Commons Sitting of 13 November 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
Copies presented of Three Orders in Council, dated the 3rd November, 1917, for holding Winter Assizes in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 940 (Straits Settlements, Report for 1916) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GREECE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representative at Athens ever informed the Foreign Office of the installation of wireless telegraphy by which ex-King Constantine was kept in continual communication with the German court and the military commanders; whether any of the messages interchanged were ever read and reported to the Foreign Office; and what action, if any, the Allied representatives took in consequence?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): His Majesty's Government were aware that King Constantine was in direct communication with Berlin, and certain messages had, in fact, been intercepted. These and other unconstitutional actions of King Constantine led to the blockade of Greece, the enforced transfer of his armed forces to the Morea, and ultimately to his removal from Greece.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the Noble Lord explain why they did not bring about his removal in time to be effective?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think it was in time to, be .effective.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that the Allied Forces in Macedonia were held up for a month?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I do not think that is so.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact of the disclosures recently made in Greece that the object of the visit of Prince Nicholas to this country was to defeat the war aims of the Alliance by representing to the British Court that the efficient carrying out of the military plans would place the dynasty in danger; whether the mission of Prince Nicholas received encouragement in this country; and, if so, whether the military plans were altered in consequence?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; that to the second and third parts in the negative.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the advisability of stimulating the democratic spirit throughout all the troops fighting against the Central Empires, he will form into a pamphlet for general distribution in the Army and elsewhere the dispatches, recently published in Greece, of ex-Queen Sophia to her brother, the Kaiser?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am afraid that owing to the large number of troops engaged, and the general shortage of paper, the hon. Gentleman's proposal is hardly practicable.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not encourage the troops, in view of the fact that this august lady described them as "infamous wine"?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Could not some of the paper be used that is wasted on biographies of the Prime Minister in this country?

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether,

    189
    on the occasion of the Prime Minister seeking to convey to the Labour party congress that M. Kerensky was opposed to the sending of delegates to Stockholm, he conveyed these alleged views of the Russian Premier to the Prime Minister?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have nothing to add to the full statement which the Prime Minister made on the Motion for Adjournment of the 13th of August last.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: As the statement of the Prime Minister is not exactly the same thing, may I ask if the information came from the Foreign Secretary, or through the ordinary diplomatic channels, or is he working behind their back?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the statement of the Prime Minister at the time of the Labour Party Congress that M. Kerensky was opposed to the sending of delegates to Stockholm alienated the supporters of the Russian premier and caused him to issue a denial of the statement, whether he took any steps to make amends to M. Kerensky for the injury that had been done him?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Prime Minister never stated that the Russian Government were opposed to the Conference, and this was explained to the Russian Government at the time.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Did not the Prime Minister state that M. Kerensky was not in favour of holding a Conference, and did not that statement give Lenin his chance?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; that is a ridiculous suggestion.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the overthrow of the Kerensky Government is attributable to the Allies having refused to discuss war aims at the Paris Conference, steps will be taken to remove the impression that the British Government has no regard for the views of the Russian people and seeks to impose upon them a war policy which they cannot fulfil owing to internal conditions of famine, bankruptcy, and disorganisation?
    Lord R. CECIL: There is no foundation for any of the suggestions made in the hon. Member's question, a fact with which I should have supposed him to be well acquainted.

    TURKISH SUPPLIES TO CENTRAL EMPIRES.
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the urgency of cutting off the sources of supply of the Central Powers, he has yet taken any steps to obtain information as to the quantity of supplies of food, cotton, metals, and other essential products for the manufacture of munitions of war sent during the twelve months ending 30th June, 1917, from the Turkish Empire and Bulgaria to the Central Powers; and whether, if such information has not been obtained, he will communicate the desirability of obtaining it to the heads of the Intelligence Department?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is obviously not in the public interest to discuss in the form of question and answer in this House the possibility and means of obtaining intelligence from enemy countries. I can only assure the hon. and gallant Member that His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of obtaining information as to the supplies available to and received by the enemy from all sources.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the general appointed as chairman of the inquiry now being held into the distribution of medical officers with the British Armies in France had retired upon half-pay in 1898; whether he afterwards returned to the Service and again retired in 1909; whether he returned again and was appointed Inspector-General of Infantry in 1914; whether he has any special knowledge of the medical branch of the Service; and, if not, what are the reasons for his selection?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The circumstances to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers were known when the officer in question was selected. His intimate knowledge of the Army in peace and war, and his tact in dealing -with situations that might arise, marked him out as the best chairman for a Committee partly composed of civilians who had no knowledge of Army organisation and methods.

    SERBIAN ARMY (BRITISH MISSION).
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the General Officer in Command of the British Mission attached to the Serbian Army reports direct to the War Office in London or whether he acts merely as liaison officer between General Sarrail and the British Commander-in-Chief at Salonika?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The head of the British Mission attached to the Serbian Army reports direct to the War Office in London.

    COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, since no proper provision of officers with legal training or knowledge exists for the defence of officers or men charged with offences before courts-martial, he will consider the advisability of securing such provision; and whether he will also take into consideration the advisability of officers or men being given a right of representation by a qualified officer at field general courts-martial?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on 31st October.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how the deaths of soldiers executed by sentence of courts-martial are treated; whether the names are inserted in the lists of missing or in any casualty list; and whether in all cases the next-of-kin are informed of the death and its actual cause?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The names of soldiers executed by sentence of court-martial are not published in casualty lists. The next-of-kin are informed of the facts.
    Mr. KING: Are they informed immediately or only after one or two months?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say, but they are informed.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the next-of-kin are informed by a very brutal letter, and will my hon. Friend consider whether these cases could not be put in the casualty lists, so as to avoid, this kind of communication to the parents? In many of these cases the boy is suffering from shell shock.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend most be aware of the facts. As I think I have stated, to put these cases in the
    192
    casualty lists would not be stating the true facts. It is a polite letter which is sent, stating what is necessarily a, brutal fact.
    Mr. KING: Is not this a printed form, and could not an autograph letter, at any rate, be sent, with one or two words of sympathy added?

    SEIZWELL CAMP.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the insanitary and verminous condition of the camp at Seizwell, near Leiston, and generally to the unsatisfactory arrangements of the camp, including the victualling; and whether he will make an inquiry into the matter, in view of the fact that both officers and men have complained for months?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There are no troops now in camp at Seizwell, near Leiston, but three platoons of a battalion of the South Wales Borderers are accommodated in hired buildings and huts there, under good sanitary conditions. No vermin have been detected since the arrival of these men on 23rd September last, but a few cases of scabies have been medically dealt with. No complaints have been made by officers or men, as my hon. Friend suggests At a recent inspection some minor matters connected with catering were brought to notice and have been remedied.

    WELSH INSTRUCTORS
    Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, contrary to the promise given in the House, Welsh boys with slight knowledge of English are being sent for training to various camps in England where they are unable to benefit fully by the instruction; and whether he will arrange for them to be sent, as promised, to Kinmil or some other camp in Wales?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No cases have been brought to the notice of the War Office where Welsh boys have been unable to derive benefit from instruction owing to their imperfect acquaintance with English. Every consideration is given to national sentiment, and, where practicable, recruits are posted to Infantry battalions for which they express preference. Young soldier battalions are affiliated to the South Wales Borderers

    193
    and to the Welsh Regiment, to which Welsh boys of eighteen years and one month are posted. The locality of these battalions is not material.
    Mr. DAVIES: Could not the boys be sent to camps in Wales to receive instruction?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know whether they can be sent to camps in Wales; they are sent to the Welsh regiments to which they are attached.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that those boys who are unable to understand English are sent to a camp where they may receive instruction from Welsh instructors?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is a very reasonable request, and I think my hon. Friend will gather from my answer that every attention is being paid to the subject.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked whether John Taylor, a conscientious objector at the Wakefield work centre, recently attempted suicide by cutting his throat; whether this man is the John Taylor, No. 23,162, D Company, 3rd Battalion, Essex Regiment, who was granted a non-combatant certificate by his tribunal, was forced into a combatant regiment, ordered to do rifle drill, and afterwards subjected to field punishment No. 1; whether it is owing to this and subsequent treatment that the man was driven to attempt suicide; whether he has now been certified insane; and whether inquiries will be made into this case with the view to fix responsibility?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the allegations contained in tithe second part, which should be addressed to the War Office. As regards the third part of the question, six of Taylor's friends among the men employed at Wakefield have voluntarily supplied a report on the facts of the case and on Taylor's mental condition. It is not suggested in this report that his condition was in any way due to his treatment while in the Army or in prison: on the contrary it is mainly attributed to anxiety caused by an explosion near his home and by subsequent air-raids in London. Taylor has now been certified insane. I see no ground for further inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is now in a dangerous condition and that his friends have been sent to see the last of him?
    Sir G. CAVE:I have not heard that, but I am sorry if it is so.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the feeling which exists in the country owing to the fact that men who claimed exemption as conscientious objectors, but failed to satisfy the various standards of the tribunals in different parts of the country and who, for refusing to obey military orders, have suffered punishment on more than one occasion for what is, in effect, the same offence, he is in a position to say that the question of the method of dealing with these men is being reconsidered by the Government?
    Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Member means by his question to suggest that the general feeling of the country is adverse to the continued enforcement of the law in the case of persons claiming to be conscientious objectors I do not agree with him. It must be remembered that all conscientious objectors now in prison have been offered their release on condition of their undertaking non-military work under the Home Office scheme, and have either refused the offer or failed to carry out the conditions on which they were released. The question how these men should be dealt with has been recently considered by the Government, who have determined that the law must be enforced, and that they must serve their sentences in prison. But in the case of men of this class who have been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment the Government have decided that some relaxation of the prison rules should be allowed to prisoners who have earned the marks representing a twelve months sentence (whether such marks have been earned in one or more sentences), and I propose shortly to give directions to this effect under No. 243A of the Prison Rules.
    Mr. DAVIES: May I ask, in view of the varying standard of tribunals in various parts of the country, whether a body could not be set up to which appeal could be made by these men?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; we must accept the decision of the tribunals. The men have no right of appeal.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman see his way, in view of the feeling of those not generally in sympathy with conscientious objectors, against these men being imprisoned time after time for practically, the same offence, and in view of the great demand for man-power in this country at the present time, to allow these men to be employed, in the interests of the State, on work they are willing to do, rather than to be kept on unnecessary work?
    Sir G. CAVE: The men are not now doing unnecessary work.
    Mr. DAVIES: They are.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether men are not being re-court-martialed on release and re-sentenced to six months' or a year's imprisonment?
    Sir G. CAVE: At the beginning of the War the practice was to reduce the sentences in all these cases to 112 days, or about three months. When a man was released he was again apprehended and again brought up for punishment. More recently—I think about a year ago—the practice was changed. The court-martial now imposes a full sentence of two years' hard labour.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an inquiry, as. I can produce an instance where a man has been imprisoned on two separate occasions in the last six months?
    Sir G. CAVE: If so, it would not make the least difference to the answer I have given.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Would it not be as well for the Home Office to cease this prosecution and the manufacture of anarchists?

    SALONIKA EXPEDITION.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether General Sarrail still is in command of the Salonika expedition; what nations now contribute men to the Allied Forces on this Front; and whether the officer there commanding is assisted by an Allied headquarters staff, on which are officers of each national army engaged?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, it is not within the competence of the War Office
    196
    to publish information as to the strength and distribution of Allied troops. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative, but Commanders of Allied contingents have permanent liaison officers attached to General Sarrail.

    BELTON PARK CAMP.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the 2nd instant a soldier at Belton Park Camp was found to have a fever; that forty-one other men in the same hut were then sent to an isolation camp and ordered not to leave it; that in spite of this they were marched to the parade ground and allowed to mix with the other men on parade; and whether, with the object of preventing the spread of fever in the camp, he will communicate with the responsible officer on the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A report has been called for, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    HONORARY RANK (BRITISH ARMY).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many of the Presidents of Republics, Allies in war of this country, hold honorary rank in the British Army; and whether he will give the complete list of the monarchs, ex-monarchs, or royal princes who hold honorary rank in the British Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No Presidents of Republics hold honorary rank in the British Army. The list requested in the last part of the question is as follows: The King of the Belgians, the late Emperor of Russia, the King of Spain, the King of Norway, the King of Denmark, and the King of Siam.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the War Office considered that, at a time when the word "democracy" is held to be of use, it has placed the King of Siam and the dethroned Czar of Russia in higher precedence than the President of the United States or the President of France?

    DUKE OF CORNWALL'S LIGHT INFANTRY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware

    197
    of the circumstances of Private W. W. Hill, No. 28807, 7th Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, who joined the forces in October, 1915, has served with good record in France till sent to hospital suffering from shell-shock in May, 1917, was then returned without leave to the front, and though he reported sick on 29th July, 1917, was sent into action where he was guilty of an act of desertion, and that it has been conveyed unofficially to his parents that Private Hill was court-martialled and sentenced to a term of penal servitude; why no early and official notice of this was sent to his parents; why was correspondence from his parents from August to October returned to them marked, "In hospital, locality not known"; will he say where Private Hill is at the present time; whether his parents will be allowed to write to or visit him; and, if Private Hill has been court-martialled, whether the usual procedure has been observed in his case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making inquiries into this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    GENERAL SIR A. MURRAY (BATTLE OF GAZA).
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it was for services at either the first or second battle of Gaza that General Sir A. Murray was mentioned in dispatches; where General Murray's head quarters were during those battles; and when the publication of the dispatches relating to them may be expected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: General Sir A. Murray was mentioned in dispatches dated 3rd November, 1917, for good work in connection with the organisation of certain minor expeditions and of the lines of communications in Palestine, which have maintained a large force in the desert, and thereby prepared the way for the successful operations, resulting in the defeat of the Turks at Gaza and Beersheba. As regards the latter part of the question, details will be found in the dispatch to be published shortly.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he was not mentioned in the dispatches relating to the two battles?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend must give me notice. I have answered the question on the Paper.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it the fact that he was never out of Cairo?

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any course of technical training in their special duties is given to recruits of the Royal Army Medical Corps at the present time?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All recruits of the Royal Army Medical Corps receive technical training in their special duties both at the R.A.M.C. training centres and in hospitals in England.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the training at Blackpool of the R.A.M.C., as I am credibly informed that the training there on technical duties is not satisfactory?

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council proposes to make use of the Defence of the Realm Act for the purpose of reintroducing any provision which will have the same effect as the Contagious Diseases Acts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I am not aware of any such intention.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has now made further inquiries into the cases of flogging of Irish soldiers, by order of Lieutenant Gilliland, in the prisoners of war camp in Philippopolis; whether any cases of flogging by German officers of German soldiers has been reported to him from any prisoners of war camps in this country, or of flogging by Turkish officers of Turkish soldiers in prisoners' camps; and what further action he has taken in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have carefully perused all the information available, and

    199
    I have come to the conclusion that the charge made against Lieutenant Gilliland in this question has been recklessly and unjustly made. He was not the commandant of the camp, and the orders for flogging for admitted offences were given by the commandant. I received yesterday from our Foreign Office a copy of a letter which the Foreign Office received from the American Embassy here. It is dated October 11th, 1917, and is from Mr. Murphy, of the Legation of the United States of America in Sofia, and is addressed to Lieutenant Gilliland's sister. As it states the other side to a cruel charge against an officer—a charge which will make pleasant reading for our enemies and is abhorrent to us—I think that I ought to read it, and at the same time remind the House that Mr. Murphy's statements are corroborated by Mr. War-field and Mr. Einstein, who preceded Mr. Murphy at the Legation at Sofia:
    "Legation of the United States of America,
    Sofia, 11th October, 1917.
    Dear—I am in receipt of your favour of the 14th September and am deeply grieved that any of the returned British prisoners of war should have accused your brother unjustly. To say that he ordered British prisoners to be flogged is absolutely untrue.
    The fact is that flogging is in vogue in the Bulgarian Army as punishment for a certain class of offences. Flogging was the rule at the camp, and your brother was powerless to prevent it. When men not only sold their own clothes and parcels, but stole those of others to get drink, your brother would have failed in his duty had he not reported the matter to the Commandant. The latter told me on several occasions that he never could have conceived that men could so brutalise themselves until he had seen them brought to the camp completely stupefied by drink. It was by his order the flogging was done, and in so doing he was carrying out the regulations prescribed for him.
    Your brother spoke to me of the horror he had of flogging, and asked if. I could not have a stop put to it. As such form of punishment is utterly abhorrent to me, I appealed to the Commandant and to the Colonel Commanding so strongly that flogging was thereupon abolished so far as British prisoners were concerned. It was your brother who first called my attention to the thing, and I well remember his expressions of gratification that it had been abolished. The very large majority of the British prisoners of war at the Philippopolis camp are very decent and well-behaved. It is the few who seem to have so lost all sense of decency that ordinary confinement in gaol or guard-house has no effect. Your brother is innocent—so please make your mind easy. You may use this letter in any way you may deem proper, and I shall be glad, if called upon officially, to put your brother, for whom I have high admiration and warm regard, in the right light.
    I beg to remain, dear—
    Sincerely yours,
    (Signed) D. J. MURPHY."
    Mr. BOLAND: Are we to understand, then, that the statements voluntarily given in one case by four repatriated Irish prisoners, who were not themselves flogged, but who spoke from their own knowledge of flogging having taken place, and a voluntary statement by Sergeant
    200
    Edgerton, of the Hampshire Regiment, taken at a time quite different from the time of the statements of the Irish prisoners, are absolutely unreliable?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can tell the House that I spent two hours this morning reading over the documents. I saw the statements of the four repatriated Irish prisoners, of the Connaught Rangers, to the president of the Irish Prisoners of War Association, and I also saw the statement made to the Government Committee of the Foreign Office. Those two statements are entirely contradictory. In one statement they made it perfectly plain that Lieutenant Gilliland showed no unfairness in the distribution of food or clothing, and only one of the prisoners mentions flogging at all, and he says that Lieutenant Gilliland might well have stopped it if he lifted his finger.
    Mr. BOLAND: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about Sergeant Edgerton's statement to the Government Committee of the Foreign Office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I read Sergeant Edgerton's report to the Government Committee of the Foreign Office, and he never mentions the word "flogging."
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that in the original statement made by these men these charges were most specifically made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know. I have no doubt the same men gave two different accounts. They gave one account to the Irish Prisoners of War Association and another to the Government Committee. I am content to abide by the one they gave to the Government Committee, and possibly my hon. Friend is content to abide by the other.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Were the persons who conducted this investigation independent investigators, and did they warn the repatriated prisoners that their statements would be taken down and might be used in evidence against them?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not suppose they did. Everybody knows the composition of the Government Committee. The President is a judge of the High Court, and the other members are well-known patriotic citizens. They have no wish to endanger the life or liberty of a private soldier any more than of an officer. They accept the statements given to them in good faith.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say of his own knowledge whether those men were assured if they made frank statements they would not be used against them as soldiers in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should see to it that no statement made by any soldier will ever be used against him. This Committee is not a military Committee. There is no officer serving upon the Committee so far as I know.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: That does not answer my question. What I want to know is did the gentlemen conducting this investigation assure the witnesses that no punishment would follow from their evidence?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say that offhand. I cannot imagine any soldier being terrified. I am quite convinced in my own mind that Lieutenant Gilliland gave no such orders for flogging.
    Mr. ALDENasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the British prisoners in the Courland camps have been removed; if so, can he state where they are at present situated; and if he can say whether the supplies of warm clothing which have been promised them for the winter have yet been despatched?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the War Office that information has been received from the Netherland Legation in Berlin that orders were issued some weeks ago for the withdrawal of prisoners from these camps. We have recently inquired by telegram whether the withdrawal has been completed, but have not yet received a reply. Under these circumstances the specially warm clothing which was intended to be sent to these prisoners has not so far been despatched.

    IRISH COMMAND.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction was recently shown by a unit in the Irish Command; and has he any statement to make?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend hardly gives me sufficient information to enable me to identify the matter which he has in mind.
    Major NEWMAN: Would the hon. Member impress on the Irish Department the need for telling officers and men to be careful what they write home?

    AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Sapper Stephen Kelly, an Australian soldier, was mentioned in dispatches for finding water in Gallipoli without which thousands of men must have died or left their positions, he can say why this man cannot get employment in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have ascertained from the headquarters of the Australian Imperial Force that Sapper Kelly was found to be permanently unfit for any Army service by a board of consultants on 24th May owing to a disability which is not due to service, and that he was discharged accordingly. I understand that there is no record of any application for re-enlistment.
    Major HUNT: As this man was the only man who could find water in Gallipoli, could lie not be employed by the Government in Palestine, where they are badly off for water, as he is known to be the best water-finder in Australia?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The information in the answer to this question does not come from the War Office. I had to apply to the Australian Imperial Forces for it. I will convey there my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister if he will say whether, in the assessment of an award to a dependant, Class A, dependency is determined by the amount of the Government allowance upon the required allotment?
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked whether, in the assessment of an award to a dependant, Class A, dependency is determined by the amount of the Government allowance upon the required allotment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): Dependence for the purposes of pension is determined by the support given by the soldier prior to the outbreak of war, or enlistment if later, as laid down in Article 24 (7) of the Royal Warrant of the 29th March last. In the absence of any reason for questioning the finding, the assessment made for separation allowance is accepted.
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes, but that does not answer my question whether in the assessment dependency is determined by the amount of the Government allowance upon the required allotment; that is to say, does the assessment depend on that part of the allowance which comes from the Government, or does it take into consideration also that part of the allotment which is compulsory to get an allowance?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, those two parts, the voluntary allowance and the Government allowance, depend upon the dependence before the War, and we accept that unless some question is raised.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister why, if the amount of the required allotment in the case of a dependant class A is not included in the amount of the assessed dependency, such allotment should be compulsory?
    Sir G. TOULMINasked why, if the amount of the required allotment in the case of a dependant, Class A, is not included in the amount of the assessed dependency, such allotment should be compulsory?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to reply to this question and No. 33 and I will answer them together. The required allotment is included in the amount of the assessed dependency.

    HAY SHORTAGE (LONDON).
    Mr. FERENSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that owners of horses and cows in the London area are finding difficulty in securing hay; and will he take steps to facilitate the cutting and conveyance of this food to the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. FORSTER: The shortage of hay in London has been brought to notice, and
    204
    endeavours are being made to find some means of assisting in obtaining sufficient supplies.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the light of the disclosures in the recent Report of Sir John Anderson, he will now grant a political amnesty to all persons suffering imprisonment in Ceylon as a result of the riots in 1915?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I presume that the hon. Gentleman intends to refer to the recently published Report of a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Governor; but that Report contains nothing relevant to the cases of men imprisoned under sentences of properly constituted tribunals. Sir John Anderson has investigated all the sentences of imprisonment imposed in connection with the riots. On various grounds he has released a number of prisoners and reduced the sentences of many others. Those remaining in prison were properly convicted, in his opinion, of serious crimes; and I see no reason for suggesting that they should be released.
    Mr. KING: Did he not say before that they were properly convicted who are now proved to have been quite innocent: did not Sir John Anderson also say that these men were properly shot whom he is now sent home to tell you were quite improperly shot?
    Mr. HEWINS: I believe I have covered all the circumstances in my answer.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the Government decided they will do nothing to alleviate the feeling of injustice of the Cingalese people?
    Mr. HEWINS: My answer covers that question.
    Mr. KING: Is the matter under further consideration?
    Mr. HEWINS: It is under constant consideration.

    RHODESIA.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give an assurance that

    205
    until the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Rhodesian land case has been tendered to His Majesty's Government, no natives will be evicted from lands lately included in the reserves without the definite sanction of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. HEWINS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Part II. of the Report of the Commission (see p. 22 of Cd. 8674), from which he will see that he need not fear evictions. The Report has been approved by the Secretary of State.

    BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the High Commissioner in South Africa and the Secretary of State suggested to the British South Africa Company the desirability of nominating upon the Native Reserves Committee a senior officer of the Native Affairs Department; and if he can state what reason, if any, the chartered company gave for ignoring the suggestion of Lords Harcourt and Gladstone, and nominated instead first the company's treasurer and then, as their alternate representative, the company's principal land official, whose position obviously is, and whose public attitude is known to be, in conflict with the Native Affairs Department upon the adequacy of the native reserves?
    Mr. HEWINS: The High Commissioner and Secretary of State suggested a senior officer of the Native Department, but the company proposed Mr. Newton, considering that his ability and experience rendered him eminently qualified to be a Commissioner, while the senior officer of the Native Department remained free to give evidence before the Commission, and my predecessor approved the appointment. Mr. Atherstone was recommended by the company's administrator in South Africa as having a valuable knowledge of the land question. Lord Gladstone proposed to approve, and Lord Harcourt agreed. I should like to add that there is no reason to attribute to the company any intention of preventing full consideration of the native point of view.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not the interest of the company to get land from the natives; is it not, therefore,
    206
    undesirable that they should break their word and put in a man who has no special sympathy with the natives?
    Mr. HEWINS: I do not think that question arises.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Absolutely!

