains are going to come in and find themselves junior to naval lieutenants and naval lieutenants are going to find themselves junior to military men What are you going to call these men? Might I suggest to the Minister that the best thing would be not to transfer any of these men but to allow them to come out of the Service for twenty-four hours and to he civilians again. There would then be no
  168
  question of transferring them with their rank or seniority. Let us start on a clear basis. Let us start from zero and give to these men the appointment which their ability justifies, irrespective of the position they have occupied in the past. You will find many young lieutenants who are infinitely more fitted to lead squadrons than many transferred squadron commanders in both Services. I should like to see all these young fellows brought out.
  I should like to see a council or selecting body established and each man bringing his dossier showing what he has done, where he started, and what his experience has been. Then let him be offered a post in the new Service which he deserves, irrespective of his previous seniority. If you are going to transfer some men and give them seniority because they have a friend at court, and other men lose their seniority because they have not a friend at court, you are going to have nothing but disputes, friction, and intrigue on the part of men endeavouring to make good, when opportunity is given. This Bill should not provide that opportunity. It should be clear. Here at last is an opportunity for this Government which is claiming a reputation for doing things. Here is an opportunity for doing the thing thoroughly and showing skill not only in drafting Bills, but in having the courage to do things thoroughly. Let them sweep aside the interests of the various men involved, whether they are on the Army Council or on the Board of Admiralty. This War has come to such a state that if you are not prepared to sacrifice reputations we may have to sacrifice victory. Let this Bill be clear and concise. Let it say that in regard to aeroplanes the Government recognise that the functions relegated to the Army and Navy must not be tampered with, but that they also realise that there is a great future and a great opportunity for the development of vast raiding squadrons, irrespective of both these Services, carrying the air war for the first time in its history and for the first time in three and a-half years of war thoroughly into the enemy's country and giving our enemies just a flavour of what it means to make war on humanity in the way they have done. There is that opportunity now. This House works in penny numbers and never has the courage to make a clean sweep. It is merely a series of concessions after concessions. If you want a pint you have to ask for a gallon

  169
  and then you get a gill, and then they come here on their hands and knees and say that we must be grateful that after two or three years we have succeeded.
  If this Bill passes as it is to-day it is neither a credit to its critics nor to its constructors. It is a nebulous and useless Bill and the only thing it does is to lob the House of Commons and private Members of the House of Commons of the privilege which freely elected men, when you can find them, really should hate. An hon. Member says, Daily Mail." The future Air Minister must be in his mind. This Debate opened with, I think, three or four Members present. I hope -that when it reaches the Committee stage many Members of this House, whether they understand aeroplanes or not, no matter how much they know, will make it their business to come down here and help to create a great Air Service. If they will not do that, let them come down to guard their own privileges. What does this Bill provide? That the Home Secretary shall by Order in Council—which is following the example of the Defence of the Realm Act but is infinitely more.pernicious—I beg pardon, it is not "shall," for "shall" does not appear in the Bill—may, by Order in Council, do this, that, or the other. Every Member who has risen from his seat in this House to sing the praises of our gallant airmen owe those men a great duty. They owe it to them to see that when the Bill becomes an Act it shall not only fulfil the views and wishes of members of the Government and of the High Command, but that it shall also meet the views and wishes of those men whose gallantry has brought this Service into such prominence. Quite apart and distinct from agitation and criticism, these men by their sacrifices have galvanised the Government into the tentative action they have taken on this occasion.
  10.0 P.M.
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I want to ask one question on a subject treated earlier in the Debate. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Second Reading was asked whether it was the intention of the Government that the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service should be handed to the Air Council, he replied, "Yes, as far as I know." That is, of course, not a very definite statement from the Minister in charge of the Bill, but I know my hon. and gallant Friend only introduced the
  170
  measure at very short notice, and I think the House and the country are entitled to something a little more definite as to the Government's intentions in this matter. Of course, the difficulties are very great. I quite appreciate that this is only the skeleton of the Bill, and that all that is going to take place must be left until the Council is appointed and the Secretary of State takes his place on that Bench. That I quite understand, but still I think the House is entitled to rather more information as to the Government's intentions. I do not ask my hon. and gallant Friend to lay down definitely what the Government are going to do. It would be absurd to ask that, but I do suggest he ought to give us something better than "as far as I know." When an hon. Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Bench asked later on what really was going to happen, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if the Army Council and the Admiralty did not come to an arrangement about handing over the Forces to the Air Council then, of course, the War Cabinet would intervene and give definite orders which the Admiralty and the Army Council would have to carry out. That is quite a reasonable proposition. But then we have this remarkable Clause 3, which I want to bring to the attention of the House. You are setting up an Air Force in time of war. One would imagine that at once you would transfer every flying officer and man to the new force. But you do not do it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill said, "We do not want to compel anybody. We do not want to compel a seaman in the Navy, although he may now be in the Flying Corps, to go into the new force. Neither do we want to compel a soldier who may now be in the Air Service to go into the new force. We will not use compulsion." We know we are at war. The Front Bench are always telling us that. You take a man from the plough and you send him into the trenches, or you take him from an office and send him there. But you may not take a flying man who is already in the Service and transfer him from the Army or Navy into the Air Force. I think we are entitled to know something more as to what the Government has in view in this matter. I do not wish to press the hon. Gentleman unduly, but I think he will admit that the point is a very important one.
  I do not think for one moment we are going to have a single Air Force as

  171
  the result of this Bill. There is nothing in the Bill Which prevents the Army and the Navy still keeping up their Air Forces, and I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that the matter has been left in that nebulous condition because the Army and Navy have definitely determined that they will have their own. flying forces. I do not believe for a moment that the Army could surrender its flying force. You have only to be in the front line of the Army in France to realise the intimate connection there is between the Artillery and the aeroplanes, and it is almost incredible that they are to be entirely divorced. The troops have to throw out signals so that the aeroplanes may recognise them, and I do not think the Army will ever agree to surrender entirely its flying force. I also doubt very much whether the Navy will ever agree to do so. From what one hears—I know very little of the Navy—I very much doubt whether they will surrender it, and the events of the last few months show how rapidly they are developing their Service. They have lately given a large number of flying officers regular commissions in the Navy, although previously they held only temporary rank. I think I have given sufficient reasons to prove to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the House and the country are entitled to know a little more as to the views of the Government in this matter. I know the great difficulties we have in front of us. This Bill is only a very slight step in the direction we all want to go, and I am not quite certain in my own mind that it is not a serious retrograde step. At the present moment you have the Navy and the Army Flying Services more or less connected under the Air Board. Directly this Bill becomes law the new Air Force has no control over, the Army or Navy Flying Services, and, consequently, all the good that the present Air Board has done will be entirely vitiated. You have actually a Secretary of State for the Air who has nothing whatever to do in any way whatsoever, by law, with either the work of the Army Council or of the Admiralty. I do think we are entitled ,to some further information of the matter. I do not wish to hamper the Government in any way, because I am anxious to see the Bill go through: If it is not as I have suggested, but- which I fear it is, I am ready to support the Bill,
  172
  hoping that in Committee we may be able to make it impossible for the Bill to become a retrograde Act.
  Mr. LYNCH: I propose to offer a few words which I will endeavour to make as brief as possible, because we have already had this evening one exhaustive speech. I for one do not regret its length in view or the material which it contained. I am one of those who for months past have not only been looking forward to the introduction of a Bill of this description, but who many months ago first urged that there should be what was then proposed as an Air Ministry, and also many months ago, so long ago that it seems like ancient history, the formation of a Thinking Department. Although we were at war then the Government did not wake up to the realities of the situation, and it has taken all these months of dire experience to have done what their prevision should have accomplished for them. They should have seen before by virtue of their own foresight what would be required by the necessities of the situation.