    EX-SERVICE MEN (LAND SETTLEMENT).
    Major HUNTasked whether large numbers of British ex-Service men can be absorbed on the land in Australia without financial assistance from the Home Government?
    Mr. HEWINS: I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to pages 7 to 10, 22 and 23 of the Empire Settlement Committee's Report, and more particularly to paragraph 134.
    Major HUNT: Why does not the hon. Gentleman answer the plain question on the Paper?
    Mr. HEWINS: I think the plain question is answered.
    Major HUNT: No!

    PRINCE ALBERT OF SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the apprehension felt and expressed by people in this country, and especially amongst the soldiers, as to the correspondence with this country of Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, who is employed on the Intelligence Department of the German Army in Berlin, he can give this House and the country the assurance that all letters to and from this prince are examined by the Censor?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which was given yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for West Clare by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Major HUNT: Did the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that all letters to and from this prince were examined by the Censor—it is not clear to me?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My recollection is that he did make it quite clear that all the letters of Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein were treated in the same way as the letters of everyone else, and were controlled by the Censor
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Can we be certain that all letters are censored, because all letters are not carefully read?

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    SUGAR-LADEN STEAMER.
    Mr. COCHRANEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether his attention has been called to the case of a large steamer laden with sugar which arrived at a port on the North-East coast on the 15th October about 9 p.m. and was ordered out to sea again next morning, where she remained for six hours in a danger zone before receiving orders to proceed to another port; whether this vessel had been in other ports since arrival in home waters; and, if the facts are as stated, what action he proposes to take to avoid the repetition of a similar occurrence?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir L. Chiozza Money): I have made careful inquiry into the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The vessel in question had proceeded to a port on the North-East coast in accordance with Admiralty orders designed for security, which had also made it necessary for her to call at another British port. She was ordered to sea next morning to await escort to her port of discharge, and, owing to unfavourable weather conditions, her escort was a little late in arrival. The Admiralty Report shows, however, that she was adequately guarded while awaiting escort. It is difficult for me to give a fuller answer here, but I shall be pleased to show the detailed reports to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for calling my attention to the case.
    Mr. COCHRANE: May I ask whether, when similar circumstances arise, and a convoy is necessarily late, it would not be possible for the commander of the convoy to communicate by wireless with the nearest shore station, so as to prevent the vessel being exposed in the danger zone, where several valuable ships have already been put down for a period of 6½ hours?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would have been better if the ship had remained in port instead of coming out and waiting unnecessarily outside. Note has been taken of the error in that particular matter; that is why I have thanked my hon. Friend for having called my attention to the fact.

    POTATOES (CHARGE UPON EXCHEQUER).
    Mr. MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the estimated amount which it will cost the nation to give effect to the Food Controller's proposals regarding the sale of potatoes below the figures fixed in the Potato Order?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The charge upon the Exchequer involved by the War Cabinet's decision to compensate growers who sell potatoes of the 1917 crop below the guaranteed price of £6 per ton is estimated not to exceed £5,000,000, and there is reason to believe that the reduced price will bring about not only an increased consumption of potatoes but a decreased consumption of cereals, in which event there will be a reduction of the bread subsidy as a set-off against the potato subsidy. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of saying, in continuation of the statement that I made on Friday last, that the Food Controller has decided to fix the base prices under the new potato scheme as follows for the period ending 31st December, 1917:
    For England and Wales, £5 per ton f.o.r. grower's station.
    For Scotland, £4 10s. per ton.
    For Ireland, £4 per ton.
    Mr. FRANCE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if it will make much difference to the ratepayers whether he pays the subsidies for flour or potatoes?
    Mr. CLYNES: That is rather a matter for argument than for question and answer.

    WHEAT.
    Mr. GILBERTasked if there are in Falmouth Docks 6,000 tons of wheat, a great part of which has been allowed to go bad; whether he can state how long this wheat has been in stock, and why it has not been used for food; whether there is a stock of coffee in the same docks which is mostly unfit for use; and, if so, can he explain who is to blame for this result?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is undesirable to publish information as to stocks of foodstuffs in a particular port at any given time, but as the question suggests loss from negligence, I may say that there are not 6,000 tons of wheat in Falmouth Docks. The only wheat recently discharged at this port consisted of 3,500 tons from a sailing vessel; the whole of the cargo was sold to millers, and delivery has been completed except as regards a few hundred tons which have been held up through lack of transport facilities. None of the wheat has been allowed to deteriorate through want of care. I am informed that there is no coffee lying in Falmouth Docks.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long that 3,300 tons of wheat has been lying at Falmouth Docks?
    Mr. CLYNES: As the answer indicates, it was loaded to the millers as soon as possible after arrival.

    ORE SHIPMENTS.
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the control of the ore shipments is entrusted to Mr. G. C. Welborn, who, at the commencement of the War, was a partner or in the employ of a well-known firm engaged in the mineral ore trade; and whether he will consider the possibility-of finding some qualified man not connected with any firm in the ore trade to supervise ore shipments in order to avoid friction in this trade?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Mr. Welborn was employed by a firm of the kind described until the spring of 1916, when he severed his connection with it in order to serve in the Iron Ore Chartering Office then being organised. He has been in charge of that office since April last. I am aware of no such friction as that to which the hon. Member alludes. The Shipping Controller is satisfied that Mr. Welborn is personally well qualified by training and ability to fill a post in which practical experience is essential.

    RAILWAY RATES.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that as Okehampton, Devon,
    210
    is a non-competitive station on the South-Western Railway, the cost of carriage for coal is from ls. to 2s. 6d. a ton more than to Plymouth, thirty-three miles further on the same railway; and whether, in these circumstances, he will at least equalise the railway rate as between Okehampton and Plymouth from the coal districts, which at the present moment is greater-for carrying coal a lesser distance?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Representations have been made to the effect that the Okehampton coal rates are unduly high, and these representations are being investigated.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When may these people expect a reply?
    Mr. WARDLE: Within the next few days.

    HORSE RACING (WINTER).
    Colonel FABERasked the Prime, Minister if winter horse racing can be-allowed provided that no train facilities are asked for?
    Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The point raised is at present under consideration.

  MUNITIONS.

    MECHANICAL WARFARE SUPPLY DEPARTMENT.
    Colonel FABERasked the Prime Minister whether he will communicate to the House the reasons in consequence of which the late Director-General of the Mechanical Warfare Supply Department has been relieved of his duties; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which this officer was originally appointed to this office; whether this appointment was first considered at a meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence at which this officer attended in his capacity as secretary to the Tank Experimental Committee; whether three of the four members of the Tank Experimental Committee were unaware of the presence of this officer at the meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence referred to; whether this officer at this meeting stated that he was an automobile engineer; and what engineering qualifications has this officer to his credit?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I have been asked to answer this question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions desires me to say that it is not usual to state the reasons which lead to change being made from time to time in important administrative posts, and he is confident that my hon. Friend will not press for an exception in this case. He desires me, however, to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the late Director-General of the Mechanical Warfare Supply Department is still employed in an active and important capacity, where his special knowledge and exceptional experience in regard to tanks will receive full scope. The latter portions of the question refer to matters which lie wholly in the past, and no records exist to which reference could be made.
    Colonel FABER: If this gentleman has no engineering experience, he would not, of course, be employed as an engineer?
    Sir W. EVANS: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the Minister's answer.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE PURCHASE).
    Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether the Bill to be introduced for the State purchase of the liquor traffic will include any provision for local option?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): As I explained yesterday, the Report of the English Commission on this subject has only just been received, and the Scottish Commission has not yet reported. In these circumstances it would be premature to make any statement on the matter.

    WAR AIMS (PUBLICITY).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether the small co-ordinating Committee just appointed by the Government to regulate the holding of public meetings on behaf of various war aims also co-ordinates all forms of publicity, including the dissemination of news and literature; and, if not, whether he will arrange for such a body to be called into existence?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The hon. Member's suggestion is being considered.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Prime Minister how many different Departments or Establishments are responsible for official publishing; and whether, over all, there is any one supreme authority?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the question refers to the publication of news by Departments, the various Departments of the Government are responsible for communicating to the Press such matters as come within their respective spheres of activity.

    EMPIRE LAND SETTLEMENT COMMITTEE.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister what immediate action the Government intends to take on the recommendations of the Empire Land Settlement Committee's (the Tennyson) Report, particularly with regard to Clause 10 on page 3 of the Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the previous answers on this question.

    EXCESSS PROFITS (WOODLANDS).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state on what basis the owners of woodlands who are getting enhanced prices for timber are assessed for Income Tax; and if he will say whether Excess Profits Tax is paid by them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Occupiers of woodlands are normally assessable to Income Tax under the rules of Schedule B of the Income Tax Acts, to which I would refer the hon. Member. Woodlands cannot come within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty unless they are managed on a commercial basis and are assessed under Schedule D.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Seeing that enormously increased prices are being received from the colliery companies by the owners of woodlands, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps will be taken to get a greater share of excess profits from the landowners?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can say nothing except this: When the next Budget is introduced, whoever is in my place will do his best to get money wherever he can get it.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has secured as a war measure a valuation by owners of the freehold land of Australia, which has been disclosed at approximately £500,000,000; and if he will take steps to secure such a valuation of the land of the United Kingdom under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, so as to make provision for the growing financial needs, and to give further assurance that there is no danger that of necessity the National Debt will be repudiated in whole or in part?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of the fact to which reference is made, but I am not prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will get money in the next Budget wherever he can best get it, would it not be well to have this valuation in readiness for then?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so. I have no hope of getting money by means of a land valuation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's lack of hope is simply due to the opposition of landowners, who see that everybody else is taxed except themselves?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not at all. It is due to the lack of belief that money can be got from that source.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is not that belief strengthened by the Budget of 1909?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Does my right hon. Friend mean that there is no money in land values in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I have made myself quite clear.

    MINIMUM WAGE ACT (ABSENCE FROM WORK).
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether
    214
    his attention has been drawn to the case where a collier employed at the Llay Hall branch colliery was denied the minimum wage under the Minimum Wage Act on the ground that he had not worked 80 per cent, of the possible number of shifts; whether he is aware that the reason for non-compliance with this condition was that the collier in question is chairman of the Miners' Association and representative of the workmen at his colliery, is a member of the advisory committee under the Military Service Act, the Naval and Military Pensions Committee, the Food Committee, the Harwarden Rural District Council, and Justice of the Peace for the county of Flint; whether he is aware that the independent chairman of the Joint District Board ruled that the collier's absence from work to attend to these other duties was not something over which he had no control, and, therefore, he was not entitled to the minimum wage; and whether he will consult with the Coal Controller as to the advisability of issuing an instruction that where workmen are absent from work in consequence of attending to public duties they shall not be penalised under the Minimum Wage Act?
    Mr. WARDLE: The case referred to has not previously been brought to my notice, but I will cause inquiries to be made into it. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that the Board of Trade have no power under the Minimum Wage Act to vary the Rules under the Act. Such alteration can only be made by the Joint District Board itself or its neutral Chairman under Section 3 of the Act. I have, therefore, no power to cause to be issued any such instruction as is contemplated in the question.

    TIMBER SALES.
    Sir JOHN FLEMINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on the 8th of February last the War Office issued an Order to all importers of timber stating that they had assumed control of all stocks of soft woods, planed and unplaned, in the United Kingdom, and that such goods could not be sold from that date, unless for urgent needs for which a permit had to be obtained, and that the price charged should not exceed that current for similar goods on 31st January; is he also aware that in May, acting on the instructions of

    215
    the Director of Timber Supplies, the timber buyer requisitioned about three-fourths of the whole of the stocks then in the country for the Army Council at 31st January prices, and has been selling them over at a profit of from 25 to 40 per cent., in many cases to the customers of those who held the stock, as for instance, at Wisbech, where goods were bought at £34 to £36 10s. per standard and offered out at £44 10s. to £49 10s., at Hull, where goods were taken over at £38 10s. and offered out at £52, and at West Hartlepool, where goods were taken out at from £33 to £36 and offered out at £41 to £45; and will he explain why the Government buyer should be permitted to take such large profits, whilst at the same time prices are limited for the small portion of the stocks left in importers' hands to those prevailing on 31st January last?
    Mr. WARDLE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, only about one-fourth of the timber was requisitioned, this having been done to constitute a Government reserve which has been added to by purchases made at current prices; deliveries from Government stock are always made at prices sufficient to cover cost of replacement, but as a fact only trifling amounts of timber requisitioned at January prices have been so released where it has been specially convenient. With regard to the last part of the question, the Controller has been advised by his Trade Advisory Committee to take no action in the direction of levelling up the rates for the stocks left in importers hands to which the 31st January prices apply.
    Sir J. FLEMING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great feeling of resentment in the timber trade at this unfair treatment, and does he consider 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. profit by the Government is not profiteering?
    Mr. WATT: Has the attention of the Department of the hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that marked favouritism exists in the conduct of this Timber Controller in admitting imports from one importer and refusing them from another?
    Mr. WARDLE: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any case of that kind I will have inquiry made into it at once.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the reporter of this case not be threatened under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. WARDLE: No.

    MOTOR-CARS (BUSINESS PURPOSES).
    Mr. MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the use of a. motor-car for station or business purposes will make the owner liable to prosecution where a taxi-cab or a horse carriage can be hired for the journey?
    Mr. WARDLE: Under the provisions of Motor Spirit Restriction Order No. 2, 1917, the owner of a motor-ear who uses, it for station or business purposes might be liable to prosecution if a taxi-cab or other vehicle licensed to ply for hire were reasonably available for the journey.
    Mr. MILLAR: May I ask whether the Order makes it quite clear that he will be liable, unless he can show he was, bound to use his own car if he could not get another conveyance?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a matter of interpretation, and those who use motorcars must take the risks.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Except Ministers.
    Mr. HOUSTON: But if the motor-car being used consumes less petrol than the taxi-cab, would not that be in the interests of economy?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a matter for the Court.

    COAL SUPPLY.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is already a scarcity of coal in many country districts, which will be severely felt in the coming cold weather; and what steps he intends to take to relieve this position?
    Mr. WARDLE: Every effort is being made to ensure reasonable supplies of coal throughout the country. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with any information in his possession as to specific cases of shortage.

    HOSIERY EXPORTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Trade Department of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Smyth, of Balbriggan, county of Dublin, booked considerable orders last spring through .a firm in Freeport, Copenhagen, for very high-class hosiery, and that licences were duly issued in August to export the goods so ordered by the Department mentioned; that, on being informed in October by the shipping company by whom the goods were to be sent to Denmark that they were unable to ship them then and that fresh licences should be obtained, Messrs. Smyth duly applied for a renewal of the licences and were refused; and, seeing that the goods in question are of a perishable nature and would be easily ruined by exposure to damp and even depreciated in value by remaining an unduly long time in packing cases, whether fresh licences will now be issued and this Irish industry so saved from injury?
    Viscount WOLMER (Assistant Director, War Trade Department): This question appeared in the Notice Paper on Thursday, the 8th instant, and was answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Blockade. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given as printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 98, No. 137, col. 2316).

    SILURIAN IRON ORE COMPANY, BANGOR (LABOUR DISPUTE).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked (1) the Minister of Munitions whether the Silurian Iron Ore Company, Bangor, North Wales, is under the control of the Department; whether the mine is now idle because the company, following the arbitrator's award granting the men an increased wage, paid off the men on the plea of want of railway facilities and subsequently offered to take only a portion of them back; whether he will make an inquiry into the circumstances; (2) the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the dispute between the Silurian Iron Ore Company, of Bangor, and their workmen; whether he is aware that the arbitrator appointed by the Government awarded the men an increase of wages, that on receipt of the award the company dismissed the workmen on the
    218
    plea of want of trucks, but subsequently offered to take some only of the men back; whether he is aware that the mine is still idle and some of the men have been called up for military service; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The Silurian Iron Ore Company, Limited, is not under the control of the Ministry of Munitions. I am aware that an arbitrator, appointed by the Chief Industrial Commissioner, issued an award on 31st August, giving an advance of wages to the workpeople employed by this firm. Subsequently one of the two mines operated by the company was brought to a standstill, the firm giving as their reason their inability to find a market for the output. In October they intimated that, having meanwhile found a market, they were prepared to take back as many men as possible; but it appears that the work-people insisted on the whole number being taken on. The Chief Industrial Commissioner is in communication with the parties with a view to endeavouring to arrange a settlement of the difficulty. I have no information regarding the men being called up for military service.

    ARMY DECORATIONS.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the officers and men who served under General Paris in France and Flanders in September and October, 1914, will receive the same decoration as officers and men of the first seven divisions of the Army; and, if not, on what grounds, such a distinction is made?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir.

    WAR SAVINGS MEETINGS.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now state the total number of claims for out-of-pocket or other expenses made by delegates to the war savings meeting at the Albert Hall on 22nd October; whether the list is now complete; whether all the claims have now been examined; what was the total sum claimed; and what is the amount that has been paid or agreed to be paid in respect of these claims?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The claims received up to date number 1,498 and amount to £3,798. I am unable to state whether further claims will be presented, but they are not likely to be numerous. The claims are in course of examination. The result of the examination so far as it has progressed shows that the claims are reasonable, and I have no doubt the majority will he paid in full.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many delegates were invited by the Government to attend, and whether all those who were invited were told at the time that their expenses would be or might be paid?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not the case that these delegates are all voluntary workers who give their time gratuitously to the country; whether most of them are not people of small means; and whether they did not come up to London in order that they might take back to the war savings committees all over the country the inspiration of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. PRINGLE: £3,000 worth of inspiration!

    WAR BONUSES (CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Mr. KINGasked whether the war bonuses of Civil servants are assessable to Income Tax; whether the same practice is being pursued in all Departments and the bonus has been given free of income; if so, whether he is aware that Post Office servants are being sent forms to return for assessing their war bonuses; and whether he will make the position of Civil servants clear to them?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts war bonuses equally with other emoluments are assessable to Income Tax whether received by Civil servants or by any other employés. The law on this point is of general application, and governs all Departments.

    POSTAL OFFICIALS (PENSIONS).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the condition of the postal offi-
    220
    cials who have retired on pension, especially those having small pensions and who, owing to the advance in the prices of all the necessaries of life, find themselves unable to meet the ordinary requirements of decent living through no fault of their own; if he will have inquiries made into their cases, and, if such hardships exist, if he will have favourable consideration given to their cases with the view of such increase being granted in their pensions as will enable them to meet the increase in the cost of living that has taken place since the War began?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): Post Office pensioners are in the same position as other retired Civil servants, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th June last to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS (CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS).
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that the authorities are desirous that public schools should start the Christmas holidays early in order to avoid congestion of the railways, and of the fact that parents have paid the school fees for the usual end of the terms, parents may be allowed to endorse their sugar cards for the temporary addition to the family, seeing that children should have their proper quota of sugar?
    Mr. CLYNES: As I informed the hon. Member for the Harborough Division on 23rd October, householders are entitled to include in their applications for sugar registration cards children belonging to their households who are at boarding school. As the new sugar distribution scheme does not come into operation until the new year the fact that the public school holidays are to be earlier this year does not affect the situation.

    PUBLIC BANQUETS.
    Mr. MILLARasked whether any representations have been made by the Director of Food Economy to the Lord Mayor and City Council of London with a view to the Guildhall banquets being

    221
    suspended during the War; and whether any inquiry was made as to the menu to be served at the banquet held on 9th November?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Director of Food Economy asked the Lord Mayor either to forego his annual banquet or to ensure that the total quantities of meat, flour, bread, and sugar consumed should not exceed the amount prescribed by Clause 3 of the Public Meals Order.
    Mr. MILLAR: Was not the appeal which was made to other mayors and public functionaries to forego the banquets altogether which they were accustomed to hold?
    Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend will find by a reply to a later question that that point is dealt with.
    Mr. MILLARasked the number of mayors of borough councils and provosts of town councils and other public functionaries who have responded to the invitation of the Director of Food Economy to forego all public banquets during the War; and the number who have declined to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Director of Food Economy has communicated with the Lord Mayors and mayors upon the subject of the annual mayoral banquet only. He received, in addition to that of the Lord Mayor of London, eighty-seven replies, sixty-five of which stated there would be no banquets and twenty-two that the meal to be provided would be within the Public Meals Order.
    Mr. MILLAR: Was not the appeal made to these public functionaries not to hold the banquets at all, or to modify the banquets in accordance with the Food Controller's Order?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, that is so.

    BUILDING MATERIALS (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Reconstruction why no Scottish representatives have been put on the committee recently set up by him to consider and report on the supply of building materials after the War; and whether he proposes to remedy this?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I think that the House will recognise that the selection
    222
    of committees of this character must be based, not on the principle of national representation, but on the individual fitness of members for the proposed inquiry. In this case Mr. Walker Smith was appointed to the committee after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, on account of his-special knowledge and experience of Scottish conditions.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Secretary for Scotland advised that no Scotsman should be on the committee?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Secretary for Scotland advised that I should appoint Mr. Walker Smith.

    SINN FEIN PRISONERS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in regard to the Sinn Fein prisoners, of whom the late Thomas Ashe was one, they were, even when on the point of death, deprived of necessary clothing, although at the same time forcibly fed; whether the medical certificate ascribes this deprivation of clothing as contributory to the pneumonia from which Thomas Ashe died; whether this treatment was ordered by the prison doctor as part of the medical régime, or, if not ordered by the prison doctor, whether he made any protest on medical grounds against this treatment; and whether he can state on whom the responsibility rests of ordering that the prisoners should be deprived of clothing?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): These prisoners were not deprived of necessary clothing, as suggested in the question. Their boots were removed, but they were furnished with slippers. They were not deprived of any other articles of clothing. The Acting-Governor of the Prison was the officer responsible. The answer to the second, third, and fourth parts of the question is in the negative.

    SIR JOHN JELLICOE.
    Mr. LYNCH(by Private Notice) asked the-Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty whether, on consideration, he will revise the reply that he gave to my question of yesterday concerning Sir John Jellicoe, in which he .asserted that I had

    223
    misquoted Sir John Jellicoe. I withdrew, on that assumption; but I have since been informed that I did not misquote, and that those identical words which I used were ,supplied by two independent Press agencies—the Press Association and the Exchange Telegraph Company—to various newspapers, and that during all the intervening time there has been no contradiction?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend, in his question of yesterday, asked whether our attention had 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."
    In his speech on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on 6th November my hon. Friend four times repeated this as a quotation from Sir John Jellicoe's speech:
    "There is no need for anxiety, the War is almost at an end."
    Reading through Sir John Jellicoe's speech, as reported in the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph," I saw that he made the first of these statements:
    "There is no need for anxiety—"
    but with a proviso. I saw that at the conclusion of his speech, he made the second part of this statement,
    "the War was almost won "—
    but again with a proviso. Why my hon. Friend appears to have done is to have taken the first part of each of these references in the speech, and omitted in each case the proviso. Now let me read the two references in full from the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph." The first is as follows:
    "There should be no reason for anxiety as to the result of the enemy's campaign, provided always that we exercised the strictest economy."
    The second, which occurred at the conclusion of the speech, is as follows:
    "The War is all but won; you have only to set your teeth and the War will be won."
    Let me repeat. The hon. Member for West Clare appears to have taken the first part of each of these quotations and omitted the proviso from each. I read the first quotation in full yesterday. I am sorry that I did not read the second, because it enforces the misrepresentation caused by the leaving out of the proviso in this as in the former case.
    Mr. LYNCH: Following upon that reply, which I think the House will agree bears out substantially all that I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. I wish to raise another question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is still Question time. The hon. Member as entitled to put a question, but not to make a statement.
    Mr. LYNCH: I wish to raise a question of privilege with regard to the rights of Members of this House. On more than one occasion—and what I say affects not only the Admiralty, but also the War Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs —we as Members of this House have been deceived by replies given from that Front Bench. They have been couched in a cunning manner, and in such a way as to convey a totally false impression, and, as a matter of fact, they have conveyed a totally false impression. Perhaps it has been done unwittingly on the part of the Admiralty representative, but nevertheless they have been framed by those who have framed them with, as I think, the intention of deceiving this House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No question of privilege arises, and the hon. Member has not suggested that one does.

  ALLIED WAR COUNCIL.

    PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH IN PARIS.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I desire to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Prime Minister is likely to be here in his place to-morrow, and, if so, whether I might ask him a question as to when he will be prepared to make a statement to the House with regard to the very serious matters touched upon in his speech in Paris?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister has just returned—I saw him for a minute or two to-day—and I am quite certain that he will at once respond to my right hon. Friend's request.
    Mr. JOYCE: Will he deal with the "Globe" newspaper, and the attacks made upon him in that newspaper?
    Mr. KING: Will the Prime Minister to-morrow move the Adjournment of the House so as to give the House an opportunity of discussing what he has said?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to quite understand what my right hon. Friend

    225
    does want. I understand that he does not wish a discussion to-morrow, but to ask when the Prime Minister will be prepared to have a discussion.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Yes—at any rate to make a statement.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: But you do not want it to-morrow?
    Mr. ASQUITH: If he can make a statement to-morrow, so much the better. I leave it entirely to him—"When he will be prepared to make a statement and to give the House facilities for discussing it?"
    Mr. KING: Is the Leader of the House not aware, although the Front Bench may not require a discussion, that the House will not be satisfied unless there is an opportunity given for debating the most grave statements made by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member did not listen to what was said.