  To-night in listening to the Bill being introduced I must say that I had this sense of disappointment: over it all there was a feeling that it was impossible for the minds of those who have been conducting the Air Service to escape from their grooves, from the traditional routine in which they had become encrusted; the desire always to cling to the shores and never lose sight of the old landmarks, the inability ever to strike out on new lines, and to trust their own analysis of a problem—their own capacity for scientific construction. It seems to me that in introducing a Bill of this kind which is the foundation of an entirely new arm of defence, one might have proceeded from the great exterior situation, observing the necessities of the situation which have been imposed upon us by the Germans themselves, and regarding the problem in that way step by step, to work down until the final basis of construction was reached, so that from that point the plans could be built up step by step, which would finally give us an adequate reply to the German menace. But instead of the Bill being conceived in that form as a reply to the German menace, it seems rather to be conceived as a measure for amelioration, improving and developing the present bad system. The German themselves have failed so far' from their point of view to attain an adequate Air Service, and for

  173
  this reason, that at the beginning of the War they were hypnotised by their great Zeppelin idea, and they thought it would be far more effective in bringing a decision in this War than it has proved to be, in spite of the genius that has been expended on the construction of these vessels. But after long months of hard experience on their part the comparative failure of the Zeppelin has been shown, and now while unfortunately perhaps from their side it is not too late the Germans have thrown overboard that idea in great part, and have concentrated on an Air Service; and, in concentrating on their Air Service, they have built up a system much more simple in its lines of construction, and much more capable of giving direct and vigorous action, than the Bill which is now before the House will be able to accomplish. We have already seen the result of that in the air raids upon London itself, and those air raids upon London bring this aspect of the question forcibly before our minds, that, quite apart from the service that aircraft renders to the Army in the way of observation, spotting for artillery and so forth, and quite apart from the service that airships and various kinds of aircraft have rendered and are capable of rendering to the Navy, there is not only one distinct use but a multitude of distinct uses, entirely separate from and independent of those of the Army and Navy, for which a great Air Service could be constructed. That is the great datum line, so to speak, in viewing the construction of this Bill which lays down the machinery of this force.
  There seems to me, unfortunately, resistance in the ranks both of the Army and the Navy. Recently in speaking to a French officer in Paris, a very intelligent man, I found that he seemed opposed to the very idea of a great development of air service. I will represent his point of view very briefly, because it seems to be a very professional point of view, perhaps artificially cultivated. He said that after all the great implements of the Army were the Infantry, the Cavalry, and the Artillery, and he seemed to regard it as impossible, as something that did not fit in with the etiquette of the military system, that victory could be attained by any arm that did not fall within one of those three categories.
  174
  I believe that few people in the Army and not many in this House have risen to the enormous possibilities of the Air Service as a separate striking arm in this sense, that if we slowed down somewhat in the sense of attack on land—if a Hindenburg wall of defence on the Western Front were set up, for example, while keeping the Navy up to its present state of development, it would be possible then to concentrate on a new arm immensely more powerful, not merely than anything hitherto attained, but perhaps than anything hitherto conceived. Two years ago that would have been possible. Two years ago, we see now clearly, it would have been possible to have constructed such an enormous air fleet that with its multitude of uses the Allies could have obtained complete mastery of the air in the same sense as after Trafalgar the British Fleet had obtained complete mastery of the sea—that is to say, no enemy aircraft would have dared present itself above the horizon. Then the whole field of the air would have been free for any purpose for which that fleet might be employed and without resistance. Without going into detail I could throw off a score of highly important uses, some perhaps absolutely decisive, in the sense of actually winning the War in which that fleet could be employed. At one time I said it would be possible to gain a final decision by that means, but months have rolled by and the situation is changed. Now every effort will have to be put forward to gain perhaps not a final decision by the air but to cope with the ever-growing power of the Germans in that same region.
  In view of the lateness of the hour and in view of the fact that many of the most interesting points that have been raised to-night are really Committee points I will conclude in these terms, by saying that though I look upon this Bill as bad, it is better than nothing; but I regard the future of the Air Service as still uncertain, and a great deal will depend upon the spirit in which the measure is carried out. and particularly upon the man on whom the choice falls for the position of Secretary of State to control and administer the Act, and also on the point as to whether the man will be a member of the War Cabinet; because, if you have the right man, capable of rendering the most signal service, and his acts and decisions be revised by those void of the same faith and insufficiently endowed with his energy, a great deal of

  175
  his work may be rendered nugatory. Therefore, I think that the Controller of the Air Service should be a member of the War Cabinet, in order better to utilise his services. He should be a man endowed with the faith that can move mountains, with that driving power, the absence of which in a man of minor calibre would cause him to be overcome by difficulties real enough in themselves; he should overcome those difficulties not by sheer brute driving force, but by the clear intelligence to see how those difficulties are capable of being solved with the means at his disposal; a man of rapid decision, great energy, clear intellect, and ever keeping before his mind the fixed thought that victory may be accomplished by working ceaselessly night and day for the realisation of the plans which he has conceived.