    Sheriffs-principal.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of cases dealt with by the sheriff-principal in the county of Argyll in the year 1915 was five and that the salary paid to such sheriff-principal is £700; and whether, in view of the fact that appeals from one judge to one judge are unknown in any other system of jurisprudence, he will introduce legislation consolidating sheriffdoms in Scotland?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The amount of the salary and the number of appeal cases in 1915 are correctly stated in the question. As regards the rest of the question, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to my hon. and learned Friend on this subject.
    Mr. WATT: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the extra judicial duties of this War are very onerous, will he grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for the College Division (Mr. Watt)? ["Return of the appointments ex officio held by sheriffs-principal in Scotland; how many of these appointments entailed any meetings in the year 1915, and in each case how
    226
    many meetings were held; how many entailed any executive work; and the number of instances where the duties were performed by the Sheriffs-substitute."]
    Mr. MUNRO: I will consider that.

    Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
    Commander WEDGWOODasked. the Home, Secretary whether a deputation in favour of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was received by him on 6th July, 1917; and, if so, why he has not yet been able to receive a deputation of women's societies, representing many thousands of organised women, who have signified their opposition at public meetings arranged by them in and around London?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the latter part, I promised to receive a deputation from certain associations who are opposed to the Bill before it is proceeded with, and I shall of course do so. I hope to arrange a date shortly.

    Congested Districts (Ireland) Board.
    Mr. O' MALLEYasked if the vacancy on the Congested Districts (Ireland) Board has yet been filled up; if not, will he see that a man with thorough knowledge of the condition and wants of the tenantry, and who will be in sympathy with them, is appointed; and if he will consider the desirability of filling the vacancy by the appointment of a man who in a special way would represent the tenants in Connemara, for whom the Board was in the first instance brought into existence?
    Mr. DUKE: The vacancy has not yet been filled. All relevant circumstances will be taken into account in making the appointment. I am unable to assent to the suggestion in the question that a member of the Congested Districts Board should be regarded as representing a separate area; but before making any recommendation I shall, of course, consider the case of Connemara.

    National Schools (Ireland).
    Mr. REDDYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to grant an increase to Irish national school teachers who have retired on pensions of less than £1 a week, as has been already done, according to Press reports, in the case of retired elementary school teachers in Scotland?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no knowledge of the appropriation of money from the Votes in respect of Scottish education for pensions to retired teachers. I will make inquiries on the subject. At present no funds for the purpose are at my disposal.

  AIR FORCE (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of Salaries and Remuneration payable under any Act of the present Session to make provision for the establishment, administration, and discipline of an Air Force, the establishment of an Air Council, and for purposes connected therewith.—[King' s Recommendation signified.] —To-morrow. — [Lord E. Talbot.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PREMIUM BONDS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resume the Adjourned Debate on the Question [12th November] relative to Premium Bonds."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Can I make any remarks upon this Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If they are relevant.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: This Motion was being passed last night in a very thin House, and it seemed to me—
  Mr. SPEAKER:The hon. Member, I believe, wishes to make a speech upon the first Order of the Day ["Premium Bonds; Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November"].We have not yet reached that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Which Orders does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall take as many as we can. We certainly expect—and I hope the House will allow us—to get the first four—

  1. Premium Bonds; Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November].

  2. Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2) Bill; Second Reading.

  3. Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Local Committees) Bill; Committee.

  4. Supply; Committee. [Civil Services Supplementary Estimate, 1917-18.]

  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th November], "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.]
  Question again proposed.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: This Resolution was being discussed last night in a very thin House, probably not more than half a dozen Members being present, in addition to those on the Ministerial Bench. It is fitting that at least a quorum should decide this preliminary step to the House possibly adopting a financial device to which there
  238
  would be, in my opinion, a great deal of opposition. The Leader of the House has been most successful both in the measures he has taken to provide what is necessary for the conduct of the War in regard to, Loans and in regard to taxation. In fact, he has had the entire support of the House in regard to the whole of his financial policy. Personally, I do not doubt that the House will support him, however drastic his proposals may be in regard to those things which are necessary to provide for the conduct of the War. The, House showed no desire to oppose him when he foreshadowed the strongest measures, and this afternoon, when he himself said that he was prepared to take money wherever he could find it, he was not greeted in a way that disappointed him. I desire to express the opinion that the step suggested by the appointment of this Committee is a debasing of our finance which will have most regrettable results. No primâa facie case has been made out to justify us in even appointing a Committee to inquire into the matter. There is no suggestion that any large amount of new money would be found by such a device. Some of the arguments used in favour of the proposal into which this Committee is to inquire involve a gross insult to the working classes. It is suggested that unless this device is carried into effect, whereby they may be bribed by a lottery to invest their money, there is a large number of people who would be in favour of repudiation. I do not for a moment think that that is the case, and that argument is most degrading. I was prepared to suggest another name for the purpose of argument, but as it is invidious to do so, I content myself with opposing this Resolution.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. There was so much discussion in this part of the House that we did not observe whether you said the "Ayes" or the "Noes" had it. Will you kindly tell us whether the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The "Noes" ceased their challenge, and I said the "Ayes" had it.
  Mr. KING: May I move that two of the names be omitted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: To which names does the hon Member object?
  Mr. KING: To that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington Division (Sir C. Henry) and to that of the hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams).
  Motion made, and Question, "That Sir Edward Coates, Sir John Fleming, and Mr. Laurence Hardy be members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Charles Henry be a member of the said Committee."
  Mr. KING: I think that this Committee ought to be impartial and I object to any names being placed upon it which are names of those gentlemen who have been identified with a propaganda, continued now for over a year, in favour of this proposal. Personally, if this Committee reports in favour of the scheme of premium bonds, I shall cease any further opposition, provided that the Committee is fairly nominated and does not consist more of partisans than of open-minded men. There are two hon. Members in this House for whom I have the greatest respect and from whose opinion I only differ with great regret. I mean the hon. Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire (Sir C Henry) and the hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams). They have been for a long time rolling this log up the hill with great difficulty, and I propose that now they should cease from their labours by having no labours in connection with it upon this Committee. I, therefore, strongly object to the names of these two hon. Gentlemen being added to the Committee. Without their names the Committee would be stronger, because it would be impartial, and without their names there are quite sufficient to provide a quorum of three and to arrive at a fair judgment. We may all say that we are all very busy in these times of pressure, and to suggest that these two hon. Members should not sit on the Committee is, in one way, a kindness to them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Hume-Williams be a member of the said Committee."
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. KING: I make the same remarks on this question. I need not repeat them, but I feel just as strongly in one case as in the other. I have no ill-feeling against either of these Gentlemen, but I most earn-
  240
  estly believe that the Committee would be stronger and more authoritative without them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Arthur Richardson, Sir John Spear, Mr. Theodore Taylor, and Mr. Tyson Wilson also nominated members of the said Committee
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—[Lord E. Talbot.]

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill for again extending the life of this Parliament. This is the fourth time a Bill of this kind has been introduced and carried through the House of Commons. On the last occasion I was criticised for not making a speech in introducing it, but the fact I have just mentioned is the best justification for the course I adopted then and which I intend to adopt now. The reasons are all familiar to the House of Commons, and, in my opinion, instead of it being a mark of respect to the House to make a speech on such a subject, it would be the reverse. It would imply, what is certainly not the case, that all the reasons are not as familiar to every Member of the House as they are to me. It is obvious that the longer the life of Parliament is prolonged the further it gets from contact with the electors, who alone give hon. Members the right to speak in this House. On the other hand, unfortunately, the longer it continues, while the register remains as at present, the more it is evident that that register is less fitted to give expression to the views of the people of this country. But beyond that, the House, I am sure, feels, as I do, that, if it is avoidable, all the dissipation of energy which is involved by General Election is to be avoided at a time when the whole energies of the House and the country are required for something quite different. I have never taken the view that under no circumstances ought there to be an election, even with the present register. I can

  241
  imagine contingencies arising which would make it absolutely essential. There are two which occur to me. If we found—and such things have happened in other assemblies—that no Government could be constituted in the present House of Commons which would command the support that is necessary for a vigorous prosecution of the War something else would have to be done. Or if, on the other hand, we found that the House of Commons was ceasing to put its heart into this business or faltering in the task which I know the country intends to see through, that also in my judgment would make an election necessary, and bad as that register is, I have little doubt that in the present temper of the country any register would reflect what is the feeling of the country in regard to this matter. But none of these contingencies have arisen. We have to look at this assembly, or any other democratic assembly, not from the point of view of what is ideally perfect under all conditions, but from the point of view of what is possible to human nature, and after the experience we have had since the War began I can say that on the whole no free assembly in the world has behaved so well as the present House of Commons in regard to the conduct of the War, and in no period of our history has this great assembly shown a keener desire to sacrifice individual opinion and to support any Government which was entrusted with the conduct of the War.
  This Bill differs from the previous one and the one before that in one respect only. The last Bill prolonged the life of Parliament for seven months. I am asking the House to extend this period to eight months. The reason for that will be obvious. If the Representation of the People Bill is carried through all its stages before Christmas, as we hope, the Home Secretary tells me he has good reason to hope that by the time put in this Bill the register will be available for an election. If that is so, it would be a mistake to tie our hands with the probability that we may have to pass another Bill of this kind for the simple purpose of enabling the new register to come into operation. But if my right hon. Friend has that hope, he cannot tell me that he has any certainty of it. Therefore, I considered whether or not we should make the period still longer. I thought, on the whole, it would not be right to ask the House of Commons to do it. The House of Commons itself has the right to be
  242
  jealous of the length of time for which its life is prolonged under the present circumstances. But it is not merely a question of the House of Commons. After all, the House of Commons ought not to be the sole judge of a case of this kind. The country has a right to say something in regard to it; and, in present circumstances, whatever view hon. Members may take in other circumstances, it is desirable that they also should have a say in regard to the matter. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, eight months is as long a period as we are entitled to ask the House to prolong the life of the present Parliament.
  I notice that there is an Amendment on the Paper proposing that facilities should be given, in certain circumstances, to electors to produce an election in a particular constituency. The object of that is to get rid, if my hon. Friends can, from this House of Members who are not at one either with the House of Commons or the nation in the determination to prosecute the War to a victorious conclusion. I have not had much time to consider the arguments one way or the other, but the Government is not prepared to accept this proposal. In the first place, no suggestion is made as to how you are to find out whether a reasonable number of electors will desire this change. I do not think that would be an easy thing to ascertain. There is a proposal which has been adopted in some at least of the States forming the Union of the United States of America. I have no special information about it, but I do not think it has been found specially useful. As I understand, the principle is that you have to get a third of the electors to sign an appeal for a special election, and there is another provision, which I think would be fair in the circumstances, that they are to deposit the money to pay the expenses of the sitting member in the event of his being returned again. It must be obvious that in ordinary peace times that is an arrangement which would be absolutely intolerable. Let the House consider what the effect of it would he. In the first place it would do still more to make the Members of this House delegates, as the tendency of modern times is making them more and more, though I do not think any of us wish to see it accentuated, and not people elected to give their opinions in regard to all questions. For example, on some particular local ques-

  243
  tion, something affecting, let us say, dockyards, a Member may take a course which he thinks is in consonance with the interests of the country. He may be very unpopular for the moment in his constituency, and the result might be that he would be turned out for something which, if time were given, his own constituency might consider to be right.
  But there is more than that. If you go back to the old peace times, or if we ever again return to the party system as we knew it before the War, the result of such an arrangement as this would be that it would not depend on the House of Commons, it would not depend on the Government either whether there was to be an election—it could be brought about at any moment by either of the parties which desired it. If this arrangement were carried, and we had the usual two party system in the constituencies, the moment it was thought that the Government had ceased to be as popular as it was when it was elected, an arrangement would have to be made by which this could go on all over the country and the present system would disappear. But of course I know my hon. Friends have no desire of that kind. What they think of is something during the War alone, and their view, I presume, is that it is not right that in this House hon. Members should express views which the House believes, and I think those hon. Members themselves believe, do not represent the views of their constituents. I do not think it would be wise for the sake of this object to make an innovation so great as this. After all, would not that be, instead of a proof of greater strength and determination a proof of weakness in the House of Commons? We are not afraid of these Debates. We have had them pretty often, and, so far as I can judge, we have not lost by the arguments, and I think we have gained. The Divisions have shown how small is the number in this House who represent the view which does not agree with that of this country. and on the last occasion we did not have a Division. Hon. Members thought it wiser not to put it to that test. For these reasons I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I am sure it would not be wise. I hope the House will allow the Bill to pass without taking too much time in consideration of it.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has not devoted an
  244
  almost undue amount of attention to the Amendment, which is one of the most impracticable proposals I have ever seen. I say nothing more about that. With regard to the Bill itself, my right hon. Friend says this is the fourth time the House has been asked to grant what is obviously under normal conditions a very invidious thing—a prolongation of its own statutory existence. But the necessity for these applications has arisen from the fact that in an earlier stage of its existence this House, under the Parliament Act, deliberately cut short the life of Parliament from seven years to five. If we-were still under the Septennial Act this would have been the first occasion on which it would have been necessary to ask for a prolongation of its own life, as this Parliament would not have expired until January next. I hope the House will agree without any real dissension to the proposal which the Government has made. In the first place, it is in the highest degree undesirable that unless one or other of the contingencies to which my right hon. Friend has referred arises, and I quite agree with him that they have not arisen, the country should not in the stress of war be involved in the unnecessary and distracting turmoil of a General Election. Quite apart from that, there are two most material facts which point in the same direction. The first is that the register now in existence is not only no real reflection, but it is a most attenuated and possibly distorted reflection of the actual opinions of the electorate of the day. The second fact, which is of equal importance, is that the House has now been engaged for some months in elaborating a new scheme of franchise and of the distribution of representation which happily seems likely, without much more controversy, to come into law within a very short time, and it must inevitably take weeks and months to get the new register compiled for carrying out locally the provisions which Parliament has enacted before that electorate can be asked to pronounce its opinion. It would be almost a mockery of our proceedings, when we have resolved upon changes of that kind, to contemplate an election before those changes have been carried through and brought to fruition. The case is irresistible, I think, for the prolongation of the life of Parliament. I am not at all disposed to criticise the length of the term—eight months, I think it is, until the end of next July—which

  245
  the Government has proposed. The circumstances are abnormal in every respect. The House is not giving itself an indulgence. It has no interested motive of any sort for prolonging its existence, but it is acting in the best interests of the country in the prosecution of the objects on which the country is united in making this exceptional and necessary provision for the postponement of the election. I hope, therefore, that the House will, without dissent, give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move to leave cut from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "in view of the period which has elapsed since the last General Election, this House declines to assent to any further prolongation of the present Parliament by legislation which does not ensure to the electorate an opportunity of demanding a by-election in any constituency in which a reasonable number of the electors in such constituency call for the resignation of any Member sitting in the present Parliament for such constituency."
  I am grateful to the Leader of the House for having referred to the Motion which stands in my name and in the names of other hon. Members, in more sympathetic terms than those which fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith). When I lay before the House an outline of the machinery which I propose for giving effect to this Resolution, I think I shall be able to show that, whatever defects there may be, it is not wholly impracticable. At any rate, the speech of the Leader of the House shows that he is vastly more in touch with popular opinion throughout the country in dealing with this question than the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke. This is the fourth occasion on which the life of the present Parliament has been extended. It has been extended for eight months, seven months, seven months, and now it is proposed to extend it for a further eight months, or, in all, two years and six months beyond the time named in the Act which this Bill is to amend, namely, the Parliament Act of 1911. This Bill will extend the life of Parliament by 50 per cent. in advance of what was considered right in the Parliament Act of 1911. This Parliament was elected before the War, and the work that it has had to do for over three years has been to
  246
  render assistance, so far as it possibly can, to the Government in the active and effective prosecution of the War. That has been its main purpose. Therefore, I hold that since the authority of the Government in the conduct of the War depends esentially upon the confidence of the people, anything which impairs the confidence of the people in this House must weaken and interfere with the action of the Government in carrying on the War. I think it is beyond dispute that there is a very strong belief that this Parliament does not represent truly the views of the people, or, at any rate, that there are Members in this Parliament who constantly speak and act in a way which is contrary to the sentiment of the country as a whole which, as the Leader of the House said, is perfectly sound, and would support this Government, or any Government, which would actively and effectively prosecute the War.
  The Leader of the House truly said that there is nothing in the present condition of affairs, such as the practical disappearance of parties in this House and in the support which the House as a whole gives to every proposal of the Government, to make a General Election necessary; but surely that is no argument against our setting up machinery, if we can, which would effectively purge this House of the discordant elements that are in it, and which are acting in a manner contrary to the will of the people as a whole, and of their constituents in particular. The principal objection of the Leader of the House to my proposal is that it is not possible to define "reasonable number of the electors." Obviously, it would be utterly unreasonable and impossible to demand at the present time a majority of the electors in any constituency to signify their desire for an opportunity of testing the question whether or not their sitting Member represents the views of his constituency. Of many constituencies I should think it is more than doubtful if-there exists now 50 per cent. of those who were on the original roll of electors which returned Members to this Parliament in 1910. The Leader of the House objected to my Amendment because he thinks it would tend to make members delegates rather than representatives. I frankly admit that I cannot follow that argument. There is all the difference in the world between a member having the approval of his constituents to every act

  247
  and every minor detail of his actions and every vote given in this House on such questions as dockyard labour and so on, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and a member who persistently month after month and year after year represents in his speeches and actions a policy in direct opposition to the policy of the Government and the policy which commands the adherence of practically the whole of the electors of the country.
  We ought to consider what are the causes of the growing belief, to which I have referred, that to some extent this House does not fully represent the views of the country, and that the country cannot speak as it would wish through the mouths of its elected representatives. There is no doubt that one of those causes, and it is a very patriotic cause, is that so many members who in ordinary peace times would represent their constituencies are serving in His Majesty's Forces, and are not in the House to represent their constituencies. There is another cause, and that is the growing number of hon. Members who are either members of the Government or who are attached to the Government in some minor capacity, or who have for patriotic motives very often taken up work and are performing valuable service on one or other of the innumerable Committees which have been set up to manage one part or other of the War. We know that as a result of that these members are practically silent, either from the point of view of speaking or of asking questions which concern the affairs of their constituencies. Therefore, we are reduced to a very small number of members who are still free to do what they were elected to do by their constituents, namely, to represent them not as delegates, but as representatives of the views of the majority of the constituents in this House. There is a third reason which I think is a far more potent reason for the disrepute in the public eye which has been continuously falling upon this representative Assembly, and it is that there are Members in this House who constantly express in speech and in question views which are utterly repugnant to the sentiments and belief of the majority of the constituents, and of the main purpose of the Government, namely, the effective and active prosecution of the War. The constituents consequently feel that they are absolutely helpless and paralysed, and can give no
  248
  expression to their views, and cannot render that assistance to the Government which they would like to render, but that, on the contrary, they see their sentiments violated every time certain Debates take place which the Leader of the House says he does not fear, but which I do not think he would say are useful for the prosecution of the War.
  My Amendment suggests a remedy. I knew I should be asked to indicate what I mean by a reasonable number of electors, and by what sort of machinery this proposal should be rendered effective. It is impossible to suggest that we can get even a majority of the electors in any constituency at the present moment, and it would be almost equally impossible to get even one-third of the electors on the register to signify their desire to recall their members, as the Leader of the House said is the practice in America. But surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that a number, be it very large or be it only of moderate dimensions, of electors in a constituency who not only sign their name but verify their signatures in the ordinary way before a magistrate or commissioner of oaths, should be able to sign a petition, which I suggest could most properly be addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, memorialising you and asking that a writ should be issued for a by-election in that constituency. It is not always numbers that count. If I received a memorial signed by the Chairman of the Unionist Association of my Constituency and half a dozen of the other members of the executive committee saying that these men, who were very largely responsible for my having been nominated and elected to this House, and who have been in the constituency all the time that I have been here at Westminster, were convinced that I no longer represented the views of my Constituents, and asking me to retire, I should not wish for any further machinery to be put into operation, but I should be only too glad to give that constituency the opportunity of a by-election.
  I believe that that would be the case with the vast majority of Members, and I would like to think that it would be the case with every Member of this House. It is the character of the people who sign, as well as the number, which would have to be weighed. Only a very limited number of electors in any constituency follow politics closely from

  249
  election to election. They are on district committees and ward committees; they are always the active politicians in the constituency, who have their finger on its pulse, and can fairly speak as to what are the views of the great mass of the electors. Therefore, even if such a memorial were not very largely signed, not signed by a majority, or even by one-third of the electors, if it contained the names of a considerable number of electors of weight in the constituency, and if there were a third condition to which I will refer in a moment, a primâ facie case would be made out that it was only reasonable to suppose that a certain Member no longer represented the views of the majority of his constituents. The third condition would be the reasons set forth in the memorial, going to show that a Member did not represent the majority of his constituents.
  The Leader of the House recalled that it was customary in America for those who signed such a petition of recall to put up the money for a by-election in case the sitting Member were re-elected. I do not think that that would offer any difficulty, though I submit that this is really a national question, which attracts an enormous amount of interest outside, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife certainly does not represent the view of the great mass of the electors when he says that the proposal is wholly impracticable, and waves it away with a word. It may be difficult, but this Parliament is altogether an abnormal Parliament. We live in abnormal times, and we cannot dismiss a state of affairs which violates the feelings of an enormous number of the most patriotic of Englishmen without making some attempt to see whether machinery can be devised to make this House as representative as possible. As it is a question of national interest, I do not think it unreasonable to provide as part of the machinery that in case of the petition resulting in a by-election which results in the re-election of the sitting Member, showing that the views of the constituents were misrepresented in the petition, then ether from public or local funds the election expenses of the sitting Member should be paid. I think that it would be a very cheap way of getting over a difficulty which weakens the authority of Parliament and the authority of the Government, and therefore, though
  250
  we have been asked not to spend too much time on this Amendment, I consider it my duty to move it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I rise to, second the Amendment. My right hon. Leader attempted to demolish in anticipation the arguments of those who move and second this Amendment. I desire to second it on rather broader grounds than those of my hon. Friend, because I think it of the utmost importance that we should do everything possible to restore the House of Commons to the confidence of the country. One hears on all hands, personally I think quite wrongly, of the degradation of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is sneered at, and its Members are regarded as. politicians and people of no importance, and it is said that the sooner the House of Commons is shut up the better it would be for the country and for the carrying on of the War. When I hear some of the speeches made in this House I can to some extent understand the feelings of men who talk like that. On the other hand, I think that the Leader of the House has given us the proper answer to that. The House of Commons derives its power from the people, it is what the people make it, and the Government derives all its power and authority from the people, through the Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, it is essential to take every possible step to bring the House of Commons into the closest touch with the people, so that the House of Commons and the authority which it derives from the people and conveys to the Government may be the exact reflex of the opinion of the people. That being the case, it would be better to have elections at more frequent intervals, but I have been convinced by the arguments which the two right hon. Gentlemen have addressed to the House this afternoon that it would be not merely inconvenient, but almost impossible, to have a General Election at the present time, and I am convinced by my own knowledge of the position that this Bill should be carried into law. But if we know, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House admitted his own personal knowledge of the fact, that there are Members who are in direct conflict with the views of their constituents and of the country generally, are we not in honour bound to take any steps that we conceive possible to remove that blot from the House of Commons and to restore to