  Mr. HOHLER: I regard this Bill as one of great importance, but its terms are to my mind exceedingly nebulous. The real difficulty, as I have always understood, is the competition between the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps. I doubt whether this Bill solves those difficulties. The great difficulty is in regard to the manufacture of the very best aeroplanes to be supplied for the Air Services, for which both the Admiralty and the Army, as I understood, were competing. I see nothing in this Bill to get rid of that. It does not in any way indicate what powers the Admiralty will have and what powers the Army will have in regard to the disposal of Air forces. It seems to me that the Admiralty should have complete disposition in regard to the forces created so far as His Majesty's ships are concerned and equally that the Army should have complete control in regard to the forces to which are committed the operations on the land. There is nothing in the Bill to show how this is to be done. It would be much more satisfactory if the Air Council had granted to them powers in regard to the training of the men who are to construct the aeroplanes and the men who are to guide them. The conditions in regard to sea and land are wholly different, but it is clear that the Army must control on land and the Navy on sea. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that course should be adopted. On the contrary, I am surprised that the Bill contains a provision that any officer or man in the Royal Naval Air Service or the Royal Flying Corps may within three months have to be remitted
  176
  to his own particular service. That does not to my mind speak of co-ordination or co-operation, and I trust that we may have some explanation of what is the real and inner intention of the Bill from whose terms it is very difficult to understand what is aimed at. What really, in my judgment, we should desire, is that we should manufacture the very best, without competition between the two Departments of the Army and the Navy. I cannot myself see any reason why we should depart from the name of the Royal Flying Corps, which has obtained such great distinction, and I trust that on the Committee stage of this Bill the name of the Royal Flying Corps, which distinguishes our Air Service over all others, will be retained.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): I was asked by my right hon. Friend, to whom the charge of this Bill was originally committed, owing to his inability to be here to-night—which is to Le regretted—to give him such assistance as I can on some technical questions that will present themselves for consideration in connection with the provisions of the Army Act. These questions are technical and complicated, and I am asked to give assistance to the House in that respect. I am glad to do so. It is not my object to intervene on the merits of the Debate either on the Second Reading stage or any other stage, but any criticism might be pushed too far on that point, and, without either discourtesy or exaggeration, I might be permitted to retort that though we are not all experts, yet we have advisers who in the past three years have become entitled themselves to be considered experts, and who are not inferior in technical experience to their critics. The only object with which I have risen—my hon. and gallant Friend who introduced the Second Reading or this Bill having exhausted his right to speak again in this Debate—is to attempt to reply to one or two points which have been raised, and I hope I will not be considered punctilious when I say that those who have addressed to us a large number of questions left the House on the conclusion of their speeches. I am not desiring to take advantage of any such technical point, and I will attempt to address myself to the more serious points that have been raised. I hope I shall be permitted to begin by saying that no one is entitled to think that the bringing in of this Bill is any admission that the growth,

  177
  increase, and efficiency of the Air Service, both naval and military, in the course of this War is not one of the most marvellous improvisations that this War, or any other war, has ever wit-messed. It has been said by some of the critics of the Government that we ought to have introduced a proposal of this kind earlier. Others of our critics have said that we ought not to have introduced them at all These lines of criticism were perhaps a little mutually contradictory, but I think the House will be willing to bear in mind, in justice to the officials concerned, and in justice to those politicians who are responsible and who are over the officials, that they found themselves compelled, in times of improvisation, to multiply all our resources in the air, whether in the Navy or in the Army, when the very existence of the Army and of the Navy may depend at any moment on the rapidity and success with which that improvisation is carried on. Those who do justice to those considerations will, I think, be a little slow to criticise severely those who have been thought slow to introduce amalgamation of all the Services, which, everyone knows, was greatly resented by many members of both those Services. Let us never forget this, that the moment you develop a naval Air Service, and side by side with that you develop a military Air Service, you have immediately the soil from which competitive instincts spring, and this nation would not be the nation it was if from that soil and from those origins, from the very circumstances of the co-existence of naval and military flying, we had not that competitive instinct which in the past has been the soil, the fruitful soil, of gallant deeds.
  Mr. BILLING: Why not have two Navies and let them compete?
  Sir F. SMITH: That question is even more foolish than those which the hon. Gentleman addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Gentleman says why do you not have two Navies to compete. If the hon. Gentleman could keep sufficient control of his listening faculties to understand even the most elementary points that were being made in debate he would see—
  Mr. BILLING: You have not made one yet.