  251
  the House the authority that it should have as the representative of the people?
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House urged that this proposal would make the Members of this House delegates rather than representatives. I have always claimed that we are representatives and not delegates, and I have no desire whatever to see Members of this House made into delegates, bound to vote in whatever way the caucus directs them to vote. But, on the other hand, the constituents are entitled, as my right hon. Friend had in mind, and as Burke said in his address to the electors of Bristol, not merely to the vote but to the thought of their representative, and the whole question here is whether these hon. Members whom we desire to send back to their constituents are not here, not as delegates of their constituents, but as delegates of outside powers foreign to their constituents, foreign to this country, some body such as the Union of Democratic Control, and bodies of that kind. We know, and the constituents know, before a Division in this House which way certain Members of the House are going to vote, not in accordance with the views of their ,constituents, but as if they were delegates of that body, or some other body, which is contrary to the main body of opinion in the country. The proposal of my hon. Friend would tend to restore to the constituencies the position of not having hostile delegates, but of having friendly representatives in this House. I do not know whether my hon. Friend proposes to go to a Division, but I do ask the Government to consider whether they can adopt some modifying proposal of my hon. Friend, because I am convinced that in the interests of the House of Commons itself, the Government itself, and the prosecution of this War, it is desirable to, bring this House more closely into touch, certainly in respect of some of its Members, with the main trend of opinion in the country.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I should have thought, after hearing the arguments of the Leader of the House, that the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment would not insist on going further in the matter. As showing the impracticability of this Amendment, I may give a personal example of what happened some three or four years ago. The Liberal Executive in my Constituency withdrew their support of myself because of certain votes
  252
  which I gave when I voted with the hon. Gentlemen in favour of the Unionist Motion in the Marconi case. I voted with the Unionists on that occasion because I believed in the Amendment which they proposed. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the present Prime Minister, but as I understand that Amendment, it expressed the regret of this House that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had engaged in certain operations which the Unionists thought were not in accordance with the high traditions of the House. Does the hon. Member suggest that on that occasion I, as a Member of Parliament, should not have exercised my right to support what I believed to be a right Amendment? Does he suggest that I should resign my seat because of my vote? It is ludicrous. You have only to examine these cases to see the result. It just happens that these two hon. Gentlemen, in the excess of their patriotism, which I fully share, do not wish to see here certain other hon. Members who express views which run counter to their pronounced views on the question of this War, and therefore they favour this Amendment. But, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, it is an impracticable Amendment, because if you examine the matter you will see that I should have been failing in my trust as a Member of Parliament if I had not voted with the hon. Gentleman and the Unionists on that occasion. The constituencies are entitled not only to the vote, but to the judgment of the individual Member. He is not only a representative of his constituents, he is a Member of Parliament, he comes here to offer his opinions such as they are, though they may not be in sympathy with those of the Mover or Seconder of the Amendment, and the House of Commons is entitled to have the honest and sincere opinion of every Member of this assembly, however unpopular they may be.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Even if your constituents disapprove of it?
  Mr. MASON: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite followed my argument. I think that the constituencies are fully alive to the fact when they appoint Members of Parliament They send them here as Members of Parliament and, though they may not be in accordance with those of the hon. and learned Gentleman, this House is entitled to have the views of these men.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Suppose that a constituency, by a substantial body, repudiates the opinions expressed by an hon. Member, what is the proper course for him?
  Mr. MASON: I have endeavoured to give an illustration in my own case. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has followed my remarks. I then voted with the Unionists, because I thought it perfectly proper that the House should express its regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should engage in certain transactions, and I would ask the hon. Member does he think that I should have resigned because my opinion did not commend itself to the Liberal executive of my constituency? Why, it would be an intolerable situation, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must know it. I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who has shown the impracticability of this proposal. It is often the fact that opinions which are expressed by some of us do not commend themselves to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butcher), but if he likes to apply his impartial and judicial mind to the matter, I think he will be bound to agree with Burke that this House is entitled not only to the votes but to the judgment of its members.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The Leader of the House told us when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill—and if I may say so he told us with great truth—that the longer a Parliament lasts the less becomes the authority of the members to speak for the contituencies with which they have been so long associated. That is perfectly true of all; it is true of some of us even more than of others. But I would urge upon this House that when a member has been distinctly repudiated by his own constituency, when meetings have been held of the executives of the bodies which sent him to Parliament, when meetings have been held of the council of the party which sent him to Parliament, and when they have repudiated in the strongest possible terms in their power the views of that member and, as has happened in some cases, called upon him to resign, then it is an absolute scandal that the member should be allowed to come to this House and profess to represent the opinions of the people who originally sent him here. It is a gross injustice to the constituency to have their views misrepresented; it is a gross injustice that a man whom they sent to Parliament to repre-
  254
  sent them should advocate precisely opposite views to those which they hold at the present moment. It may be urged that it is not desired that members should become mere delegates. You may use any other theoretical observations you like in order to justify the taking up of such a position, but I say it is not a position which the people and the country understand. If it is not unparliamentary to say so, I would say it is a position which honest men can hardly understand. What is the effect? The effect is this, that speeches are made in this House by members of particular constituencies, speeches which the constituencies loathe, speeches which are distasteful and repulsive to the vast majority of the people of this country, and which are acceptable only to very small—I might say contemptibly small—bodies of opinion in this country. Doubtless they are highly acceptable amongst our enemies—they are highly acceptable in Berlin and other circles where they are appreciated. But that is not all. These speeches go out to our enemies as being the voice of large bodies of opinion in this country when in fact they are the views of only contemptibly small bodies and are absolutely rejected by the mass of people. They are, however, quoted amongst our enemies as showing that we are weakening in this War, as showing a desire to make an ignominious peace. They give comfort to our enemies, and, whatever their object may be, they cause grave dissatisfaction to the true friends of this country and to all who are assisting in the prosecution of the War.
  This is not an academic question. There are cases to which this most definitely and most urgently applies. I hold in my hand a list of eight Members of this House—possibly the list is not exhaustive, but I have done my best to see that it is accurate—who have been repudiated by the men through whose aid they were returned to Parliament. I do not know whether the House would like to hear one or two of the names. I am not disclosing any secret; I am stating what has appeared not only in the local Press but also in the general Press. I am speaking of facts with which, perhaps, some hon. Members are unfamiliar or, perhaps, not so familiar as they are to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman referred to. I will take as typical that of the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan) whom I am glad to see in his place. If I

  255
  misrepresent his position in any way and he corrects me I shall be only too glad to apologise, but I think my facts are correct. On not one but on three different occasions his executive council has repudiated him as their representative and called upon him to resign. What is the hon. Member's answer? I confess that had I been in his position I should not have had the courage to make such an answer. But he told them that he was really acting on the truest principles of Parliamentary representation, and he relied on the great speech of Burke in his address to the electors of Bristol in order to justify his coming to this House and making speeches repulsive to the majority, as far as can be judged, of his constituents. What Burke would think of his abuse of the great declaration made to the electors of Bristol I leave the House to imagine. Then I take the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse). He has been asked by the Liberal Association in his constituency to resign. That was not more than a year ago. He refused. I am not quite sure that he quoted Burke: perhaps he had some other authority on which he relied. Then take another case, that of the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs; he has been asked by his association to resign on, I think, more than one occasion.
  Mr. PONSONBY: I have not been asked to resign.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I apologise. But am I right in saying that on one occasion, on the 25th August, 1915, the hon. Member's action was condemned at a meeting, and that on the 27th December, 1916, the Liberal Association passed a vote of want of confidence in him? That being the case, it seems to me very much the same as asking him to resign. There may be a verbal difference, but were I in the same position as the hon. Gentleman I should take it as a request to resign, and probably should resign and see whether or not I had the support of the constituency. Yet the hon. Member still sits here. I turn next to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite). I hope I shall not misrepresent him when I say that his Liberal committee has repudiated him.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Did they ask me to resign?
  Mr. BUTCHER: No; but they had a meeting to consider the policy and action of the hon. Gentleman, and I must say
  256
  I am astonished that flimsy, ridiculous, and unsubstantial objections of this sort should be made by the hon. Member. He admits that his association repudiated him, and says, "I did not resign because they did not ask me to." If that is his standard of public life—if that is the standard professed by members of his party—then I think the country will know even better than it does now what to think of the speeches they make in this House. I pass to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell). If my information is correct, the support of the Liberals who returned him has been withdrawn. He has sent a letter to his constituency which is a satisfactory and proper one, and the only amendment I would suggest, if he will accept my suggestion, is that, instead of postponing his resignation until a General Election, he should hand it in at once. Then there is the case of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. D. Mason). He will correct me if I am wrong in saying that he has been repudiated by his Liberal friends. I understand that that is the case. We have heard the hon. Member's explanation as to why he does not resign. He has referred to his previous action in regard to the Marconi Debate. A more extraordinary justification for his present action I cannot conceive! What happened in the Marconi Debate? The Marconi case was a case which, although disagreeable enough in a particular aspect, was in no sense a national question. The question whether a man had bought so many more or less Marconi shares arose, but the fate of the country did not depend on it. The whole future of our people, the whole success of our cause, the civilisation of the world did not depend upon it. A speech or a vote on the Marconi case was nothing in comparison with speaking or voting on a question like this War on which the fate of the world depends on the action of this House, of our country and of our Empire, and I hope the hon. Member will on reflection see what a distinction there is between the two. I should not have troubled the House had I not thought the time had come when it is desirable that the people outside this House should know the measure of the mandate which is behind the speeches that are made here. There are only two more cases I want to refer to. One is that of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman). He, I understand, had a vote of want of confidence passed in him. He had been repudiated

  257
  but he still sits here and he still makes speeches against the wish of his constituents.
  Mr. HOGGE: And the Government have made him a private Parliamentary secretary?
  Mr. BUTCHER: I am not responsible for the acts of the Government. I do not know and I do not care whether the hon. Member is a private Parliamentary secretary or not. It does not affect my argument. What I do say is this, that if my information is correct he has been repudiated by his constituents and yet he goes on voting contrary to their wishes. Let me deal lastly with the case of the hon. Member for Central Hackney. I gather from the public Press that in February last year he was repudiated by the Liberal Association. We all know he is engaged in very active propaganda in favour of peace. I do not quite know what his position is in this pacifist organisation, but we do know he is very active and that he speaks in this House in a direction contrary to that which his constituents desire. I believe there are others, but as I have not accurate information myself I do not want to make myself responsible for those others. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I prefer to rest exactly on what I have verified for myself.
  5.0 P.M.
  If those are the facts, and hon. Members do not deny them, I ask if that is not a state of things in which the Government should take some action? What are we asked to do? We are asked to allow this state of things to go on for eight months more. It has gone on far too long already. If the life of this Parliament had been brought to an end at its legitimate time we should have got rid of what I venture to describe as a scandal, but now the Government come forward and say, Prolong these things for eight months; give these Gentlemen an opportunity for eight months more to misrepresent their constituents, and send messages to Berlin which will bring joy to the hearts of the Germans. My hon Friend asks, and I think it is a very reasonable and proper request, that if the Government feel it -necessary for the public advantage—and I do not deny their right to ask us to do so—to prolong the life of Parliament for eight months, do let them accompany that Bill by a Bill which will take out from our midst, or at any rate give an opportunity to the constituents to take from our midst,
  258
  what we believe to be a very grave scandal. What was the answer of the Leader of the House? He made some admirable observations as to what would be the duty of this House in peace time in regard to a measure of this sort, and when Parliament was sitting within its appointed time; but what has that to do with it? In a state of war, when these utterances may do our country the gravest harm, what are those arguments to do with a case where Parliament has already sat for more than two years beyond its appointed time and where it is proposed to ask the House to give it eight months' further prolongation? Therefore, so far as the Leader of the House's answer has gone, I attach no weight to it whatsoever. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith), indeed, dealt with the matter most summarily. He said, I content myself with saying that this is impracticable—rather a remarkable expression, by the way. He did not say it was undesirable, and I should have liked to hear his views about that. All he said was that it was impracticable—meaning, I suppose, that the machinery is not easy to work out. That may be; but I do ask the Government, either before or after they have passed this Bill into law, to bring in a measure—not so difficult to frame, because such a Bill has been framed in other countries—for the purpose of carrying out the object aimed at by this Resolution. I venture to assure them that if they do so they will receive the gratitude of very large numbers of patriotically minded people in this country.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: As the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has referred to me, perhaps the House will permit me to say just a few words. I do not altogether disagree with the intention of this Amendment. I have often thought it would be an excellent thing if some means could be devised by which we could at any time have a by-election in a constituency where a member notoriously misrepresented the views of those who had returned him. The hon. and learned Member referred to an hon. Gentleman sitting here, who was repudiated by his executive, as a scandal. He used words both of violence and virulence. The impropriety of that was brought home to me quite recently, in the case of one of the very latest by-elections, where a member of the Government had to go and seek a return from his constituents. I allude to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts), who is Minister for

  259
  Labour. When he went up for re-election his executive had almost unanimously repudiated him, and demanded for the party another candidate. The Government was cute enough to rush the election, so that another candidate could not be provided, and the hon. Member sits in this House as a member of the Government although he has been repudiated by his executive. That does seem to me to partake of the nature of a scandal. I am going to refer to my own case a little later on, but there do seem to be very great difficulties in carrying this provision into effect. For my own part, I may say at the outset that nothing will do me more good than the attacks which have been made upon me by members of the Unionist party. I shall go down to the constituency, as I have done, and I shall be able to point to the speeches of the Tory reactionaries who at any time would have been glad to get me out of this House. I was really sent here to look after the actions of such men as the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, and I have been performing all through the duty I was sent by the miners and potters of Hanley to perform in looking after the reactionaries in this House. I have done it to the best of my ability, and I have fulfilled every pledge I gave to the voters of Hanley who returned me. This Resolution says that a third of the electors are, at any time, to be able to call upon a Member to resign. A third of the electors of Hanley would, at any time, have been able to have an opportunity of calling on me to resign, because more than one-third are Tories. I suppose we should have had a by-election every few weeks. The Tory vote would have called upon me to resign. I should have resigned; and as soon as I had been re-elected—I suppose they would have allowed me a few weeks before calling my conduct into question again—and then they would have called upon me to resign again, and we should have had a series of by-elections in Hanley. I would not mind so much, because it would have been entertaining, and I should have beaten them every three weeks; but there is this matter to be considered. I think that those who call the by-election tune should pay the piper. They should put up the money, and there is no suggestion in this Amendment that that should be done. At any rate, it should be pointed out that one-third of an electorate, at any time, can
  260
  nearly always be raked up from the opponents of the sitting Member. I have no doubt that could be done in York—
  Mr. BUTCHER: Might I tell the hon. Gentleman that I have received no such suggestion, and I do not think I am likely to receive one?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I hope for the best; but my point for the moment is that at any time any party could get one-third of the opponents of the sitting member and bring about a by-election. The hon. Member referred to the fact, as he puts it, that, I think he said, I was repudiated by my executive. My executive and the electors have been, I think, very considerate and extraordinarily good to me, seeing that the truth is so well concealed from them, and that misrepresentation is at its fullest. At the beginning of the War—at the very outset—I made my position perfectly clear. I said that I believed that this War was a war of Eastern ambition, and that I could not take part in recruiting. That is where the split came between myself and my executive. I said that if I believed in the War I could. say, "Come and fight," but I could not, and would not, say, "Go and fight for me." I met my executive and put before them in the plainest and most unvarnished way my views as to the origin of the War, and they passed a resolution—at my suggestion, because I told them I was going to follow a path that I did not expect them to take with me, knowing the sort of weapons that would be used against any man who stood up for what he conceived to be the absolute truth in this matter—holding themselves free to elect another. candidate for the next General Election, and leaving me free to pursue my way. Since that time, at the beginning of the War, there has not been any action taken by the executive, and I have not received a letter or a postcard of protest. I do not wish to mislead the House. At any rate, at the beginning of the War the views of the constituents were quite contrary to my own, but at the same time I think the majority of those who voted for me, and perhaps almost the whole of them, believed that I was doing only what I thought was right, and they were not going to interfere with me in doing what I considered to be my duty. Perhaps it was because they took a somewhat different view to that expressed by Unionist Members as to the duty of a Member.

  261
  Later on, however, at the beginning of this year, so many statements have been made as to my position in the constituency, and so many hon. Members here, happening to have a majority behind them at the moment, had become accustomed to jeer at me, that certain people were emboldened to go down into Hanley in order to hold a meeting to call for my resignation. There is a certain union which seems to have funds from somewhere to spend. I do not know where they come from. We know that Bolo has financed Jingo organisations. They came into Hanley, took their president with them, and managed to rake up a Liberal Member for the purpose of attacking me. I refer to the hon. Member for East Glamorgan (Mr. Clement Edwards). They took a hall capable of holding four or five hundred people. They placarded the whole constituency—I saw the placards when I went down afterwards. The meeting was called to ask me to resign because of my action in Parliament. They had about fifty people in the hall. They could not get anyone to move the resolution from the audience, so they moved it themselves. They did not dare to pass that resolution, however. They were such a miserable crew of scallywags that the best they thought they could do was to move a resolution to call for a town's meeting to ask me to resign. No town's meeting was ever held. I went there and had an opportunity I had long been awaiting. I had told the executive that I would always hold meetings there, when I would be able to express to it the whole facts of the case before the constituency. I got somewhat more of an opportunity, from my point of view, when the Russian Revolution came, because then we were able to attack the man who I consider to be mainly instrumental in bringing about this War—that is, Nikolas Romanoff, now under lock and key. I had a very fine meeting at the first meeting, while the second meeting of miners was the best for enthusiasm I think I have ever held in my Constituency. The reason it was so enthusiastic was that at the beginning of my speech I just recited to the audience of Staffordshire colliers the circumstances under which again and again I had been howled down in the House of Commons by Tory reactionaries. That was enough for the miners of Burslem. There were some foolish supporters of the Tory reactionaries in the audience, and the main difficulty I had to contend with was to prevent
  262
  those men, when they foolishly interjected, from being thrown downstairs. On the resolution of vote of confidence or not, the meeting voted for me, and there were only six dissentients. That shows that one has only to put matters plainly before the electors, and state the facts of the case, and I, for my part, believe that I have a majority of my Constituents in my favour. There are lies being told about those holding my views giving assistance to the enemy. [An HON. MEMBER: " They are!"] If you want speeches which give assistance to the enemy, you got one yesterday from your Prime Minister—speeches which are quoted in the German Press; speeches, in the first place, that are the speeches of the Jingoes of this country, and which are calculated to encourage and stiffen the German soldiers, when they read that we are out to crush and dismember the German Empire. The speech which we had yesterday from the Prime Minister—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that he is not discussing the question before the House.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I have been led astray, perhaps, by some little interjections, but what I desire to point out is that I have been attacked on the ground that I do not represent my Constituents. But the facts are coming out now. We have had a great revelation of the truth, and our position will be a very different one from what it is to-day. Under the Defence of the Realm Act it is almost impossible to present the truth to our constituents. I have never been afraid myself to state the truth, but under the Defence of the Realm Act I felt that if I went down to my constituents and presented the whole case as it should be presented, supporters of mine might repeat my statements in their desire to help me, and certainly they would then have fallen victims to the Defence of the Realm Act. We are prevented from presenting the facts. We have no freedom of speech, though a different state of circumstances may arise later on. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should add words to his Amendment to the effect that during any by-election there shall be absolute freedom of speech, and that the Defence of the Realm Act shall not be operative. If that were adopted, it would serve the purpose of the country at the present time. The

  263
  general idea of the hon. Member has in it a good deal which commends itself to me, but I would point out to him the desirability of the addition which I suggest. It is an absurdity, anyhow, to suggest that a number of Tories should gather together, or a number of some other parties should gather together, and after passing a resolution to the effect that I should resign, expect me to do so at their request. You should state in your Amendment some substantial ground for the suggestion, but at any rate in my case it must be for the majority to say that I no longer represent their views.
  General CROFT: I do not want to make any individual reference to any of those sitting on the bench behind me, but I want to point out that I think the last speaker has no reason to object at all to the Amendment which stands in our name, for the simple reason, as he tells us, that he has overwhelming support in his constituency and therefore he has nothing to fear from the proposal which we make. It may be that other hon. Gentlemen also feel that they have nothing to fear.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Most of the constituents are in the trenches.
  General CROFT: But we hope the time will come, if we wait a little longer, when there may be an opportunity for those who are now in the trenches to express their opinion of the hon. Member, and I venture to think that the hon. Gentleman will then form a very true estimate of what is the feeling of his constituents. Reference was made just now to the case of the right hon. Member for Norwich. Surely that is hardly a fair criticism. Nobody who has held the confidence of the electors of Norwich, even in the very few days that were given to contest the constituency could have given expression to the views of the constituents. It is no fair comparison to take the case of a by-election and compare it with the cases where it is suggested that, rightly or wrongly, there are Members of this House who in no way represent the majority of their constituents. I think there are very few in this country who do not agree that, whatever may be the motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, there is nothing more encouraging to the enemy than the fact that the so-called representatives of the people in this country are getting up and making speeches in this
  264
  House again and again, and with far more frequency than anyone else, while they apparently claim to be representing the views of their constituents, though at the same time their speeches are inevitably reported in the enemy Press. If you are going to prolong the life of Parliament still further you must see to it that you are not misrepresenting the electors of the country in cases where they might desire to be differently represented when you prolong the life of Parliament over and above the legal time. If there are no such cases, then we shall see many Members returned again, but if there are and if they really believe that they do represent their constituencies, what have they to fear? Why cannot my hon. Friends go into the Lobby on this question?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why do not you retire?
  General CROFT: That is a perfectly fair question. I have left my party and joined the new party. The hon. Member will do me the credit of believing me when I state that I went immediately to my supporters who had adopted me and told them that if any large section of the constituency wanted me to retire I would resign my seat. They were satisfied with my conduct in the War, and they gave me a vote of confidence. I do not think that is the case of my hon. Friend behind me, because there is a large section demanding his retirement. The hon. Member for Hanley said it would be a monstrous thing that one-third of the constituency should be allowed to ask a Member to retire. He characterised the suggestion as monstrous, but I do not think my hon. Friend mentioned the figure one-third. As a matter of fact, if an election were to take place at the present moment, it is not likely that more than 50 per cent. of the electors would go to the poll—perhaps only 45 or 47 per cent. So that if you got one-third of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to demand an election under this proposal it would be, in fact, a large majority of those existing in the constituency at the time. Therefore, even if you take this figure, I think it is a reasonable one to adopt in this connection. It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that the Amendment was impracticable. I think the constituents will not find it so, and, if Parliament is to go on voting itself longer life, surely you should give the various

  265
  constituencies of the country an opportunity of saying whether or not their views are represented in this House. In nearly every case pacifist views have been invariably condemned, and only to-day I have heard of some eight or nine cases where they have been condemned. In peace time, when a resignation was demanded, an hon. Member thought it his duty to face an election by resigning his seat, but, because we are in the middle of a war, there is a departure from that honourable course, and, in spite of the fact that almost every association has condemned their action, they continue to make no movement towards consulting their constituents. If we are going to have a long Parliament, then I say you should give the constituents the opportunity and the protection of being in a position to say that their Member misrepresents their views, and that they want an opportunity of appealing to the electorate.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Whether the Amendment is practicable or not practicable, I am quite sure of this, having listened to the speeches made in defence of the proposal, that they were the result of motives not only of the highest order, but motives of the highest Parliamentary order. Both my hon. Friends stated, first of all, that they were anxious that this House should retain the fullest confidence of the country, and, in the second place, that they were anxious that no large number of the constituencies should continue to be misrepresented in any way against the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I think myself, and I think almost the whole House, would be animated by those motives, but whether the House has or has not the confidence of the electors of the country is a matter incapable of proof, for Parliament has now continued for nearly seven years, and if you go to an election it would be under the old register, on which 40 per cent. in all probability of the electors only can vote, and not a General Election, which would renew and exhilarate the manhood and womanhood of the country, if they could record their opinion. Do not let us forget when we are testing whether or not this House has the confidence of the country that since the beginning of the War there have been some eighty by-elections. Of those, twenty—I am speaking from memory—have been
  266
  contested. If anybody turned to the election speeches that were made and the general arguments advanced, they would come to this conclusion that wherever the candidate laid it down most strongly that he would only support the Government which would prosecute the War with the greatest possible activity and vigour and the Government which would listen to no terms of any false peace but which would wait until the War had been prosecuted to a successful conclusion and a permanent peace established on terms such as we thought desirable, that candidate was invariably elected over the other candidates. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) has, I think, made a most unfair and unwarranted attack upon my hon. Friend the Minister for Labour (Mr. G. Roberts) in connection with the recent election for his constituency at Norwich.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I made no attack.
  Mr. FISHER: It was an attack. It is an attack if the hon. Member means to say, and he did mean to say, that if hon. Members sitting by his side are capable of retaining their seats without retaining the confidence of the electors that the Minister for Labour retains his seat now without retaining the confidence of the electors of his constituency. I say that is an attack upon him.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I never said anything of the kind about retaining the confidence of the electors. The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) spoke of retaining the confidence of the executive, and that men sat here who had been repudiated by their executives. I was replying to that argument and showing that the executive does not always represent the constituency, and in doing so I used the illustration of Norwich. I said nothing whatever about retaining the confidence of the electors.
  Mr. FISHER: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Member, but I thought he was placing my hon. Friend in the same position as those hon. Members who have been told by their constituents.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: By their executive; that is the whole case.
  Mr. FISHER: That they no longer represented them. I understood him to place my hon. Friend in the same category as those hon. Gentlemen. If I am mistaken, I apologise. The election of my

  267
  hon. Friend resulted, to the great joy of us all, in his return to this House. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Hanley about that election I say that it was not rushed in any way. It was absolutely necessary to move the writ because the House was about to rise. There was at least a week in which it would have, been perfectly possible for the executive to have another candidate nominated and put their opinions to the test if they desired to do so, but they did not desire to do so, they ran away from the contest, and if they did not run away from the contest I know Norwich and East Anglia well enough to say that my right hon. Friend would have been returned by an overwhelming majority to this House.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: An executive does not represent a constituency.
  Mr. FISHER: I have referred to the motives which actuated my hon. Friends in bringing forward this Amendment. At the present time it is impossible and most undesirable to have a General Election. At the recent by-elections in East Islington, and North Salford there were polls of less, I think, than 40 per cent. We know that there are a number of members out doing duty in the War, we know about the paper difficulty and petrol and postage and other difficulties which make it undesirable to have an election. The strongest argument of all is that we have now only an old register, but we hope by about the 1st August next to have a new register reinvigorated with about 8,000,000 new voters, and then is the time when we may be able, at all events, to consider from the point of view of a register whether or not it is desirable to take the opinion of the country. My hon. Friends who brought forward this Amendment say, "If we cannot have a general election is it not possible to provide some machinery by which we may, at all events, give constituencies which are represented by those who differ fundamentally and profoundly from the opinions of the great majority of the constituents some opportunity of having a by-election?" That is a desirable thing in itself. The hon. Member for Hanley is not opposed to some machinery by which a by-election might under certain circumstances be fought, but if the hon. Member for Hanley really is so desirous that Members who do not represent their constituencies should subject themselves to by-elections, why does
  268
  he not persuade his hon. Friends who evidently do not represent the opinions of their constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]—to take the law into their own hands and submit themselves to by-elections?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Do you represent your constituency?
  Mr. FISHER: I am quite certain that I do, and I have not had one single letter to tell me that I do not. I should be very glad to test the matter with the hon. Member, able though he is, and I am quite certain I should win on my opinions on the War as against his opinions on war and peace. I feel that, however desirable the object may be of the Amendment, the machinery to produce such a result is really impossible. What do the hon. Members desire to do? I thought at first they were going to give the go-by to the subject of whether or not the machinery was practical or not, but my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment faced it very boldly. He said that what they proposed was that where there was a considerable majority in favour of the resignation by a Member of his seat because the great bulk of the constituency did not agree with the votes given by the hon. Member and the opinions expressed by him, that they should be able to petition the Speaker to bring about a by-election in that constituency. The hon. Member said that you could not expect a majority, but he mentioned one-third, and said it would be possible to get a third, and that you could get a proportion. What proportion? Obviously if it is going to be a very small proportion of the electors we might bring about a great many by-elections very unfairly to the candidate. Who is to fix the proportion? My hon. Friend does not suggest that it should be fixed by Statute. Is it to be fixed by a, Government Department? If so, I should not like to preside over that Department.
  Mr. PETO: I wish to state quite shortly what I did suggest. I suggested that Mr. Speaker would have to decide whether there was a primâ facie case made out by the constituency both on account of the reasons they put forward and the character and weight of the people who signed the document, and that if it could be shown that the whole of the executive responsible for the return of the member signed the paper that it would carry a great deal of weight.
  Mr. FISHER: Now I understand what my hon. Friend means. But I know a great many executives at the present time, and I do not suppose, if you were to call them together, that there would be more than five or ten who would gather into a room. Are those five or ten actually to have the power of requiring a by-election? I do not think that the power he wishes to give to the Speaker would be acceptable to the Speaker, and I cannot think that if Mr. Speaker were to exercise it that he would gain in power or strength in this House. Suppose the executive are dissatisfied with my opinions—I do not say about the War, but about anything—and that I happen to know that the executive have been moved in this direction in order to obtain a by-election, am I to be allowed to go down and address my Constituents and call public meetings to show that my executive are moving against me, and am I to be allowed to innsist upon addressing my constituents, to see whether or not I have their confidence? I am not sure that I did not once forfeit the confidence of an executive without forfeiting the confidence of the electorate. Executives do not always and at all times represent the opinions of the electors. I think my hon. Friends would really, in order to satisfy us, have to give us something better than that. If it
  is going to be a proportion of the electors, and if I knew that somebody was moving in my Constituency to get, say, one-tenth, to suggest to Mr. Speaker that there should be a by-election, should I not insist on my right to go down and call meetings to see whether I also could not get considerably more than one-tenth to support any opinions I held? I cannot say that the word "impracticable," used by the former Prime Minister, is too strong for this proposal. I cannot say that I think the machinery suggested is practical, or that the Amendment is one which could possibly commend itself to the House. But if we cannot find any machinery by which we may be able to free ourselves from Members who in no way represent their constituents on vital questions, I put it that there is that moral consciousness which has caused Members of this House in the past to resign and submit themselves to their constituents when they have entirely changed their views and no longer represent the great majority of voters in their constituencies.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 18.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES.