  Sir F. SMITH: He would see that I was not recommending the existence of
  178
  that competition as an advantage, but that I was rather founding the case from this Bill, which attempts to abolish it, and I was trying to explain what had been the difficulties in the way of those who, before to-night, had to deal with the task of amalgamating the improvisations.
  Mr. BILLING: You were recommending competition for efficiency.
  Sir F. SMITH: The House listened to a long, rambling, irrelevant speech by the hon. Gentleman, who took an hour. I have not the time to answer the foolish questions he addressed to the House. I was attempting to explain the reasons why this change had been so slow in adoption. I think the House accepts from me the suggestion that once you started, as we were bound to start, under the historical circumstances in which the Air Services started, on a competitive basis, it was inevitable that you would create vested interests. You created vested interests in this sense, that every man in the Navy and in the Army—and, indeed, it is human nature, and it is known to be human nature—who has a command is naturally concerned to magnify the importance of that command and, if it be possible, to extend it. What has happened—the most wasteful and prodigal competition between the two Services It is not convenient in every case to give full examples or explanations, but there are very few people concerned and who study these things who do not know the immense injury that is occasioned to the Services by overlapping and competition between them, It might well be if we had been all-wise, and if we had ample leisure and no other problems jostling against one another for consideration by His Majesty's Government, that we should have been able to deal with these things at an earlier stage of the War. Let it not be forgotten that in war the services are all-powerful. The House knows well enough what happens on the slightest attempt on the part of politicians to interfere with soldiers or with sailors. I have always been of the belief that it is one of the greatest misfortunes to attempt to foster, as has been done in the Press, the idea and to represent that the soldiers and sailors were all in one camp and that all the politicians were in the other camp My reading of history teaches me that no great nation has ever emerged from a great struggle that decided its very existence, and may determine its very future,

  179
  unless the politicians were able to work aide by side and hand in hand with the sailors and soldiers. They do an ill service to their country who attempt to establish cacophony between the politicians and the Services. It is true that when the soldier or the sailor have come to manage on existing lines a particular arm of either Service that it is extremely difficult for the politician or the statesman to interfere.
  But I do say this, the patience of successive Governments has induced them to try and overcome by persuasion the detailed arguments of the Army and the Navy to similar proposals to those of this Bill, which are the surest guarantee that the great new proposals—for they are great proposals !—shadowed in this Bill will be worked with a minimum of friction and a maximum of good will between both of the Services. It is true that considerable sacrifices are to be asked from both of the great Services under the terms of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who addressed the House in a very moderate and a not unfriendly speech asked several questions upon this point. As I understood him, he inquired whether the new Air Board, to be set up, would absorb the functions at present discharged by what I may call, in popular language, the Military and Naval Wings. The main fundamental object of this Bill is to recognise what is the most amazing fact in modern warfare—that is, that all the conditions of warfare have been revolutionised by the calling into existence of a new arm, the consequence of whose intervention are so immense and so incalcuable that no one who is at all cognisant of the operations of this War can doubt that for good or for bad and for all time a new arm has declared itself in war which is distinguishable from the regular arm as was the Navy from the Army in the old days. It is the recognition of this fact that is the motive and spirit of this Bill. How far it has been carried out precisely is a matter, as I think my hon. Friend will see, very difficult of definition. It is not so difficult to understand as difficult of definition. What, however, is important is the spirit with which this Bill is conceived and the spirit with which it is contemplated that the Orders in Council shall be framed. It is the spirit and object of this Bill that the Air Service shall be recognised as an entirely distinguishable Service, that those who
  180
  are responsible for it shall form a new and important Department answerable to Parliament and responsible for the Service for which it so answers to Parliament, and with complete control unfettered by any other Service over all those who belong to it. My hon. Friend may say: Surely some qualification is necessary in the very nature of the case in that Department? The real point of the qualification is this: It is quite obvious that the great usefulness of the Air Service which is attached to an army is that it may be the eyes of the army. In other words, so long as it is loaned by the Air Board, say, to Sir Douglas Haig, it is quite obvious, if you have overlapping and if the Air Council were to interfere with that object it would be destruction of military efficiency. But, subject to that qualification, the Air Council is to be supreme. The qualification is not one with which, I think, any Member of this House is likely to quarrel. The same qualification is necessary where units are lent to the Navy. As to the questions of promotion, those are matters which require the most careful consideration. Similar problems have arisen in connection with the employment of the Naval Division under the Army, and problems, which, though not identical are analogous, have arisen in the case of the Colonial troops. The precise methods are a matter which can either be raised in Committee or which can be discussed with reference to the Orders in Council.