  [5.46 p.m

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Carew, C.

  Gilbert, J D.

  Adamson, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland

  Cator, John

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Cautley, Henry St

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Alden, Percy

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Clough, William

  Hardy, Ht. Hon. Lawrence

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Clyde, James Avon

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Cornpton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N .

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Barnston, Capt. Harry

  Crumley, Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Barton, Sir William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Hinds, John

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Benn, Capt. W.W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Edge, Captain William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beland, John Plus

  Falconer, James

  Hudson, Walter

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Fell, Arthur

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortesque

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Ogden, Fred

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  O'Grady, James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West),

  Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

  O'Malley, William

  Sutton, John E.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsfd.)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  King, Joseph

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Tickler, T. G.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tillett, B.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Parkes, Sir Edward E.

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Parrott, Sir James Edward

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Lewis Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Wardle, George J.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

  Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Pratt, J. W.

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Weston, J. W.

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Richardson Arthur (Rotherham)

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

  Robinson, Sidney

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Rowlands, James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, Col. Sir J.(Lancs.,Darwen)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Morgan, George Hay

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Newman, Major John R. P.

  Smallwood, Edward

  Younger, Sir George

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord,

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Gershom

  NOES.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Bellaire, Commander C. W.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

  Terrell, George (Wilts)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) I

  Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

  Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks. E.R.).

  Butcher, John George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Colonel D. G.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Pete and General Croft,

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  Main question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have no desire to oppose the Bill, but I think the time is too long. On the Committee stage I shall move to reduce the time by two or three months. We ought to retain in our hands some power of control over the Government. At the present time the House of Commons has no control over the Government. If we reduce the time it does not follow that we shall necessarily take advantage of that fact, but I think it ought to be in our power to say whether or not we shall continue the Government in office. Under these circumstances I wish to-morrow to move an Amendment which will reduce the time.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC. (LOCAL COMMITTEES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC. (LOCAL COMMITTEES) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Representatives of Disabled Men, to be Included among the Members of Local Committees.)
    (1) Every scheme for the constitution of a local committee under Section two of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915, shall provide for the inclusion among the members of the committee of at least one representative of disabled men who have been discharged from the naval and military service of His Majesty.
    (2) Where such a scheme, framed before the passing of this Act, does not provide as aforesaid, the council by which the scheme was framed shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and subject to the approval of the Minister of

    273
    Pensions, frame a supplemental scheme revising the existing scheme so as to give effect to the provisions of this Section, and if within such time, not being less than one month, as the Minister may allow the council does not frame such a supplemental scheme, or such a supplemental scheme as the Minister approves, the Minister may himself frame a supplemental scheme, which shall have the like effect as if it had been framed by the council and approved by the Minister.
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "for" ["Every scheme for"], and to insert instead thereof the word "regulating."
    This first Amendment standing in my name is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "local" ["local committee"], to insert the words "or district."
    We have had extreme difficulty in getting numbers of our localities to appoint disabled soldiers on the committees. The Bill as originally drafted, in my opinion, did not go far enough; hence the Amendment which I am moving. The other Amendments have been framed with a similar purpose in view, that we should have disabled men on every class of committee. I think that with that explanation it will be quite unnecessary that I should say anything else on any of the other Amendments, as I imagine hon. Members agree that the Amendments are designed from that point of view. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will have a speedy passage through Committee.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir HENRY HARRIS: I entirely support the view as to the inadequate representation of disabled soldiers on the local committees and sub-committees, but I think my right hon. Friend should point out that the local committees have been in a difficulty in this matter. Their numbers are strictly fixed in the scheme. They appointed councillors and have not been able to appoint representatives of disabled soldiers because their own committees were full. In framing the new scheme it would, I suggest, be rather useful if it gave the local committees power to appoint the representatives desired. At present they
    274
    are entirely in the hands of the local council. But I want to make it quite clear that local committees, if I may venture to speak for them as chairman of one, will welcome the presence of disabled soldiers.
    Mr. HARDY: I should also like to raise-this one word of protest against it being, considered that the local committees were adverse to the introduction of disabled men. On the contrary, the committee with which I have been connected in Kent were extremely anxious to add them, and they have bombarded the Department with letters asking them how they propose that such men should be selected, and whether they were restricted by the limitation which has just been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, that we had filled up all the vacancies in our scheme, and it was impossible for us, unless power were taken by the Department, to give us some margin, to add a member at that moment. Having had other work thrust upon me, I have resigned my position on the War Pensions Committee in order to enable a disabled soldier to go upon it. Therefore, I can say we certainly were desirous of taking advantage of the suggestion. I do not think it is quite fair to lay the whole blame on the local committees. The addition of the words "or district" no doubt is quite desirable, but I presume the Government, merely as a technical matter, intend to alter the name of the Bill, because it is confined at present to local committees, and, therefore, this is going outside the title so far as I can see.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), after the word "Pensions" ["Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915"], insert "etc."
    After the word "the" ["members of the committee"], insert the words "local or district."—[Mr. Hodge.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "at least one representative of," and to insert instead thereof the words "two or more."
    When we were on the Second Reading, I raised this point, as to whether the representation on the committee should be limited to one disabled man or not, and I quite acknowledge the fact that the Minister of Pensions has met the view

    275
    expressed by myself and others in the Debate in putting down an Amendment, which follows mine on the Order Paper, to leave out the words "one representative of" and to insert "two." The reason I prefer my words is this; if you accept the words proposed by the Minister of Pensions the temptation to a committee would be to remain satisfied with putting on two men.
    Mr. HODGE: At least two men.
    Mr. HOGGE: If you put in the Bill "at least two," the committee which puts on two is much more likely to remain content with those two, insofar as it meets the provision in the Bill; but if you insert my words, you put the suggestion in the minds of the committee that it is advisable to put on more than two. I think it could be easily argued that you should have more disabled men than two on those committees, bearing in mind that the average local committee consists of quite twenty or twenty-one persons, and if there were only two disabled men on those committees there would be, after all, still eighteen or nineteen who need not be disabled men. As the greater part of the work involves the life and future of the disabled men, and as the disabled men when they return from the Colours revert to their own civilian occupation, it is clear that there is a case for more of those men to be put on the committee, and if you accept my words you will have in the Bill a suggestion to the committee that they need not stop at two, and may be encouraged to appoint more, whereas if you accept my right hon. Friend's words the temptation will be to be satisfied with two.
    Mr. HODGE: With all due deference to my hon. Friend, I prefer my own Amendment, and it must always be borne in mind that when the scheme comes before the Minister it is for him to approve or disapprove. It is plain to my mind that, whereas in large committees two men would be altogether too small a number, in small committees if more than two were elected they would probably disturb the balance of the committee. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will accept my wording, in view of the fact that I have endeavoured to meet every reasonable objection, not only of himself but other Members of the House, to make the Bill as far-reaching and comprehensive as possible. I, therefore, appeal to him to permit my wording to go through.
    Mr. HOGGE: If my right hon. Friend prefers his own wording, I will withdraw mine, but I venture to submit that the reason he has given, that every scheme must be approved by the Minister of Pensions, does not add any virtue to the words he has chosen, because the Minister of Pensions changes practically with the seasons, and there is no continuity of decision in the schemes brought before him. However, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "one representative of," and insert instead thereof the word "two."—[Mr. Hodge.]
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: In Sub section (1), leave out the words "representative or"; leave out the word "men" ["of disabled men"], and insert instead thereof the word "man"; leave out the word "have" ["who have been discharged"], and insert instead thereof the word "has."
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: The Pensions Minister has not only accepted all my Amendments, but has, if I may say so, gone one better, and has carried out exactly what I wished, and almost more than I dared hoped for. That being so, I do not propose to move my Amendment.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "and" ["discharged from the Naval and Military Service"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
    Mr. HARDY: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the question that there is a new Service now in a Bill before this House, and if this Bill is going through it is very desirable that it should include the Air Service as finding disabled men to sit on these committees. I do not think we ought to forget them.
    Mr. HODGE: If it is considered essential, I have no objection to accepting the suggestion, but, at the present moment, "Naval" covers airmen in the Royal Naval Air Service and "Military Service" covers the Royal Army Flying Corps. If it is thought desirable, however, to insert the words the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I have no objection.
    Mr. HARDY: I did not propose to suggest it now, but rather to ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear it in memory at a later stage.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I remind the Pensions Minister and the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Bill we were considering yesterday reserves the right of pensions both for the Navy and the Army airmen, even if they were brought into the new Service, so that the words as they stand would cover it?
    Mr. HARDY: I would only remind the hon. Gentleman that it may provide for those at present in the Service, but not for those who will join the new Air Service.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words during the present War."
    Mr. HOGGE: I would like my right hon. Friend to say why he confines it to the present War. Will he bear in mind this fact, that the Minister of Pensions, and indeed the Government, have already promised that the pensions of other soldiers and sailors who have been disabled in previous wars have got to be brought into line with the present Warrants? For instance, there were the people who were engaged in the South African War. While it is probably right that the representatives should be of men who have fought in the present War, I do not think you should exclude representatives of men who have fought in previous wars, especially in the South African War. I would ask my right hon. Friend if he has considered that point?
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: As this stands, and without any explanation. I for one do not see my way to support the Amendment. In the first place, a statutory date has to be fixed from which this starts, or rather on which the War in some remote future will end; but I see no reason why a man who was disabled and eligible after this War finishes, say, on 1st January, 1920, should be precluded from sitting on a committee. In the second place, I support the view of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that there is no reason why the membership of these committees should be restricted to those soldiers who, unhappily, have been disabled in this War. Some of the finest representatives of the Army and Navy are men who have been disabled in previous wars, or those who may be disabled in future wars. Therefore, unless the Minister of Pensions has
    278
    an explanation, which I for one do not now perceive, I cannot support his Amendment.
    Mr. HODGE: The reason for putting these words in was that members generally thought that, as the Pensions Ministry were not dealing with the pensions of old soldiers disabled in the Boer War, or any other previous war, and as the men disabled in the present War were the most deeply interested, they were the men who should be elected for these committees. I have got no feeling in the matter at all. I am quite conscious of the fact that many of our old soldiers are most excellent men, and would make most excellent members of the committees, but the general desire of hon. Members who came to me was that I should confine it to soldiers engaged in the present War. If it is the feeling of the Committee that they do not want these limiting words, I shall bow to their feeling.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I am not quite sure the Pensions Minister is not right. You are not putting a deprivation upon anyone; you are giving a special privilege to those engaged in the present War whom it is necessary to have represented on these committees. Any old soldier injured in the Boer War is not precluded from being on a committee; he may be, and very likely will be, put on the committee. But we do want, I think, generally to secure that those who have passed through this War shall certainly be on every one of these committees.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "and an additional woman who must be the widow of a deceased soldier."
    This Amendment would make the scheme complete, and I am rather keen on this addition for this reason: The local war pensions committees throughout the country are so framed to-day that the provision for women upon them is left rather indeterminable. It simply says, I think, that two of the number of the committee must be women. It does not specify who those women should be. I think the House will recognise that during this War there are many women who have become widows who are among the most intelligent members of the community. I know, for instance, in the city of Edinburgh that the women belonging to the Co-operative Guild, to the number of 200

    279
    strong, study the question of pensions from week to week and carry their knowledge out among the members of the co-operative society in Edinburgh, and they are doing a very excellent work in that respect. There are other hon. Members in the House with the same experience in other towns. The cases that come before the local war pension committee are usually concerned with the domestic affairs of the women and children of the men who have been killed, and I can conceive no better representative on those committees than the widow of one of those soldiers who has been killed. I am not asking that the Minister of Pensions should knock off the two women who are already on, but I ask that in addition to the two already provided for he should add a third who is of this status, so that those applying to the local war pensions committee may have the benefit of advice of this kind. Seeing that the Pensions Minister has accepted nearly all the other Amendments suggested, I hope he will accept this suggestion and complete the comprehensive nature of the new committee.
    Mr. HODGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. This is primarily a Bill for the purpose of putting disabled men on these committees, and not a measure to alter the general balance. As women are already on the councils I do not see that this proposal is essential, more particularly as the disabled men we are putting on will surely be the best men to look after the women. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this proposal, because if he does we should require to make an alteration in the title of the Bill, because it does not cover this point. At any rate, women are provided for on the councils. We have now provided for the disabled soldier, and I think my hon. Friend might be content with that.
    Mr. PRICE: I am sorry the Minister of Pensions has made the speech he has because it is a very important thing that we should have the widow of a deceased soldier on these committees. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh referred to some women in the Co-operative Guild. I attended myself one of these guilds, and I was very much surprised to find the great interest which these women were taking in this matter. If you accept this Amendment you will have an additional woman on these committees, and there is
    280
    no part of the community affected so much as the women are in regard to this question. It sometimes happens that the interests of the disabled soldier is different to the interests of the widow, and in order to see that justice is done I think we should have a representative of this class on the committee.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I should like to support this Amendment. I have received a good many letters from women interested in this question, and I wish to add my voice to those who have been urging the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment.
    Sir H. HARRIS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman, before accepting this Amendment, will consider the advisability of giving a wider definition to one of the women already provided for on the committee. Perhaps that would meet the case, and then we should not require the provision that the widow of a deceased soldier should be on the committee. That suggestion might meet our wishes. I agree it would be useful to have the widow of a deceased soldier on the local committee.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he has said about this Amendment. I wish to suggest, however, that "the widow of a deceased soldier" may prove a very wide definition, and what we require is to provide for the widow or dependant receiving a pension. Soldiers will die after the War, and these women will become widows of deceased soldiers although those soldiers may die a natural death. I think some additional definition is required. In regard to the principle generally, I think you require that the element of women on these committees should be strengthened.
    Mr. HARDY: I think there may be some considerable difficulty in accepting this Amendment at the present stage. I welcome the idea suggested that some definition might be given to one of the women already on the committee that they should be the dependant or someone connected with a disabled soldier. I do not see why it should be limited to soldiers and why we should not have sailors. I think that would be a very acceptable addition. Why should it be limited to the widow of the soldier. I think it is quite as necessary to provide for the wife of the sailor

    281
    If you cannot really carry out the intention of the Committee by this Amendment I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it mow so that the Government can consider the point at a later stage.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) and that he will consider the advisability of giving a status to the widow on the committee. Those representing large industrial constituencies have received an enormous amount of correspondence in connection with these pensions, and they are quite aware that many of those widows would be quite capable of representing the interests of the other widows on a committee of this description. It would be of great service to the Minister himself to have intelligent women placed on these committees with practical experience to advise and help the local committee as to the requirements of the other widows. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter further consideration, and if he cannot accept this proposal now I trust that he will see that an Amendment to meet this point is put in on the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the Amendment in its present form provides for an additional woman who must be the widow of a deceased soldier. There will be a very large number of soldiers who die who have never been wounded. It might be the widow of a soldier who has never fought in the War and who may have died. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment in its present form.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: Might I suggest that the Amendment should provide for the widow of a soldier or sailor who has lost his life on active service? The interests of the widow are not always the same as that of the disabled soldier. If you are going to accept recipients of pensions as you have done by previous Amendments you ought to complete the matter by putting additional women on the committees, and you ought to provide that one of these representatives should be the widow of a deceased soldier.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I wish to reinforce what has been said on this point, that it should not only provide for the widow, but for any woman of proper age who has become the dependant of a sailor or soldier who has fallen in this
    282
    War. The Committee has already adopted words confining it to the present War, and to be consistent it must be the widow of a soldier or sailor who has fallen in the present War. I support this Amendment on general grounds. The tendency of all committees of this kind is to be composed of people not always of the same class. I am for strengthening every committee by adding that class of the population who belong to the working classes, and who in the nature of things represent the largest majority of those who have actually served on our fronts, and who, consequently, represent the largest majority of sufferers. The hon. Member for Paddington (Sir H. Harris) said he would be content with an intimation from the Minister of Pensions that this would be put right by some ipse dixit of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am opposed to that. I feel sure that the Minister of Pensions, now that he knows the views of this Committee, will be willing to amend the suggested Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge).
    Mr. HODGE: It is perfectly evident from the Debate that while the view of the House is in favour of the widow of a soldier, or, as my hon. Friend has put it, the dependant of a soldier who has given up his life in this War, should be placed on the committee. May I point out, in answer to what has been said, that, so far as widows' pensions are concerned, you have a flat rate. The trouble we get is as to whether the assessment of the disability is right or wrong. In that case I take it that the assistance of the disabled soldier and sailor will be of inestimable value May I point out that I have initiated a reform which I think will meet with general approval to have medical referees in every district in the country, so that when a disabled soldier feels that he is being badly treated with respect to the amount of his pension he can go to the medical referee, who will make an examination from the doctor's own personal knowledge of the particular industry or locality, the local doctor being the best for that purpose. The disabled man should be upon the committee, in order to see that no obstacle is placed in the way of the disabled soldier being sent to the medical referee. There is, therefore, no real case for a disabled man, but, so far as a widow being required to look after the interests of

    283
    widows is concerned, there are no troubles, because it is a flat rate, and of course the alternative pension is a matter of ascertainment. I am perfectly willing, however, between now and the Report stage, to consider the matter and to see how far I can meet the desire of the Committee. Members of the House at the same time might be thinking over the problem and see how far they think it is essential to go in this particular direction.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am much obliged to the Pensions Minister, and of course I accept his suggestion that he should be allowed to consider the matter between now and the Report stage. I think, however, he has quite overlooked the fact that the local war pensions committee, upon which we are appointing these disabled men and this suggested widow either of a soldier or sailor deals not only with questions of pensions, but with questions much more acute and intimate. For instance, it deals with the whole question of allowances for illness of children of serving soldiers and sailors; it deals with the whole question of supplemental allowances; it deals with the question of funeral expenses of children who die while their fathers are fighting; it deals with the vexed question of whether the dependants of apprentices shall get allowances on the basis of pre-war dependence. And I could go on and give a list of thirty or forty intimate things connected with the active life of the wives of soldiers and sailors who are serving with which the local war pensions committee deals day by day. I suggested that a widow should be on the committee, because she would be in receipt of a pension and therefore would not be affected by any of those other grants, although, having been the wife of a soldier or sailor, she would have had the experience of those grants and would be in a better position to give an opinion with regard to any decisions of the local war pensions committee on those matters than any other woman. I was thinking more of the special grants side of the Pensions Ministry.
    Mr. WATT: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter might I suggest to him, as it does not seem likely that he will adopt the suggestion to have the widow of a soldier or sailor, that there is the medium course of having one of the
    284
    women at present on the committee the widow of a soldier or sailor who has fallen in the War. I need hardly say that I would prefer that he should put a third woman on the committee as proposed, but in that way this class would be represented.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the following new Sub-section:
    (3) "There shall be included among the members of every sub-committee appointed under the said Section for any part of the area of a local committee for any county (including the County of London) or county borough, and among the members of every joint-committee appointed by two or more local committees, whether in either case appointed before or after the commencement of this Act, at least two such disabled men as aforesaid.
    "Where any such sub-committee or and joint-committee has been appointed before the commencement of this Act the local committee or committees, as the case may be, by which it was appointed shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, make the necessary appointment for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provision, and if the local committee, or committees, fail within such time, not being less than one month, as the Minister of Pensions may allow so to do, the Minister may himself make the appointment."
    Mr. HARDY: It seems to me a little difficult to apply this new provision to every sub-committee. In the case with which I have acquaintance we have a very large number of sub-committees. We have endeavoured to get sub-committees in order to work the matter as easily and as speedily as possible. If there are to be two disabled men on every one of those sub-committees, it will really be a difficult matter to undertake. Sub-committees are free from the limitations of district committees. They are set up in different parts of a county. In the rural districts they are small, and in the urban districts they may be larger. There are nearly forty sub-committees in Kent, and there will be a very large number of these men to find. I do think that two on every sub-committee is too large a number to insist upon, and that the time of one month is extremely short to find something like

    285
    eighty men of this character. Naturally, you want to make careful inquiry before you appoint a man. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered these points, but I think they are worthy of consideration.
    Mr. HODGE: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Amendment he will see that it is a sub-committee of an area. We do not want two disabled soldiers or sailors upon every sub-committee. That would be impossible. The idea is that there should be no sub-committee in an area without two disabled men, but not where they are divided into sub-committees to consider finance or any other special subject.
    Mr. HARDY: I quite understand that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Local Committees) Act, 1917.
    Amendment made, leave out the word "Local."—[Mr. Hodge.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Title: "A Bill to provide for the inclusion on local committees constituted under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, of representatives of disabled men discharged from the Naval and Military Services of His Majesty."
    Amendment made, leave out the word "local."—[Mr. Hodge.]
    Bill reported; as Amended, to be considered To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1917–18.

    NATIONAL WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge that will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1918, for the Expenses of the National War Aims Committee."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
    Captain F. GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to, move this Vote in Committee of Supply for the reason that, as Chairman, I may, possibly be in a better position to explain to the House the work of the Committee referred to, and the details in connection. therewith. The Vote stands for £1,000, which it must be apparent to the House is merely a Token Vote, but before giving the explanation for adopting this course it may be of greater service to explain the outline of the work of this Committee. In order to do so logically and concisely, I divide it into three heads: 1, the origin and inception of the movement; 2, the object and constitution of the Committee and its activities; and finally, some words in reference to its causes. The origin of the Committee dates from the early summer, when there were indications of considerable pacifist propaganda being fermented in certain industrial centres in England. At that time a platform was formed, and only one point of view, held, I think, by a very small section of the community, was represented. As a result innumerable requests began to take form, asking that an answer should be given. In most cases the workers of this country are too occupied with their duties to the country and to the troops abroad to study these movements, nor are they able to study the motives which may lie behind them. The Government considers itself responsible not only for the actual conduct of the War and all connected therewith, but for steadying and stiffening, if necessary, the morale of the workers at home. The Government, therefore, responded to the call that was being pressed from many quarters and undertook to set up machinery of an educative and of a satisfying character. Hence the inception of the National War Aims Committee. The objects are most clearly described in what we consider to be our terms of reference. I will read them to the House:

    (1) To assist the country during the ensuing months of strain to resist insidious influences of an unpatriotic character;

    (2) To keep the country informed of the war aims of the British Empire and its Allies; and

    (3) To support the Government in its responsible task of carrying on the, War.