  Sir H. NORMAN: Is it not the case that under the Bill the Orders in Council of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks, which would refer to the Royal Flying Corps or the Royal Naval Air Service, would be quite ineffective without the consent of those Services?
  Sir F. SMITH: I really think, if my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, that when he makes that observation he has not sufficiently reflected upon the conditions under which Government is carried on under modern conditions. Let me explain what I mean. It is quite obvious that you may have, if goodwill is not forthcoming, a hundred points of friction. You may have friction between the Admiralty authorities, the Army authorities, and the new Air authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we have such differences of opinion almost every day or every week in this Government, and the method in which those are resolved is that where there are competing

  181
  claims the representatives of the Departments in which those claims compete go before the War Cabinet, and they state their case, and the War Cabinet arrive at a decision. Do not let me embark upon the great topic whether that is the best method of Government in normal times, but I do say confidently that it is the only which in the Cabinet you could deal with matters of that sort.
  Sir H. NORMAN: The War Cabinet, and not the Orders in Council.
  Sir F. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman does not suppose that Orders in Council are passed without consideration and discussion between the Departments concerned. They do not spring up like mushrooms by night. They are discussed between Departments concerned, and if there is controversy between them they must go to the War Cabinet, and then a decision is reached at the War Cabinet. Take the simplest illustration of all. Sometimes there is a question as to the appropriation of personnel, and a question is raised as between the Army, Navy, and Air Service whether certain men ought to be drafted into the Air Service, or some question is raised as to the promotion of officers. All those matters have to be dealt with by Order in Council. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Herts (Mr. Billing)— although I exchanged a somewhat unfriendly passage with him a moment ago, I have, I assure him, not the slightest unfriendliness towards him, and I notice, as other hon. Members notice, the constant zeal which he devotes to this subject—but I think he was profoundly mistaken in the whole attitude with which he approached this Bill. He stated in the course of his speech an innumerable number of supposed omissions in this Bill. His knowledge of such points enables him no doubt to specify—and I do not doubt to specify with accuracy—a large number of points upon which this Bill is silent. I would only ask the House to consider what would have been the dimensions of this Bill supposing we had attempted to include in it every point of omission referred to by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. Long as this War may prove to be, this Bill would hardly have passed Parliament, even on the most pessimistic basis. If it, indeed, be true that you cannot rely on the Army and Navy now in the fourth year of war, loyally and patriotically to combine to create a great Air Service, if, on the other hand, you you cannot rely on them to give
  182
  the political authorities the advice which they alone can give, so that wise and prudent Orders in Council can be formulated dealing with all the points that he suggests ought to be put in the Bill, if you cannot rely on the naval and military experts to do that, I, for one, would despair of ever creating a flying service, in spite of the lessons this War has taught.
  Mr. HOHLER: It seems to me very important that it should be explained to the members of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps the position they will hold after the War. What is to happen to them then? I do not want to impede this Bill, but I should like to be assured that these airmen are not to suffer under this Bill.
  Sir F. SMITH: I do not think their position is altered at all. Either they engage for the period of the War or they are attached. But is not this question a little out of the perspective with the crisis of the Motion? Surely the House of Commons may be trusted on the conclusion of the War to see that the officers who have left the Army or the Navy to go into the Flying Service—not less dangerous than the most dangerous positions in the Army or Navy—sustain no loss. I think my hon. Friend will find that the most studious care has been taken to avoid any such consequences, but if he will, in Committee, point to any hiatus in that respect he will find that it will receive the most careful and sympathetic attention of the Government. The Member for Southampton (Sir Ivor Philipps) asked a question very forcibly, and it certainly deserves and requires an answer. He said that you are taking men from the counter and the shop and putting them into the trenches and other places equally disagreeable, and I cannot understand why you deny to yourself, except with the consent of the persons affected, a power to move them from one branch of the Army or Navy into the Flying Service. That is a question to be answered in Committee. Whether it be right or wrong, it is the reason which influenced the Government, on the advice of military and naval experts, to come to this conclusion. There is an old tradition in the Army, and I believe in the Navy, that if a man joins the Guards or the gunners he has made his choice, he is entitled to it. He has selected his own field of gallantry, and we ought not to remove him except with his own free consent.
  Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: We have often in this House ignored that rule entirely. We have taken men not only from one branch of the Army to another branch but even from civil life. What I suggested was that as long as this Clause remains as it is now it does make those who like myself are anxious to see an efficient Air Service doubt whether there is any stability in this Bill because only a few men come forward voluntarily and you leave it to the individual.
  Sir F. SMITH: My hon. Friend is very familiar with military duties and he will understand why this was inserted in the Bill. He is fully entitled to point out that great changes in tactics have taken place, and to raise this question on the Committee stage when the Government will be fully prepared to consider his suggestion. I have attempted as far as I can to deal with the various points that have been raised. The Government recognise the friendly spirit with which the House as a whole has been good enough to receive this Bill. They have received it in the spirit of a war Bill—not perhaps perfect in every detail—incapable in the circumstances of the time of containing all the terms upon which the House would insist in normal times of peace. If the Government receive, as we anticipate that we shall receive, the same indulgence from the House in the later stages of the Bill, the House on its part will find that the Government are prepared and anxious to consider in sympathetic spirit every criticism and suggestion that is made, and is obviously made with the object of improving the Bill and rendering it more workable.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday next.—[Colonel Craig.]

  PREMIUM BONDS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the desirability or otherwise of raising money for the purpose of the War by the issue of Premium Bonds."—[Colonel Craig.]
  Mr. KING: I am sorry that this Motion is down upon the Paper, because it seems to me that it is quite unnecessary and very ill-advised. The proposal has been before the public now for a considerable
  184
  time that money for the purposes of the War should be raised by lottery or premium bonds. There are a number of people who seem to think that if you introduce into our financial system the element of chance or, as I prefer to call it, the elements of gambling, millions of money will come in which is now withheld. I totally disagree. I believe that those persons who are best able to judge are agreed that this method will only raise a small sum compared with our enormous commitment and necessities. I further disagree with this principle because it is going back to a method we discussed eighty years ago. In bygone times, even in the times of Elizabeth, there were methods of raising money for the purposes of the Exchequer by means of lotteries, and, later, till the times—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not discussing the subject of premium bonds now. We are only discussing the question whether a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject. The hon. Member must limit his observations to the question of the appointment of the Committee.
  Mr. KING: I shall be very glad to do so. I want to point out that the whole method of introducing lottery or premium bonds would not raise the money we want I think it is legitimate on this Motion to point out that no other Government either in Europe, Asia, or America, has raised money in this way. I understand that the only country in recent times which has raised money by lottery or premium bonds is Serbia, and that only to a very small extent. It was practically given up there, and was not proceeded with to any large extent.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to take a delight in disregarding my ruling. I have already pointed out that we are not discussing the subject of premium bonds. We are discussing the question of appointing a Committee to consider it. This is the second occasion on which I have warned the hon. Member to be more relevant
  Mr. KING: I am extremely sorry to appear even for a moment to disregard your ruling, Sir, and I beg to apologise. I have certainly no desire to disregard any of the forms or Rules of the House. This is certainly relevant. To-day I asked the Prime Minister whether any advice had been taken upon this subject from the Treasury, and whether the.

  185
  Treasury and the War Savings Committee had been asked for their opinion upon this matter. The answer I got was rather characteristic. It declined to face the question at all. It gave me no information whether the Treasury or the War Savings Committee had been consulted as to whether or not an issue of premium bonds should be made. If I were on the Treasury Bench and if I were Chancellor of the Exchequer I have no doubt I should do things differently from the present occupants of those posts. Possibly I should not do the things so well. I doubt very often if I should do them any worse. This I certainly would do: I would ask the advice of people who knew better than myself, of people who were engaged in large financial undertakings and were accustomed to questions of raising money. If I were advised to take up the issue of premium or lottery
  186
  bonds, the first thing I should do would be to ask the Treasury what they thought. You have there men of the highest reputation and experience, who, apparently, have not been consulted at all. The next thing I should do after consulting the Treasury would be to consult the War Savings Committee. Of all the undertakings of the Government during this War nothing has been so admirable as the work of the War Savings Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I call the attention of the House to the continued irrelevance of the hon. Member, and ask him to resume his seat.
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  House was adjourned at Two minutes before Eleven o'clock.