    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Who drew up, those references?
    Captain GUEST: These were the terms .of reference decided upon as a basis for inviting co-operation between the great parties in the State. The main object of the Committee was to keep before the country the causes which had led to the War, and to encourage the country to ,continue until those causes had been removed for ever. Besides those objects, they have laid emphasis upon what are not their objects, and it is important that the Committee should be acquainted with them. It is not their object, and never has been, to support or defend the Government, either in domestic affairs or in their methods of carrying on the War, much less to discuss the terms of peace or any of the means that may form the basis of negotiation at such times. Upon this basis the great political parties in the State undertook to work together. The National War Aims Committee therefore undertook to provide platforms to enable speakers of all calibres and all qualities to lay before the country, in their various ways, the fundamental aims of the Allies. There is a difficulty here which, of course, the Committee will see—that is, the exact definition of the Allies' war aims. That is not the business of this Committee for which I am responsible.
    An HON. MEMBER: It is nobody's business.
    Mr. KING: Whose business is it?
    Captain GUEST: If the hon. Member will wait, he will hear. It is therefore left to speakers from the War Cabinet and other of our great statemen to inform the country, as I am sure they are doing, as fast as they are able. There is plenty of common ground of unity and of common purpose which can be usefully and educatively said from many of these platforms without plunging into details which are better relegated to the time when the Peace Conference assembles. The composition and constitution of the Committee have met with some criticism on one score, namely, that it does not exactly follow the lines of the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee which was set up in September, 1914. That Committee was known technically as the Whips Committee. That matter was considered, but the Government decided, I think wisely, that any enterprise which they launched should be represented in the House of Commons by someone who sits on the Treasury Bench and is able to
    288
    be summoned whenever the House or the Committee may wish for information or there is inquiry on the subject. They therefore decided to ask one of the Whips of the Government to undertake the chairmanship of this body and the task devolved upon me. In that capacity I invited the Leaders of the great parties in the State to lend their names and aid to the movement, and the Presidents included the names of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), who at that time temporarily represented the Labour party in the War Cabinet.
    Mr. KING: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why the Irish party is not represented? If all the great Parties in the State were invited and accepted, why was not the Irish party included?
    Captain GUEST: Because the operations of the War Aims Committee do not extend to Ireland. The names of the Presidents give one a very clear indication of the strength and composition of the Committee. Each of these sections of political thought nominated a representative on the Committee. Shortly after we started operations it was found that the work was too arduous for so small a Committee, and a duplicate ensued in exactly the same ratio. That was done in order that a Member of Parliament might be chairman of each sub-committee and that the House or the Committee, if it so desired, should feel that it had a Member of Parliament here to answer any questions it might care to direct to him. The greatest care was taken to protect the movement from all political interests and to apply all available forces in this national cause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Who were the members of the Committee?
    Captain GUEST: The members of the Committee who joined at the commencement were the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders), the right hon. Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir H. Greenwood), the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Marshall), and the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Tootill). The Members who joined the Committee afterwards for the purpose of taking charge of sub-committees were the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent (Mr. R. McNeill), the hon. Member for

    289
    East Aberdeenshire (Sir W. H. Cowan), the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Walter Rea), and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. J. Parker). That gives hon. Members complete information as to the composition and constitution of the Committee. Its activities are easily explained, and are as follows: In different parts of England, in some three hundred constituencies, we have either formed or are forming local committees. Our system being one of decentralisation, we are leaving to the local committees the control of administration. We find some districts press for greater activity. Some say these committees are not wanted. In the latter cases we have pressed upon the local committees the desirability of setting up this machinery as we have found that it performs the function, even if it does not hold meetings, of a channel by which legitimate grievances may be brought quickly to the Departments concerned and, as a result, we have found that quick remedies have ensued. A vast number of meetings, large and small, have been held. The lesson we have learned from these has shown a genuine demand for education and enlightenment. With a few exceptions—there are many members of the Committee who have taken part in the meetings—they have been wonderfully attended, and often attended by men who have done a long day's work before the evening came. As a result, there is developing in England a more highly instructed and intelligent determination to prosecute this War to its only possible conclusion than would have been the case if this campaign had not been undertaken. What is, perhaps, of equal importance, it has enabled us to gauge the strength, or, as I would prefer to call it, the weakness of the pacifist element in this land. We found it necessary to appoint an information and Publicity Department, in order to satisfy the public demand for authoritative statements of many of the amazing details of the War.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are these officials approved by the Treasury?
    Captain GUEST: If the hon. Member will bear with me I will deal with that on the question of cost. I wish to point out in connection with this Information and Publicity Department that we have found ourselves able to be of considerable value from the point of view of economy and the prevention of over-lapping both to the War Office and to the Admiralty, each of
    290
    whom has had Departments of this character running for some considerable time. There is only one further head of activity to which I would draw the attention of the Committee. It has a branch which bas become, perhaps, more and more needful and interesting during the last few months. There has been an extraordinary desire manifested in different parts of England to learn and see more of the Americans who have passed their judgment that our cause is right, after having had an opportunity of making a dispassionate survey of all the events of the past few years. We have made a considerable start in that direction. I come now to the question of cost. On that subject I trust that the Committee will disabuse their minds of any suggestion or thought that the Government desire to burke this question. I trust that the Committee will pause, in view of the peculiarity of the subject with which we are dealing now, before it forces a detailed statement of all the items of expenditure incurred by the War Aims Committee. It comes under a class of expenditure which, in pre-war days, was open to considerable criticism. England adopted a peculiar attitude towards Secret Service expenditure. Before the War we were remarkable for the minute sum of money which we were supposed to spend on those services. There were two lines of thought on that subject, one that it might be false economy to starve the Secret Service, and that perhaps through doing so ignorance resulted, and another line of thought which said that if your works were just there were no reason why they should not be carried out in the light of day. Those were the arguments of the pre-war period. In a time of war, and in a most critical stage of the War, they must be revised. We know that a good deal of the immense expenditure which is carried on by the Central Empires in this respect. Perhaps it may prove that those moneys have been well invested. It may possibly be that some is circulating in these Islands, but to the best of my belief nearly if not quite all of it will be wasted. One subject that bears upon this Vote is that the House approved of a foreign propaganda, which has been conducted by a Department of the Foreign Office. It seems curious, on the face of it, that this House should cavil at a small expenditure at home on education and enlightenment during this period of the strain and stress of the War.
    Mr. KING: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Department of the Foreign Office to which he refers is that under Colonel John Buchan, or that under Mr. Mair, or that under Mr. Masterman, or one of them, or any two of them, or of all three of them?
    Captain GUEST: I am not responsible for any Votes of the House of Commons passed for the Foreign Office during the last two years. I only referred to the foreign propaganda in order to remind the House of what had already been done in this connection.
    Mr. KING: Who has done it?
    7.0 P.M.
    Captain GUEST: The House of Commons is responsible for what it has done in the past. Clearly it is not my business here this evening to defend the Foreign Office Vote, which probably covers these enterprises I feel very strongly that what the Germans most want to know is the mental attitude of our workers. They know to their cost the fierce courage and determination of our soldiers, and if by a Debate in this House on a Vote for educational purposes they were to get any idea in their head that we had suddenly had to adopt an active campaign, we will say either to oppose pacifism or to stiffen the courage of our industrial classes, they would get more satisfaction than I am sure this Committee means to give them. In the long run I lake it the burden of the War has to fall upon the civil population, and it surely is not unreasonable that the Government should consider its responsibility to that section of the community in times like these. Why should we tell them anything at all about our private affairs? It can only be elicited in a Committee such as this by those who wish to satisfy their curiosity at the moment. As Chairman of this Committee I would resist any proposal to give details either of expenditure or of personal employment in connection with this work.
    Mr. HARRIS: Has this work any relation to secret service, and, if so, ought it not to come on another Vote?"
    Captain GUEST: This sum of money has no relation whatever to secret service. It would not be very difficult for anyone in a foreign country to decide the proper position that two such Votes should occupy. But the House is not without
    292
    safeguards in this connection. First of all, every item of expenditure has been submitted to a Committee, which now consists of nine, item by item, and on no occasion has a contrary vote been recorded, but on every occasion after reasonable discussion the results arrived at have been unanimous. That Committee has far more complete knowledge than anyone else, because it is spending every week at it and ascertaining what is the market value of the labour that it finds available, and that, I think, should satisfy a very large number of the members of this Committee.
    Mr. MORRELL: Who are the Committee—are they Members of this House?
    Captain GUEST: I have read out the names. A second safeguard is that our Estimates are submitted to the Treasury, which has taken great pains to advise us and has passed such estimates as we have been able to present for a reasonable period of time. It has done more. It has appointed an accountant to assist us in supervising and controlling expenditure. If that is not sufficient, I would remind the Committee, before it decides hastily, that only a few weeks ago they themselves set up a very powerful Committee, called the Expenditure Committee, and the War Aims Committee will have no objection whatsoever, any more than any other Department, to submitting to that body all their expenditure for scrutiny.
    Sir C. HENRY: After they have spent it?
    Captain GUEST: It would be very easily curtailed in the future.
    Sir C. HENRY: Do you mean after they have spent it?
    Captain GUEST: From time to time as the Expenditure Committee may think advisable. I recommend to the Committee to leave that scrutiny to that Committee and not hastily to press for details, which may lead to the production of information, which is exactly what Germany ardently desires.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite sure that I follow the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to his desire not to disclose what the cost of the Committee is going to be. He told us that if Germany knew that, she would think that this country had suddenly to embark on a campaign to educate the populace in

    293
    order to get them to continue the War. But that is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing at present. Expenditure does not come in. This Debate will undoubtedly be read abroad, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech will show from the very beginning that there has been some agitation—I myself was not aware that it had any effect—which the Government thinks it necessary to counterbalance, and that it had to set up this Committee and that its aims and objects were so important and will cost so much money—this is the deduction which would be drawn from his speech—that it was not wise to disclose the amount. He thinks no members of the Committe ought to cavil at the expenditure. I do not think anyone would cavil at the expenditure. What the Commitee would desire, and what I myself hope it would insist upon, is that it shall know what the expenditure is, and instead of receiving merely a token Vote, it should be given the items of the expenditure and should have an opportunity of reviewing them and saying whether or not it thinks they are necessary or that the money has been wisely expended. It must not be forgotten that the financial position of this country is very serious at present, and you cannot go on spending money on all these Committees in the way that the Government is apparently desirous of doing and at the same time prosecute the War. There must be economy at some time. It ought to have taken place two or three years before. It must take place now if we are going to be successful in winning the War.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Treasury would exercise some control. May I refer him to the report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, ordered to be printed on 24th October? That Committee made a report upon the National Service Department and in that Department there was a campaign of a very similar kind. It was called the Publicity Campaign. It was instituted on 21st February of this year. I believe it concluded in July, having lasted about four months. The War Cabinet, I understand, took the conduct of that campaign out of the hands of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was Director of National Service, and put it in the hands of a Parliamentary Committee acting under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Henderson). That Committee spent £107,804 in about four months on the publicity campaign. Mr. Chamber-
    294
    lain is no longer a member of the National Service Department, which has been completely reorganised, and the whole of that money has been wasted. They spent £54,041 on advertisements in newspapers. That is a very large sum to give to the newspapers in the form of advertisements. The Committee has a right to know whether this Committee is going to spend large, sums of money in subsidising newspapers. It spent £33,838 14s. 7d. on posters, leaflets and bill posting. It also spent a certain sum on what was called subsistence allowance, that is, paying hotel bills and travelling expenses of the speakers including Members of Parliament. Then it paid £102 2s. 1d. to political agents in Scotland, and £4,322 11s. 0d. was paid to political agents in England and Wales. Why should you pay £4,000 to political agents in England and Wales and only £100 to political agents in Scotland? The Committee which did this, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) and was composed of the Whips of the House, on both sides, admitted that the work in Scotland had been well done. Under these circumstances I think the Committee should view with a little caution an attempt to repeat an expenditure of this sort without giving any details as to what it is going to be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Treasury would have some control. Let me call his attention to paragraph 56 of the Report of this Committee, which he himself has just eulogised:
    "It would appear doubtful whether any real control over the expenditure of the Department was exercised by the Treasury."
    There can be no doubt that the Treasury did not exercise any control, and will not in the future exercise any control if this Vote passes in the form in which it is now. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said something about America. I do not quite see why it is necessary to set up an expensive Committee to acquaint the inhabitants of this country with the position of America and what is going on there. Americans are not too fond of being criticised, and it is quite possible that if you are going to have speakers of all calibres and all qualities, I suppose good and bad, who are to give their views as to America, you may be doing a good deal more harm than good.
    I do not wish to say it may not be necessary to do something of this sort, but there are ninety members of the

    295
    Government, not including the private Secretaries, of whom there must be a good many. They cannot all be occupied, and surely it would be possible for some of them, and for some of the private Secretaries, to address meetings in various parts of the country without having an expensive Committee. I really do not see why political agents should be called in. I wish to enter a strong protest against this use of public money for political agents. To set up a Committee whenever anything is required, which immediately appoints secretaries who are paid, in many cases very high salaries, and a large number of other people who are paid, which has expensive offices, which also have to be paid for, and then to take money which is not accounted for to Parliament and distribute it amongst the various political agents, under the auspices of the Whips, is a very dangerous precedent, and one which I hope will not be followed. I do not want to prevent this, if it is necessary; but I do not believe it is necessary, because if Englishmen mean to go on with the War they will go on with it, whether any hon. Member, or any party agent, or any other speaker—good, bad, or indifferent—goes to tell them about our War aims. Moreover, I know that the publicity campaign for the National Service Department was a failure. My belief is that you cannot persuade or induce an Englishman to do a thing unless he means to do it. If he has made up his mind to do it he will do it, whether he attends a meeting or not. In politics I believe that meetings make no difference, although I suppose it is necessary to have them. There are very few occasions where a vote has been turned by a meeting, and I think the same holds good here.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: It may have been turned the wrong way.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That may be so; but I doubt whether it has been turned the right way. In the same way, no vote is really turned by a discussion in this House. I doubt whether anything more is necessary than to request various Members of Parliament to go down and address their constituents in regard to our war aims. That would seem to be far and away the simplest method of doing it. If it is necessary to do it in the way proposed, then for
    296
    goodness' sake let us have it done in the way in which Parliament has regularised procedure. Let us have a proper vote and a proper estimate, and let the Committee consider it.
    Mr. WHYTE: The point in dispute may seem small; but I think it is more important than the amount of the vote would seem to indicate. I agree with a great deal that has been said by the right hon. Baronet as to the undesirability of taking a matter like this on a token vote. We have passed token votes for the fighting Services for very obvious reasons, and if the Government had come to us and said: "This is a Secret Service Vote," we should have passed it—perhaps with some criticism—but we should not have raised the objection that is raised to it now. What I am unable to see is in what department of activity the National War Aims Committee can be engaged on which the House of Commons and the country cannot be informed. The National War Aims Committee was set up in the summer, to deal with certain so called undesirable propaganda which was being conducted in this country. I quite agree that there were certain areas in which public opinion may have been misled from the point of view of the Government; but the means taken to lead public opinion on the right path in a country like this are surely means of which the Government should not be ashamed but should be proud. The fact is that the original object of the National War Aims Committee was a good deal smaller than that to which it afterwards developed. I believe the original intention was to conduct its work in the ordinary way in which the party operations are conducted in time of peace, but it extended beyond that. I am not surprised that it extended beyond that, because once you have created an organisation of this kind and have the cnance of laying your hand on almost unlimited funds, then it is very natural that it should expand. I would have had no objection to see it expand if there had been any constructive political mind brought to bear on it, but I have taken the trouble to study some of the literature produced by the National War Aims Committee, and I say that to use public money to spread some of these pamphlets throughout the country is a public scandal. The columns of the "Daily Mail" have been full of that kind of material from the beginning of the War, and if they were only going

    297
    to set up a kind of gramophone for the "Daily Mail," then surely they need not have separate operations at all.
    There are several very useful speeches which have been reproduced by the National War Aims Committee—speeches by the Prime Minister and by General Smuts, and at least one of President Wilson's important declarations; but these were already available to the public in the cheapest possible form, and as a matter of fact were already subjects of much public consumption. Therefore, for that type of propaganda I do not think the intervention of the National War Aims Committee was necessary, nor was it necessary to provide a platform for General Smuts or the right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), to both of whom I think this country is under a deep debt of gratitude for their recent speeches. Some of us think that they might have gone a little further in giving a constructive lead to public opinion, but so far as they went the country is grateful for those speeches. But those speeches need not have entailed any expenditure beyond that of an ordinary public meeting, which, as we all know, is very small. Therefore, we are entitled to ask what kind of operations beyond the dissemination of literature, some of which we may like and some of which we may dislike, and beyond the delivery of important public speeches by men whose voices reach from end to end of the country—what kind of operations are necessary which demand so much expenditure that the Government apparently does not like to reveal it to the House of Commons?
    I said at the opening of my remarks that the point was small, but I do not think it is really small, and I think it calls for greater explanation than has yet been given. If a point was reached in the operations of the Committee where they found that they could no longer be carried on by voluntary support, then I could quite understand that some member of the Committee would say, "If you are going to use public money you must ask the House of Commons for their sanction for that money." I should like to know, if that is the case, how that question arose in the Committee, and if the individual who raised it is satisfied with this method of seeking Parliamentary sanction. I am not criticising my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Guest). I think he was put up to make out a very weak case—a case
    298
    which derives its weakness not from his argument, but from its own character. I think the House is entitled to hear a little more as to the reasons why this Vote has been put down in a Token form and why the operations on which the National War Aims Committee have been engaged are of such a character that the House of Commons, members of which are engaged on this Committee, is not entitled to hear what those operations are. If I may give a hint to the Committee it is this, that public opinion is calling for a definite lead on the political side of the War. By that I do not for one moment mean to underrate the discussions which are at present taking place, and will perhaps take place, in the immediate future on the military side of the War, but I do say that public opinion all over the country is beginning to realise that if it was necessary to throw the energies of this country in such volume and force into preparations for making ourselves into a military country in order to gain victory over the enemy, then it is probably equally necessary to have the same political efforts made, not in a party sense, but in a constructive national sense, in order to prepare against the time of peace, because not only are enormous problems facing us in domestic reconstruction, but problems also face us in international reconstruction upon the proper solution of which the success of our domestic reconstruction will entirely depend. I think the time has come when the leading public men of this country should give a stronger lead than that which they have yet given to the constructive thought of this country, which is asking for such a lead, and which is not satisfied with the lead which has so far been given.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Like the hon. Member (Mr. Whyte) who has just spoken. I in no way desire to attack or criticise the hon. and gallant Member who has introduced this Vote, but I think it is deplorable that we should not know a great deal more of the particular form of activity upon which this money is being spent. I have, provided myself with a set of leaflets as I was very anxious to know what our war aims are. I have never been able to gather from speeches in this House what our war aims are, and I thought if I could get sixteen leaflets from the War Aims Committee I should be enlightened; but I have examined these leaflets and I cannot find any trace or indication of what our war aims really are. These leaflets consist

    299
    of speeches—not the full speeches but snippets—made by the Prime Minister, President Wilson, General Robertson and General Smuts, two pictures from "Punch," and a number of leaflets describing German atrocities. If, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, the object of the War Aims Committee is to stiffen the morale of the workers of this country, their morale must be in a deplorable condition if it is going to be stiffened by a set of pamphlets of this sort. I do not believe for a moment that these pamphlets are doing any good to the cause of this country or to the enlightenment of the workers. I believe they have been scattered in vast quantities with a reckless disregard of the wastage of paper. In a recent by-election a packet of no less than a quarter of a million of these pamphlets was sent. That seems to me to be out of all proportion to the value of anything that can be achieved in this way. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend as to the value of these pamphlets.
    As it is the policy of the Government, rightly or wrongly, at the present moment to deliberately and diplomatically choose to declare openly what the war aims of the country are, I think it is most unfortunate that we should be asked in this House to grant an unknown sum of money to an organisation which is by way of informing the general public what those aims are and under what I consider to be a false name is circulating a great deal of useless literature. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the meetings of the War Aims Committee. So far as I have heard of any of their meetings they have not been a very striking success. In fact in a good many districts, whether from want of decent organisation or from other reasons, I hear that they have fallen extremely flat. I concur with what was said by the right hon. Baronet that Members of Parliament could address their constituents and place the case before them without any of this war aims propaganda, which really cannot be of any practical advantage. I have been connected with political propaganda in one way or another for a considerable time, and I can safely say that of all the sets of leaflets that have ever been produced, this set for sheer futility and ineffectiveness cannot be beaten, and I think it is unfortunate that we should be asked to vote so large a sum for so poor a cause.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    My right hon. Friend opposite has given a very fair statement of the case which those of us who would like to see economy in the expenditure which is going on just now have to put before the House. My hon. and gallant Friend used the argument that there was Treasury control. I wish the Committee to understand that we have been going into this matter, I, individually, and many others, and have come to the conclusion that there is no control, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, by the Treasury. Not only that, but it is misleading. It makes the public think that there is control. Take the case of the meeting in the Albert Hall. Somebody elicited the fact from my hon. Friend that up to date they have paid £3,700 as compensation to people for coming to that meeting. My own knowledge of human nature is that there is any number of people who will come to meetings if you will pay all expenses. Where was the Treasury control there? There was none, and it is idle to say that there was. What the Treasury did was to examine the bills when they came in, but who created the bills? It was the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. They said, "Pay these expenses. We want this meeting to be a great success." The expenses were all incurred and the Treasury cannot control them. It simply controls the cheque that is going to be paid for them after they are incurred. This is the most wanton waste of money that has ever come before this House. Do you mean to tell me that the fact that the Prime Minister was going to make his great speech was not sufficient to fill the House without all that great expense? This was the solatium to all those men who came from a distance, and it was absolutely unnecessary expense. If there is one fiasco more than another in the matter of expenditure it was that of the National Service Department, which was created with great gusto in this House, and cost over £200,000. What was done? The Committee will be interested to know the history of that as an example. Mr. Neville Chamberlain was appointed, and his instructions were to get 500,000 men. He did not get that number. He spent large sums in advertising, and at last he got a large number of men, but when they came to examine them the bulk of them were found to he already employed.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which arises on another Vote. It has already been discussed this Session, and it does not arise on this Vote.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I bow to your ruling and will say nothing more about it. I only mention it as an example. To come to this matter, you do not know what this Vote is or what sum will be wanted. We know that they are going to spread over the country a large number of leaflets, absorbing an enormous amount of money at a time when we want to save every shilling we have got to prosecute the War. There is a feeling abroad that if there is any little difficulty you create a Department, give them power, make a Controller, give him a large staff, with enormous salaries, and, by spending this money, think that you are doing the right thing to win the War. It will do nothing of the kind. That is not how to spend money to win the War. It must be spent in another way. We have had experience that there is no sort of thrifty feeling on that Front Bench. They never spend a shilling where two shillings will do. They deliberately and absolutely waste the money. I want someone to come from this Committee and tell us how they spend the money. Give us an example of the first £500 or £600 which they spend. In any case we ought to have an estimate of so many meetings, so much literature, and so on—something definite. Meantime I hope that the Committee will not sanction this proposal.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman in the speech which he has just made. I agree that it is very unfortunate that this expenditure has to be made, but the cause of it is in a very large degree the activity of the hon. Member for Stirling and his friends who have spoken against it. If those Gentlemen had been a little less pernicious in their efforts there would not be any necessity for this expenditure. I have had this matter very prominently before me every morning for the last five or six months. From the reports which I have seen from our various agents in the different constituencies we learn how truly pernicious is the influence of the literature which is most lavishly distributed by these gentlemen—I do not know where they get the money from. There are many places where their propaganda has fallen perfectly flat, but there are other places where it has had an effect, and it is essential to counteract that. Whether the Government is going the right
    302
    way about it in bringing the matter before the House of Commons it is not for me to say, but I think that it was an honest thing on their part to do. They could have spent any money they wanted on this propaganda without coming to this House at all. They have absolute power to use the Vote of Credit in any way they please. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the terms of the vote of credit are so wide that they could have spent the money on this propaganda if they wished. They have chosen a much more straightforward way. They have come to the House and asked for a vote—which is a token vote, no doubt—but it asks the House to agree to the use of public money for this particular purpose. Whether it will be money well spent or not, I am not in a position to say, but it is necessary to do something of the kind, and Gentlemen opposite who are now objecting to it are very largely responsible for the necessity of doing it.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If I chose, after listening to the speech which I have just heard, and the speech in which this Motion was introduced, I might take it as a great compliment to ourselves that we have to have the whole powers of the Government directed against us and a great mass of public money spent in order to counteract what we are doing. I do not for a moment want to discuss the matter on that particular line. I want first to ask the House to realise definitely and fully what they are doing. It is quite true, we now know, that it is directed against us. That is to say, it is a political party move. You may say that we are small and insignificant. If we are, why do you bother about us? But the fact is that it is a party move. It is the use of public money for a political purpose. I am now addressing hon. Members who do not agree with me. I am asking them to realise what they are doing. If the Government had come down and said "We are going to have what we call a War Aims Campaign, and going to call on the leaders of the Opposition, as well as our leaders, to go and denounce these people with whom we disagree, and we are going to use the party funds for the purpose," I should never have risen here to complain. I should have said, "Go ahead," and that it was a natural, British thing to do. But this is a precedent of which those who are now calling it into existence will repent not too far ahead. Just consider. Here you are setting a

    303
    precedent of attacking, with public money, what you say is a comparatively insignificant movement Some years hence it is conceivable that there will be a Socialist Government in power. Then its war aims will not be vague platitudes, like those you put forward in your leaflets here. They will be very definite decided appeals to definite desires of great masses of the people. You are setting the precedent, which will allow the Socialist Government —or any other Government of the sort which you dislike—to use public money to work for its own party purposes. Then you will repent of what you have been doing. I do suggest to hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with us that that, in fact, is the thing that they are discussing to-night, and not whether they approve or disapprove of our particular propaganda. You talk of our spending money, and you hint that it comes from sources of which you disapprove. I have told you that you can find out. You may see our books. You can do what you like. What is the amount we spend—£3,000 or £4,000 a year. Do you mean to say that your party funds cannot deal with that agitation?
    The only reason why you cannot deal with that agitation is this: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he introduced this, said, "We have found out that large masses of the people are taking a very intelligent interest in war aims. They come to these meetings and listen quietly and attentively, and we want to treat them seriously." Well, we have known that a long time. We have been addressing tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen, many of whom came to our meetings not in the least degree agreeing with us; but we have found, except where the Jingo newspapers have incited the mobs against us—in all in about ten cases during the War—we have found these audiences listening, profoundly interested, because we have been discussing the war aims. And, what is more, as my hon. Friend points out, they have not been paid to come. In many cases they have actually paid to come. What are you doing? You have discovered at last that the people of this country are really interested in war aims. They have been coming to our meetings, not because they agree with us—of course, they do not—but because we have been talking of peace by negotiations, and when they disagree with us it is not because we say we want
    304
    negotiation, but because they think that at the present moment there is no chance of it. That is why they differ from us. You have discovered that the people of this country take these things seriously, and you are putting forward these virtuous platitudes to induce them to come to your meetings. We are not afraid of you, because you are helping us by contrast. We distribute pamphlets and leaflets. Why are they read? Because they deal with things seriously. They actually deal with war aims, and the people of this country want to know, as the hon. Member for Perth said, what our war aims are. What is the use of having a war aims campaign when you do not tell the people your aims?
    What are your war aims? Do they include keeping the German colonies, fighting for Dalmatia, breaking up the Austrian Empire, and carrying on an economic war? Are you putting forward the Jingo policy? Are you out for a League of Nations? I think it was an hon. Member for a Dublin constituency who said that this was a platitude. But I want to know are you out for such a policy? Are you out for disarmament? Is it a policy of no annexations that you are out for? Those are the questions which people are asking at our meetings. Those are the things they want to know. They do not want to hear your generalities about German militarism. We all hate that and we all want to get rid of it. But you are burking that and you say, "Let us have a war aims committee with a mass of public money behind it." But until you settle these questions, questions which the German people are debating, the question whether you are out for a Jingo policy or for an international policy, you will make no progress. The German Government could not possibly set up a war aims committee because it has not yet decided as between Schneidemann and von Tirpitz, and until you have decided these points your way aims committee will be useless. I implore Members of this House, whether we here are right or wrong, to consider whether it ought to have a campaign waged against us and whether the cost of that campaign ought to be paid out of the public purse? I ask hon. Members to approach that question in their capacity as Members of Parliament. It will not make very much difference how the campaign is paid for. The only thing which can make it effective will be the action of your statesmen,

    305
    but it will be a mistake on the part of this House if it breaks the traditions of Great Britain by helping parties out of the public purse.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have listened with considerable amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan). The day has gone by when I had the pleasure of supporting him. He has asked us to define our war aims on this Vote. But the National War Aims Committee has nothing to do with the definition of war aims, which must be, as the hon. Member well knows, the sole province of the Allied Governments, who are waging a common war in a common cause. We are asking this Committee to give us money. What is it for? It is an almost negligible sum of money, because it is put in the form of a Token Vote, following the ordinary precedents of the House since the War broke out. We are asking the House to trust a Committee representative of all parts of the House. We are asking them to remember that this Committee is not only composed of hon. Members in all parts of the House, but that it also includes representatives of the Whips of all parties. The Vote comes before a Committee of the House of Commons because naturally the War Aims Committee declines for a single moment to hide away any expenditure, be it £1 or £100,000, under the head of secret service or in any of the manifold ways in which money can be secured. We have come frankly down to this Committee and asked it for this Token Vote to carry on a campaign which is essential for the nation. The Vote has the unanimous support of the National War Aims Committee, which represents all parts of the House except a few hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does it represent Ireland?"] Ireland, for reasons I cannot go into, is not included in the operations of the War Aims Committee, .and therefore there is no representative of Ireland on it, but, speaking in the name of that Committee, I can say that no one would be more happy than the Committee would be to have an Irish representative on it and to have a war aims campaign in Ireland.
    The hon. Member for Perth has spoken of the necessity for a constructive international programme. That does not come into our province. There is one way in which many thousands of pounds will be
    306
    spent by the National War Aims Committee. I think we are all agreed that the entry of America into this War is a decisive and vital factor. I do not think we could win the War without her help. The coming in of America has for the first time in history brought us into close communion with that great English-speaking democracy, and a good deal of this money is going to be spent in. entertaining adequately, for no one would wish to be ungenerous, the visiting Americans, and in sending round the distinguished American speakers who have come over here under the auspices of the American Government, not so much to give information—
    Mr. KING: Why do they not pay their own expenses?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I know the hon. Member for North Somerset would be ungenerous enough to let our American visitors pay their own way, but, happily, the Government of this country is not composed of hon. Members for North Somerset. This great American Republic has come to our assistance and relief, and I for one think that public money could not be better spent than in entertaining the distinguished visitors who have come-over here. Indeed, I am amazed that the hon. Member for North Somerset, who claims to be a democrat, should take up the attitude he has done. He has voted large sums of money for propaganda in every country except his own, and in his own constituency at least such expenditure may be needed. These Americans are coming here to deal with a problem which is, perhaps, the largest international problem we have ever faced. They are coming not only to instruct us, but they are also coming to learn what we are doing in this country, and they will take back to the United States information as to Great Britain's share in the War. May I remind the House also—
    Mr. DENMAN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the Americans are subsidising our orators in the States?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not like the expression "subsidizing." We are proposing to entertain the distinguished Americans who have come over here. When we send speakers, or when any Britishers go to the United States, they are treated in a manner which, I regret to say, the Old Country has never reflected

    307
    towards Americans, or even towards Colonials, until the present War. This Vote will test the feeling of the House of Commons towards America. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is easy to say "No," but I say it will test the feeling of this House towards our American visitors who are coming over to support us in this great War. We are not subsidising American orators, but may I remind the hon. Member for Carlisle that we wish to entertain them in a way which is fitting to the Mother Country.
    Mr. DENMAN: May I ask a further question?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must await his turn.
    Mr. DENMAN: But the hon. and gallant Member gave way.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, my natural courtesy led me to do that, but I understand that the Chairman suggested to the hon. Member that he should wait his turn to address the Committee with that eloquence we are always so glad to hear.
    Mr. DENMAN: But the hon. and gallant Member gave way. I want to ask a question. Am I not in order in putting .a question on the assumption that he has given way?
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not observe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did give way. But we cannot have hon. hon. Members bobbing up and down while an hon. Member is speaking.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am sorry if I unwittingly gave rise to this difference. My natural courtesy inclined me to give way. In the future I shall be stiffened by the attitude of the Chair May I say in conclusion I hope that the Committee will not be led astray by the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson), who always suggest that the Government when it asks for money is desirous of wasting it. I think the Committee should have some confidence in the members of the National War Aims Committee. We are engaged in a most arduous undertaking; we are travelling up and down the country attending conferences and meetings, and many of us spend our own money in doing this work. We do it with the sole desire to assist in the vigorous prosecution of
    308
    the War, and that vigorous prosecution of the War is only being hindered by a comparatively small section of the community. The activities of this section seem to be intensified in certain areas. We know that quite recently in South Wales there was a very strong Pacifist movement in which pamphlets were distributed broadcast throughout the country and speeches made. The National War Aims Committee was the only possible organisation to focus the patriotic feelings of this House and country in that particular area, and it did it with great effect and with splendid results to the common cause. In asking the Committee to adopt this Vote I for one hope that they will not be moved by any remarks of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Elland, or by any feelings of false economy, as I think it is, owing to the fact that this is put down as a Token Vote and cannot be specified point by point, but that they will support the Committee the whole object of which, representative as it is, is to assist the Government in this hour, the most critical in our history, to carry on the War.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree with so much that fell from my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken that I am sorry he went on to say that in America the acceptance or refusal of this Vote would be regarded as an act of courtesy or discourtesy.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I did not say that quite seriously.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that with the exception of a small minority the whole of this House is at one in wishing success to the work of the War Aims Committee. The question we have to consider now, however, is whether the expenditure of this body should be, first of all, defrayed out of public money, and, secondly, if it is defrayed out of public money ought the House to have before it estimates of the proposed expenditure. On the first point I would appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to reconsider in a case of this kind where we are dealing with the expenditure of a Committee not proposed or sanctioned by this House—a Committee which while it is true it represents the views of the vast majority of people of this country does not represent the whole of the country—whether such a Committee ought to have its expenditure defrayed

    309
    out of the taxes of the country, or whether they should be defrayed out of the party funds. It has been said that all parties are in favour of the work of this Committee. That is true, and each party has in the course of its history been perfectly willing to defray the expenditure of great campaigns in order to instruct public opinion upon party questions. Cannot the great parties be called upon, then, in this vital issue to spend their money upon the teaching of public opinion, if it be necessary at all, in a manner which we all agree is of the first importance to the State? I do not know what the condition of the different party funds is at the present time, but I cannot believe if I look at the vast expenditure of my own party, the party to which I have always adhered, that if the Liberal party were able in the past to find funds to conduct a Budget campaign, a land campaign, and a House of Lords campaign, it could not now also find its share of money to conduct a national campaign in support of our war aims. I am sure that my right hon. Friend who has just come into the House (Mr. Bonar Law), and who is the Leader of the Unionist party, would be equally willing that his party funds should be used for that purpose.
    Sir W. COWAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Liberal party declined to furnish the share of money required from party funds?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no knowledge at all on that point, but I for my part would not lay myself open to the taunt of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan) and allow him to say that he is willing to pay for his propaganda and that we are not willing to pay for ours. I look upon it as in the national interests that we should pay, and I will contribute, and I am sure everyone in this House who feels the value of the work of this Committee will contribute, towards the cost. In my judgment no part of this expenditure used for the purpose of informing public opinion ought to be provided out of public funds. I am told that my own party refused to bear its share, but I understand it refused to bear its share of a huge expenditure. I cannot believe that in the present state of public feeling, with 99 per cent. of the country, in my judgment, in favour of the policy of the Government in carrying on a vigorous
    310
    pursuit of the War, any very huge expenditure should be found necessary, or that any of the great parties of the State would be unwilling to contribute their share. Upon the next point—namely, if the expenditure is to be defrayed out of public money ought the House of Commons to have the estimates before them—I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Guest), the whole of whose speech I did not have the opportunity of hearing, stated that it was objectionable on international grounds to publish the total amount of the proposed expenditure. I cannot agree with him, for I think that his language will convey the impression of a total far beyond anything that I understand there is any actual intention of expending.
    Captain GUEST: My remark was somewhat distorted by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) who spoke.
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot help looking upon this as somewhat in the nature of a test case. The House of Commons has recently insisted upon greater economy in public expenditure. We have appointed a Committee to inquire into the expenditure. This proposal does not come from my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees, but if the House affirms the principle that the expenditure should be at all defrayed out of public funds I venture to put this forward as a proposal to my hon. and gallant Friend. I suggest that a Motion to report Progress be accepted now, and that the Estimate in detail be submitted to this Committee. If that Committee recommends to the House that the Estimate shall be accepted, then, at any rate, we shall have had some public representative body considering the details of the proposed scheme. For my part, I should prefer that the Estimate in full, whatever it may be, should be presented to the House now. After all, the nature of the Estimate cannot convey any information to the enemy. What we naturally want to know is what salaries are to be paid, how many salaries are to be paid, how much of the expenditure is to go in Press advertisements, how much in printing and distribution of leaflets, how many secretaries are to be employed. Really the House of Commons has a right to inquire into these matters, and, therefore, I will conclude with a suggestion of the order of merit as I see it in this case. I would say, in the first place, that I should prefer to see the whole expendi-

    311
    ture defrayed out of the party funds. If that cannot be done I would prefer to see the Estimate presented to the House of Commons in full. If, again, that cannot be accepted, I would prefer to see the Estimate in full presented to the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend, and that we should have its Report before any further Vote was taken.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON (War Cabinet): I am very loth to intervene in this Debate, because, although I have certain connections with the propaganda, I think the matter has been adequately explained by my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the War Aims Committee (Captain Guest). It is perfectly true that the original intention was when the War Aims Committee was formed, consisting, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, of all parties in the House, that the campaign should be carried on as far as possible out of funds subscribed privately. For my own part, I think if that could have been effected it would have been a most satisfactory arrangement, but it became perfectly apparent, when. you began to examine into the nature of the task which was placed before the War Aims Committee, that you could not have the matter carried on by private funds, and, indeed, when you came to analyse it there seemed to be very great objections to going about to numbers of rich people—because they were the only people at the present time who could subscribe—and to have it appear as if this were a campaign carried on only by those who had money. The matter is far too national a one to be left to any one class of rich subscribers. Hon. Gentlemen have tried to make very little of the work that the War Aims Committee has to do. I can assure them that they are quite wrong, and I think they know it. The amount of subterranean influence of a pernicious and pestilential character that has been developed, particularly within the last few months, goes far beyond anything that has yet been described in this House, and we know perfectly well from the way we have watched other countries the effect that kind of pernicious attempt to wean away the people from the national interest of this country has had in other places. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to allow it to be repeated here.
    312
    There is no method by which it is more easy to mislead the people of this country than the misrepresentations which are put forward from day to day, either as to the origin of the War, the aims of the War, or the continuance of the War. We know perfectly well that there is an organised system of misrepresentation by the pacifists of this country for their own ends going on from day to day throughout the length and breadth of the land, and carried on in this kind of way—that where they find families afflicted by the sacrifices that they have made, and that their sons and husbands have made, during the War, they do not hesitate to enter into the houses of many very humble people trying to influence them against the carrying on of the War, which, if successful, would have the result that the whole of the sacrifices that have been made would have been made in vain. For my own part, I have no doubt—and I think the House will have no doubt—of the necessity of the War Aims Committee. But that is not all. The War Aims Committee is concerned with trying to obtain money for the War, and is trying to push the various methods that are necessary to impress the need upon the country, with a view to sustaining the country during the long continuation of the War. It is impossible really to estimate with any accuracy the amount of work that has to be done, and will have to be done, and increasingly to be done, I have not the slightest doubt, as the War goes on, with a view to putting all the various matters and all the facts before the public. The moment you admit that this is a necessary part of war organisation—and it is just as necessary as foreign propaganda, perhaps more necessary in some cases, and certainly more necessary as the stress of the War becomes more and more prevalent —the moment you admit the necessity of such an organisation as a war matter, then I say it becomes just as national a matter as any other matter connected with the War.
    When I was asked by the War Cabinet to take part in the organisation of the propaganda, not merely in the propaganda at home but also abroad, I found, as was suggested by the hon. Member opposite, that there had grown up piecemeal a very considerable number of Departments which were very much in want of coordination. I found the War Aims Committee just commencing their work on a very small scale, with such private sub-

    313
    scriptions as they had, and I found that an arrangement existed by which material for presenting the case to the people of this country, and which was prepared at the expense of the country by the Foreign Propaganda Department, was being sold to the War Aims Committee, so that it might be used in this country. Could anything be more ridiculous? It became perfectly plain that two branches of propaganda, the foreign propaganda and the home propaganda, ran so closely together that you really had, to a very large extent, to carry them on as one operation. We might very well have included in the general Vote for propaganda the sum necessary for the home propaganda. I would like to explain the reason why we thought it necessary to put this Vote here at all, and what this Vote will really mean. The War Aims Committee, as has already been stated, is composed of Members from all quarters of the House. Its presidents are the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Leader of the Liberal party, the ex-Prime Minister, with Whips from all branches of parties, and also some from the Labour party. A more representative Committee it would be impossible to find. As the Committee proceeded, the question of finance became of more and more importance.
    Were we to go on trying to collect from a rich man here or a rich man there money to carry on this propaganda? Were we to stint the propaganda because we did not know whether we were to have money or whether we are not? Were we to allow the constant efforts of misrepresentation as to our aims, and as to the origin of the War to eat into the heart of the country, with the men coming home on leave and going to their different houses in the various districts, where the pacifist activities were greater? It was impossible to do that. I myself was only able a few times to attend this Committee, where we discussed, day after day, what was the proper method of meeting the difficulty. We all would have preferred to have had the propaganda carried on as the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests, but there was a Committee composed of every section of the House, representing every view in the House, and that Committee was unanimous. There was no dissents from the party with whom the right hon. Gentleman is most closely connected. One member was an old Whip of that party, and another was nominated by the ex-Prime Minister himself, and with
    314
    the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, of the War Aims Committee, and of the intentions of the Committee, it was unanimously resolved that they could not properly do their duty and fulfil the trust for which they were formed unless they applied to the Government to finance the matter as a national effort. Then arose the question which my right hon. Friend has raised, Why not do it out of party funds? I should be entirely in favour of doing it out of party funds, but we applied to each party, and they refused to give us party funds. I am not saying they were wrong; party funds are subscribed for party purposes. This is not a party purpose; this is a national purpose, just as much a national purpose as carrying on the War or any other matter.
    Mr. McKENNA: So far as I have been informed, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is precisely accurate in his statement of what occurred. In principle, the objection was not raised to paying for the propaganda out of party funds; what was objected to was that a huge sum was asked for, and that it was not limited to a reasonable amount.
    Sir E. CARSON: That merely comes back to this, that you are to do it inefficiently.
    Mr. McKENNA: Economically.
    Sir E. CARSON: No, no; to do it inefficiently. I have a letter from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which he says:
    "The estimate seems to me very high. If your Committee has carefully decided on campaigns of this magnitude, I fear that no party funds will be sufficient to carry it through."
    Then comes the whole question of whether we are to carry it on efficiently, and on a proper scale, according to the view of what is necessary in our opinion for keeping the country acquainted with the real facts in relation to the origin of the War, and to the pursuit and ending of the War. So far as I am concerned, I would not have been associated with the matter at all if it had been carried on in such a way as to be absolutely ineffective, in my view, for the object for which it was formed.
    Mr. GULLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the other part of my letter?
    Sir E. CARSON: I will do so. That is not merely my opinion. Members of the

    315
    Committee represent every quarter of the House— [An HON. MEMBER: "No, not the Irish Members "]—in fact, the whole of those Members were unanimous in coming to the conclusion that the matter must either be closed down altogether or that we must ask for public funds. The right hon. Gentleman writes:
    "There seems to be great objection that any Government should use public money for the formation of public opinion at home—which secretly uses public funds."
    There is no secrecy about it whatever. This is what he means, as you will see:
    "I hope if your Committee decides to ask help from the Treasury that the Government will, as soon as the House meets, produce a supplementary estimate and give an opportunity for its discussion."
    Having got that, I communicated with the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister, stating what we intended to do, and he said it would be better to do it, if we could, out of party funds or out of private subscriptions; but he did say this, that "if, however, the Committee is unanimous that it is to be done, I certainly would raise no obstacle." Then, what was our duty? We brought it before the War Cabinet, where it was again discussed and agreed to there. I at once made my position clear, that if we did it we must do it not secretly but before the House, in accordance with the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman. So it is we put down this Token Estimate to establish the principle that it is to be done out of public funds, and as a necessary measure in the due prosecution of the War; and that is the whole case, and the whole history of the mystery of this matter.
    Mr. GULLAND: Will you allow me to mention a matter which I think it is right you should bring out, namely, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) took exactly the same line, or exactly the same line as we did.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, with this exception, that we paid a certain amount of money, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman did.
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not know about party funds; I imagine they are very slender subscriptions.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: How much was asked for?
    Sir E. CARSON: I do not know; if I knew I would tell you. What we are really here for to-night is the discussion of the
    316
    principle as to whether this is coming out of party funds, or public funds, or whether it is not. If it is not going to come out of public funds let it be dropped —but see what it means to allow the country to be a prey to the vilest misrepresentations, and the most unpatriotic misrepresentations, and misrepresentations made, I have no doubt, in many cases in the interests of the enemy, and certainly misrepresentations which are costing the country life after life at the front in the way in which this propaganda is being carried out by those who were never whole-heartedly in this War and who are doing their best to thwart those who are trying to carry on the War to a victorious conclusion. If the House takes. upon itself to say that is to be allowed to go on without any effort on the part of the Government let them take the responsibility. It is theirs to choose. We have put the matter plainly and clearly before them and we ask them to pass this Vote and to allow us to carry on this campaign.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I do not agree with the propaganda of hon. Members opposite, but I am very much inclined to think that both the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who moved this Vote and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken have magnified the importance of the work they are doing. I know a good deal about the country and the working men and I do not think that this work is making very much impression on the working men. In moving the Vote the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the co-ordination of certain committees. I put a question to the Prime Minister asking whether it would not be possible to amalgamate the various committees that were dealing with propaganda work and the reply I got was that they had decided to set up a Committee for propaganda work in connection with certain branches of the Department. I suggest that the Government will be well advised to drop the present proposal and bring forward a proposal to establish a Propaganda Committee in connection not only with war aims, but with war savings, food economy, munition workers, National Service, etc., etc. That one Committee could deal with the whole matter and that would mean economy, and very great economy, in connection with public expenditure. I have had the opportunity of going through the accounts of one of the Ministries, and things which were started in a very small way have grown to

    317
    thousands and tens of thousands, and in one instance to over a million. If the money is going to be spent in secret it is like the fungus, the darker the place is and the worse the atmosphere the quicker the fungus grows. If this Committee is given, practically speaking, unlimited powers to spend, you can rest satisfied that the expenditure will grow and grow until it becomes not expenditure but extravagance. I do suggest it would be far better to set up a central Committee to deal with all propaganda work. I was recently in a town, which is not very large, and I found speakers there from three different committees at meetings arranged upon food economy, war savings and war aims. That should not occur in connection with the Ministry if they had any organising ability, but they have not got that organising ability in some Government Departments.
    I suggest in connection with war aims that it is absolutely ridiculous for speakers to go about the country talking about the "scrap of paper" and rights of small nations, in the fourth year of the War. The people of this country know perfectly well what the origin of The War was. What they want to know is what the end of the War is going to be. That is what they are asking. You are not in any way contributing to the efficiency of either the Army or the Navy or the civil authorities by setting up a Committee of this kind. A right hon. Gentleman dragged in the trouble amongst the miners of South Wales, and wanted to make it appear that the War Aims Committee had something to do with settling that trouble. Anyone who knows anything about the matter knows that the War Aims Committee did not settle that trouble. We know how they went to Labour leaders, and it is begging the question to drag that in as a reason why the House should agree to this expenditure. Speaking as one who has had the opportunity of going through the expenditure of some of these Committees, I have not the least hesitation in saying that their expenditure is extravagant, and that the results are not worth the money spent, and in some instances the speakers they have had on War aims and other subjects have really done more harm to the cause than good. Therefore I appeal to the Government not to press this Motion now, but to report Progress with the object of considering the matter and of seeing whether it is not possible
    318
    to bring forward a proposal to set up a Central Propaganda Committee. There would then be no overlapping. I cannot see why they should not give us an estimate of the amount required in connection with this propaganda and publicity work. In my opinion parts of the speech made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken supply the very people he is condemning with material for an excellent attack and pamphlet in favour of the propaganda work they are doing. It seems to me to be a speech extremely unwise and beside the point.
    I say without the least hesitation that the working men of the country know what was the origin of the War, and have an extremely good idea of what are the aims of the country in connection with the War, and what the War is about. So far as I am concerned I have been and am prepared to do my utmost to, assist the Government in propaganda work. I have done a very considerable amount without being consulted by any of these Committees. I would like to suggest that a Committee dealing with such, a big subject as this ought to be, practically speaking, always available in London. What do we find? We find many members of this Committee knocking about the country away from London for a week, or weeks, together, at a time when they ought to be here looking after the work. They have their expenses paid, a subsistence allowance granted to them, and motor-cars provided for them. They ought really to be seeing that other people are doing the work they are attempting themselves to do—and doing it not very well at that! Without the least hesitation, I say, in the best interests of the country, the Government will be well advised to report Progress and bring forward this matter in an altogether different form.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The speech to which we have just listened has given us a very good indication as to why, at any rate in certain quarters, the establishment of a War Aims Committee is approved, and why unlimited funds are desired from the Treasury, to be spent in secret. We are told of those concerned who go about speaking, getting a subsistence allowance, and doubtless not a very modest one at that, touring the country in motor-cars, in days, too, when the ordinary man is not able to use his motor-

    319
    car because he is not permitted to have petrol. We can understand that by this class there is great enthusiasm for the maintenance of this Department. However, I only intervened because I thought I should like to say that I would object if any of the speeches made from this bench led to the suggestion that we were criticising this proposal because we wished to prevent, or had any desire to prevent, the operations of the War Aims Committee. Speaking for myself, I should be delighted if this propaganda went forward. I am sure the more the endeavour is made to present to the community the War aims of the Government the better it will be. Only it should be done properly. For instance, I have heard in many parts of the country of speakers from the War Aims Committee addressing meetings, and after firing off their speech, which I presume is supplied to them, when the interesting time came at which questions are generally asked, and when somebody rose to put questions the gentleman who has addressed the meeting has informed his Audience that his instructions from head quarters were that no questions were to be answered; that speakers were prohibited from answering questions. When you are spending money on men to deliver speeches and no questions are permitted I think both the right hon. Gentlemen at present occupying the Treasury Bench will know and allow that this money and effort are wasted so far as the conversion of the audience is concerned. I heard the other day of a speaker who appeared to be a very important personage. He went down to address a War Aims Committee meeting. He was asked a question by a miners' agent. His only answer was to reply in a flippant manner. For this he was compelled to apologise to the audience.
    I do not deny the community and the public the entertainment these speakers provide for them, but I think it should be thoroughly well understood—at any rate, my view is—that the supposed need for this expenditure does not arise from any activities of the opponents of the War or of war policy so much as from the blunders of the Government itself. The tremendous change of feeling that is taking place in the country is due, I should say, in the first place, to the profligate expenditure on the part of the Government, to the profiteering that is going on, to the plundering of the public
    320
    by privileged private individuals. It is by this that all this feeling is being aroused against the Government. People do not want to be ruled any longer by the right hon. Gentleman who addressed us, by Lord Milner, by Lord Curzon, or even by the Prime Minister himself, especially after the speech that he delivered yesterday has sunk well into the public mind. If that be so, what this fund is going to be used for is not to promote the objects of the War, but for the purpose of keeping this Government in office. As time goes on it will be more and more a huge secret fund, being used for what are corrupt political purposes. It will be taking the taxpayers' money for the purpose of keeping certain people in office. Like the last speaker, I think we should have an Estimate for this money presented to us so that we may know exactly where every penny piece goes to, who is paid for the purposes of this propaganda, and the amount paid to each individual.
    It is on that point I raise my objection. I do not object to propaganda, for I believe in presenting the best case you can to the people. It is the cost I object to. Again, I want to ask this question of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench in charge of these proceedings. Are the war aims of all the Allies going to be presented to the people? I want to know whether you are going to tell the people that, for instance, the war aims of the Russian Government, "no annexations and no indemnities" are the real aims; or is it only such war aims as are approved of by you? Any opposition I might have to the expenditure of this money would be greatly modified if I thought the Government were going to present to the people of this country a declaration of the war aims of our great Ally Russia; or, on the other hand, are you going in this direction? The intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College is an intervention as a sort of controller-in-chief of this propaganda, and it arouses some rather interesting points. I should like to ask whether the war aims as presented are to be such war aims as he declared a few weeks ago. For instance, are they the aims presented by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the conquest of the left bank of the Rhine which was to be the boundary of France, and that the Saar Valley was to be conquered for France? One may well ask these questions because it has been discovered that the organ of the Com-

    321
    mittee that exists in France to support this policy, "La Rappelle," has been financed to the extent of £16,000 by Bolo Pasha. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to use public money for similar propagandist purposes in this country which was provided for by Bolo Pasha in France? The object of this, of course, is quite clear. The German expansionist party is financing jingo papers, jingo organisations, and jingo war policies for the purpose of stiffening the back of their own people. Perhaps we may get some information as to who are determining our policy—whether the War Cabinet have decided amongst themselves what are our war aims. However, my chief point really is: seeing what is the position of the Government to-day, its rapid falling-off in public opinion, will this money not be more and more utilised for the purpose of endeavourng to popularise the Government? If so, it will be a very corrupt business.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches made, I think, a valuable proposal that we should have one central committee for co-ordinating the propaganda work. The difficulty, I understood, of such a committee is this: For instance, take the Munitions Department. They naturally know the best speakers to influence the munitions districts, and they prefer to keep their own propaganda in their own hands. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) has just made a speech full of captious criticism, such as we are accustomed to from him, and dealing with war aims like the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan). I do not propose to imitate them. It is a subject on which they have often been beaten in the Division Lobby, and would probably be beaten in their own constituencies if they challenged them on that point. The hon. Member for the Elland Division said that this expenditure was a precedent for every Socialist Government that came afterwards, and therein he showed his inability to understand the difference between a Government at war and a Government at peace. It is no precedent to any Government that comes afterwards because a Government in war has to spend money on propaganda work in order to defeat the attempts of the enemy to corrupt public opinion. The sum in question is really trivial as compared with the
    322
    sums we are spending on the War. I do not suppose it amounts to a fraction of what we are spending on the War in a day, and yet we have seen in Italy and in Russia the tremendous influence of enemy propaganda work in breaking down the spirit of the people by its campaign in the dark. It would be quite impossible for my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Vote to come forward here and say how much money they were going to spend on propaganda work. They have to meet sudden emergencies. I believe—through what machinations I do not know —they had to meet the sudden emergency of the "down tools" policy in the Welsh coalfields. I do not know what would have been the result if we had had no meetings in the Welsh coalfields. But it is public property that a great number of meetings were held there, and it is certainly public property that the "down tools" policy was decisively defeated. It is the case that, in constituencies which are remote from the War, the difficulties that we have to face are not so fully appreciated as they are on the Eastern coast, where the circumstances of war are nearer, where many more soldiers are passing to and fro, and where we are subjected to raids. It is quite possible, in the view of the Government, that nothing could have more assisted the enemy than a successful issue to the "down tools" campaign in the South Wales coalfields. Everybody knows the sort of criticism to which the Government would have been subjected had that proposal not been defeated by a decisive majority, and it was found that they had carried on no propaganda work whatever in the chief towns and villages. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the Government to have a central committee for dealing with this sort of thing. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland pointed out one phase of the propaganda work of the War Aims Committee. We are now honoured by a visit from a number of distinguished gentlemen from America, and in connection with their meetings the War Aims Committee has to meet expenses. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to encourage the spirit of the people of this country than that those gentlemen from America should be brought into close contact with the constituencies. They bring the good news from a far country of the immense effort which America is going to bring into this War from next

    323
    spring onwards, and I think it was said in the Proverbs, "As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country."
    Mr. KING: There has been a good deal of ignorance displayed in the course of this Debate, but of all the ignorance the most striking instance I noticed was that of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who, speaking early in the Debate, asked .why should the political agents be brought in? He did not mind the propaganda, but he said, "Why bring in the political agents?" Does he not know it is because the political party funds have dried up, and the party Whips have got a number of capable and very deserving people on their hands, and they must be paid, and they must be employed? You cannot find the money, and your people in the country will not find the money. What must you do? Go on the taxes, and I take it the reason why this Vote is put down is very largely to find very nice payments and very easy work for a large number of party agents.
    Mr. THOMAS: In outdoor relief, or something?
    Mr. KING: In indoor relief—sitting in an office. But, I take it, the fact too that we have got no figure put down is because they dare not face the question. What is the total amount that they propose in the correspondence that has passed, part of which was read just now? The amount is freely stated. I have heard it from different quarters to be far above £100,000. Of course, it is absurd to think in these days that Liberal or Conservative party funds would give £50,000, but when the sum was far above £100,000 of course it was out of the question to expect to get it from the party funds. To put down now £1,000 as a Token Vote, when they have got elaborate estimates all mapped out, which have been sent to the party organisers of each side, and carrying it far above £100,000, I say that is almost dishonest—an absolutely dishonest way of announcing it. About the salaries to be paid, there are a number of statements going about, because, of course, when you get a number of people employed knowing one another's salary, you cannot keep those salaries secret. I am told that one salary being paid is £1,500, another £1,000, and three others of £800. There
    324
    you have got five salaries amounting is all to £4,900, or nearly £1,000 apiece. Will the hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) deny that I am stating the accurate figures? He knows perfectly well that my figures are accurate. It is, I. say, a perfect scandal, a mass of jobbery to bring forward a proposal like this and. say: "Oh, those horrible pacifists have driven us into this movement and have compelled us to spend all this money. "I will tell you what it is that has given the pacifists, as you call them, an immense impetus in this country now. It is not the speeches and the pamphlets that are published. Remember, there are practically no pacifist newspapers. They are either suppressed or raided, or a ban is put upon them, or in one way or another circulation is prevented. So you have the whole of the Press against this pacifist movement, and yet you say, pacifism is increasing. I. will tell you why. It is because of the incapacity of the Government. It is because of the waste of the Government. It is because you have a. Government like the present Government in office nearly now a year. It came in and started a huge loan of money and called it the Victory Loan. Who calls it the Victory Loan to-day? And if next month, or the beginning of January, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to bring out another loan, and ask for £1,000,000,000, do you think—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): The hon. Member must not seize this occasion for a general indictment of the Government.
    Mr. KING: No, Sir, that is quite right; I am very glad to be reminded of it, but I hope I am not out of order in saying why this pacifism increases. It is not because of propaganda, but because of the incapacity of a jobbing and spendthrift Government.
    9.0 p.m
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) with amazement. It is the most astounding utterance we have ever had from the Front Bench. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not here, but I think the House itself was amazed at the revelation made in that speech when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the origin of the raising of these funds for propaganda purposes. Out of their own mouths the Government admit that to use

    325
    public money for political propaganda is a crime, and that it is vicious and unsound. We hear of correspondence with the Chief Liberal Whip of the Opposition and other Whips, including the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) trying to get funds from Party organisations to begin this propaganda. That itself is a condemnation of this Vote, and it indicates that this was not a matter which ought to be charged upon the taxpayers. A question was asked about the reference to this Committee, and if the hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) is going to reply, I hope he will inform us when this reference was passed by the House of Commons. I do not remember it coming before the House, and if he can remind us of the occasion many of us will be very glad to hear when this expenditure was authorised. This Vote is just on a par with many transactions of the Government. We are invariably asked to ratify and confirm actions which the Government enter into without our authority, and they merely come to us to confirm those transactions. The hon. Member who moved this Vote said the money was not intended to be used for the defence of the Government in the conduct of the War, nor was it to be used for defending the Government in their domestic legislation. I confess that it is a very difficult matter, when using public funds to support a Government, to know where to draw the line. Policy is involved in the carrying on of the War. There is no difference of opinion in regard to Belgium, but in regard to Alsace-Lorraine and other complex problems of the War, there will be a very considerable diversity of opinion in this House amongst many of us who supported the War in its inception in regard to Belgium. Our money is being used for propaganda work by a Coalition Government who have their own ideas as to the aims of the War. We have great difficulty in finding out the war aims of the Government. There may be considerable sections of the community who may approve of a satisfactory settlement which includes the complete evacuation and restoration of Belgium, and yet who may protest against the carrying on of a great bloody war for a question like Alsace-Lorraine or the future of Poland? They are not able to make their voices heard, but their money and the money of their
    326
    constituents is being used by the Government for a propaganda desired by the Government. There are eight or ten hon. Members on the second bench opposite who represent a considerable section of opinion in the country, and though the House may not agree with their views, you have no right to use public funds to advance a propaganda which is not in accordance with the views which they are not allowed to express in this House. That seems to me to be a most vicious principle. As the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Trevelyan) said in a very powerful speech, it is a premium on corruption. Once we admit this principle we cannot tell where it will end It would just be as reasonable for a Socialist Government to use public funds on propaganda for abolishing all interest in land in order to convert the rest of the community to their views, and according to this principle if they did that they would be perfectly entitled to do so.
    It is not a question of a pacifist majority, but it is a question of subscribing to a great principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University presented a pitiful exhibition this afternoon when he was explaining one of the most extraordinary proposals we have ever heard from the Front Bench. He says that ours is the responsibility. The Government are responsible for the conduct of this War, but he says that the pacifist minority are undermining, thwarting, and corrupting the opinions of men in this country, but he gives no examples to prove that very serious and grave charge. If I may offer my own personal views again as to how I came to the conclusions which induced me to support the War in its inception as being a just war, I may say that I came to that conclusion and formed my view as to the various causes which led to the War not from reading pamphlets, hut from documents published by the Government themselves. That is where you may find some of the causes which led to this War, but of course they do not justify the action of Germany in Belgium. I have never excused that action, but if we have to go into the origin of the War it is not necessary to read pacifist literature, for you only need to read the dispatches. I would recommend hon. Members to read the British Blue Book and the French Yellow Book. They will find in the French Yellow Book, in the very first

    327
    dispatch from the French Attaché to the Secretary of State in Paris, ample evidence of one of the principle contributing causes of the War, namely, our collusion with France and the tearing up of the Treaty of Algeciras behind the backs of Germany. That did not excuse Germany invading Belgium, but it was one of the contributing causes of the War. It is not necessary to read the leaflets of so-called pacifists, though I have never seen anything in them to which I should take exception. I have, as I say, formed my conclusion from our own Blue Books. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University said that these hon. Members and the associations with which they were connected were engaged in going into the houses of people who had lost and suffered by the War and, as it were, undermining their confidence in their country. Having made such a grave charge, he should certainly be pressed to give chapter and verse and actual proof. I very much doubt it. I cannot conceive of any hon. Member or of anyone having any such influence What can he do? How can he undermine the confidence of people? We are entitled when a Minister and a member of the War Cabinet makes such a grave charge to press for chapter and verse before he can expect us to believe anything so grave. I should like, as we are voting money for war aim purposes, to say something with regard to those war aims themselves. I have the greatest difficulty in following the speeches both of the Prime Minister and of other eminent speakers and ascertaining exactly what are our war aims. I am very anxious to know what is the policy of His Majesty's Government. There are many people in the country who desire to know exactly what we are fighting for. We are now asked to vote this money for propaganda work.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Obviously, it is not in order on this Vote to discuss the whole question of war aims.
    Mr. MASON: I thought we were voting money for that purpose. Surely, when we are asked to vote money for war aims, we are entitled to know what are those aims?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If that were so, the whole question of the war policy of the Government might be discussed,
    328
    whereas this is a mere question of whether you should employ an agency for that purpose.
    Mr. MOLTENO: What opportunity will there be of discussing what is the purpose for which we are voting this money? I should be glad if you could tell us what opportunity there will be for ascertaining what are the war aims which are to be advocated at a cost altogether indefinite and unlimited.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have had the good fortune or otherwise during the last month of hearing very many Debates on the subject of war aims. There are Votes of Credit, Consolidated Fund Bills, and other opportunities of debating the whole general policy of the Government. I cannot possibly allow it to be debated now. The question here is simply whether the House approves of this machinery being set up for propaganda on behalf of war aims.
    Mr. MOLTENO: On the Education Estimates we can discuss the whole question of education in this country. That is the origin of the Estimates. If the object of this Vote is the propaganda of war aims, then by that analogy we surely ought to be in a position to discuss the war aims of this country. I cannot see how we can be debarred from doing that according to the Rules of the House.
    Mr. MORRELL: May I respectfully submit that hon. Members are entitled to urge the fact that the expression of out war aims is unsatisfactory as an argument for not supporting this Vote. Unless a Member can take advantage of that, it seems to me that he may have no good reason for not supporting it. I do not say that he should discuss all the war aims, but I do suggest that it must be open to speakers to say whether they consider the war aims as expressed by the Government, are satisfactory or not.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is just exactly what it is not open to the Committee to do. There has been a discussion now proceeding for the best part of an hour and a half, and it has been well within the limits of order. If I were now to allow the Debate to widen out into the whole question of the war aims of the Government, there would be no limit to it at all. The hon. Member who is now in the possession of the Committee has been in the House the greater part of the time,

    329
    and he must have noted the line on which the discussion has proceeded. It is on those lines that I would ask him to continue
    Mr. MASON: I must, of course, bow to your ruling, but if we are asked to vote money for war aims, surely we should be allowed to discuss those war aims. We cannot vote money blindly without knowing what it is for. We are here for the purpose either of rejecting or of voting for this Estimate. Do you suggest that we are not to discuss why we should vote for it, or whether we approve of it? Are we really to say nothing with regard to the object for which the money is being asked? Is that your ruling?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have quite sufficiently indicated what is my ruling. Up to the time that I spoke the hon. Member was in order. If he has no more to say on those lines it is perhaps just as well that he should close his speech. But if he intends to pursue the line that I ask him not to pursue, then I must ask him to cease addressing the Committee.
    Mr. MASON: As I say, I must bow to your ruling. We are asked to vote an unlimited amount for war aims propaganda, because this is a Token Vote, and I think we ought to have some justification for giving practically a blank cheque to the War Aims Committee to enter into very large expenditure for objects which, according to your ruling, we are unable exactly to ascertain. I think we are justified in protesting against this procedure. Our financial position is a very grave one indeed, and we are entitled to know the extent of our liability. We have had no estimate from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, or from the hon. Member who moved this Vote (Captain Guest) as to what this expenditure is likely to amount to. We have no check, and we are asked to vote for this blindly. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said that we required to exercise strict economy. We have had a Committee of this House appointed for the purpose of enforcing economy, yet the Government come down and ask us to give them this Token Vote, while we are prevented from discussing what that Vote is for, and we have no idea of its extent. We are entitled to protest against that procedure. As the right hon. Baronet has referred to the financial position of the country, I do
    330
    not know whether I should be in order in claiming that as a justification for delaying this Vote. I saw the other day a reference to the position of our finances with regard to America, which I thought worth submitting to this Committee. It is a very grave one, and should make us pause before we enter into this transaction, to which, apparently, there is no limit. The statement I refer to gave the actual figures of our indebtedness to the United States of America, and I was surprised to find that it has now increased to some £372,000,000.
    Sir W. COWAN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not obliged to confine himself, under your ruling, to discussing the question whether this money should be voted for the purpose indicated?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member had just concluded the illustration he was giving, which dealt with the large expenditure of public funds, his contention being that this Vote was an addition to it. If he is going to labour the argument on the question of finance, he will understand himself that it is obviously out of order.
    Mr. MASON: If the hon. Member had listened to what I said he would have heard that I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not intend to say more than I have already said, and that I hoped I should be in order in referring to it, as it was relevant to a discussion of finance. My remarks are necessarily much curtailed because I had intended to advert at some length to the object for which this money is being voted. One hon. and gallant Member said that any opposition to this Vote would be taken as a discourtesy towards America.
    Sir W. COWAN: He withdrew that.
    Mr. MASON: But his argument was that we objected to anything in the nature of hospitality being shown towards American visitors at this time. That is entirely beside the point we are discussing. No one in this Committee would take any exception to giving hospitality to Americans, distingushed and otherwse, who visit this country. That is not the gravamen of our attack at this time. Our attack is—it has been well put already in the Debate—that public meetings are being conducted with public money for the propagation of a policy of which in part we approve, but of which we do not

    331
    entirely approve. When you begin to use public money for the purposes of propaganda, you must necessarily get out of touch with a considerable section of the country. Even although that section may be small at present, it may increase, and you are doing what is corrupt, vicious, and unsound. For these reasons I shall certainly support the negation of this Vote if we go to a Division.
    Mr. BUXTON: I propose to deal with this Vote from the point of view of those of us who desire to see the conduct of the War and the conduct of war diplomacy run efficiently. From the point of view of efficiency alone, on that ground, which is strictly relevant, I have no complaint to make of the Government carrying on a propaganda of its aims. We must expect that a Government, in the conditions in which we find ourselves to-day, will, of course, do so. It will propagate its ends, and incidentally, no doubt, it propagates its own interests. There are, however, two or three things which ought to be considered, even if we assume that the general policy is right. The late Prime Minister prefaced one of his speeches the other day on this very subject with the very true remark that propaganda for encouraging the country to stick to its War aims is entirely unnecessary. The country knows its aims, and the money from that point of view, according to the late Prime Minister's theory, is thrown away. That seems to me to be really the case. I desire to point out the methods by which this is done. I am not sure whether it is right to use a Latin quotation, even if one understands it, but the one quotation which comes to my mind when I look at the pamphlets produced at this Committee, is
    "Est modus in rebus."
    There is such a thing as good form. I cannot see that the method pursued is at all worthy of the cause or of the Government which is using the many tracts issued by the War Aims Committee. Let me give the grounds on which this criticism is founded. If you examine the particular tracts, I must say that the style is decidedly unworthy of the great crisis in which we are. I do not know whether we need go so far as Mr. Bernard Shaw, who declared lately that no speech worthy of high statesmanship had been produced in this country in the course of the War, but at all events the Government must admit that these tracts are not worthy.
    332
    I do not know who wrote them. Surely it is possible to get these things better done. Apart from the charge which will probably be used by our Allies that these tracts are in many cases couched in schoolboy language, I have another objection to them. When the scheme of the War Aims Committee was propounded and circulars were sent all over the country, a letter went to the local chairmen, and it also went to the agents. It is a somewhat painful point to make, but it ought to be made, that there was, quite unworthily, in the letter sent to the agents, a suggestion that their efforts in this patriotic direction would lead to a particular pecuniary reward to them. I do not think that was at all worthy, and surely we need not be open to the charge that patriotism was not enough to prompt the political agents of this country to do their best to promote general war aims! I know it was resented by at least one agent with whom I am very familiar. Something has been said about the possible reception of views on this matter in America. There is one feature of the tracts put out by the War Aims Committee which bears upon this point. The language used in many cases is markedly hostile to the language which has been most carefully used by President Wilson. I mean that the tracts do not commit themselves definitely to particular aims in the war settlement. They are mainly of a negative character. They are mainly of a highly critical and would be destructive character in regard to the enemy. We could all sympathise entirely with that if it refers to the German Government, but President Wilson has made very great efforts to draw a distinction and to explain that he is appealing to such moderate and constitutional elements as there are in Germany. These tracts are not in harmony with that view, and I think criticism might quite justly be brought in America against the wording of the tracts on that ground. Another objection I wish to make is that they are not accurate. They profess to describe the aims which we hold, but these aims, as we know from speeches of Ministers, change from time to time. It is only a few weeks since the Prime Minister used a very important formula. He said, "Let the enemy give us restoration and then we will talk." Those were his words. But these pamphlets use an entirely different term. They cannot, in the form which they take, be an accurate representation of the views of the Government, and I think their

    333
    drafting is extremely unworthy of the case. If this method is used at all, surely it could be done at least in a fashion worthy of the sacrifices and the high patriotic traditions of this country.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I wish to explain why I feel obliged to oppose this Vote. I have supported nearly everything which the Government has put before the House in order to prosecute the War at whatever cost, but it appears to me that we are going to incur further waste, after the very wasteful things the Government have done, which can have no possible effect on our winning the War. The setting up of this machinery and the circulation of these pamphlets cannot be any good to the prosecution of the War. The Government appears to have got an idea that by talking loudly enough and wasting sufficient money the War could be won. That is not the way to win the War. We have had quite enough of these Committees and we have spent quite enough money uselessly, and that is the chief reason which I have against voting any more money in this direction. We have heard to-night that some of the gentlemen who went to South Wales and thought they had stopped the strike did nothing of the sort. I know South Wales pretty well, and if those gentlemen did anything they set the miners more against the Government than they were before, and to say that any of those who went down there for the War Aims Committee helped in the slightest degree to get the miners to vote on the right side is moonshine. [Interruption.] I know South Wales better than the hon. Member.
    Sir W. COWAN: Not better than other people who do not hold that opinion.
    Mr. DAVIES: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has been there and made speeches and has done some good—at any rate in his own opinion. This will not help us to victory over our enemies, and the aims of the Government should rather be to conserve our energy and our finances than to waste them. £1,000 is asked for to-night. It will be £10,000 in a week's time, £100,000 in two months' time, and £500,000 in six months' time if we allow the £1,000 to-night. It is not the £1,000, it is the principle of giving away money to men who go all over the country with salaries ranging from £1,500 down to £1,000 and £800, and all sorts of expenses which run into tens of thousands of
    334
    pounds for carrying on this propaganda. It is all very well for ladies and gentlemen to subscribe to funds of this kind to carry out a propaganda for principles which they believe in. If the Government, with its hundred members, wants to carry on this propaganda, let them fork out, let them give the money and do not ask the taxpayers to pay it in order to keep them in office. This is the first time I have voted against expenditure for war aims of any kind since the War commenced, but we have come to a time now, after money has been so wastefully spent, when we have to make a stand, and therefore I make no apology for opposing the Vote.
    Mr. MORRELL: It is a remarkable fact that in this Debate, in which we have had expressions of opinion from all parts of the House and from persons who take the most profoundly different views with regard to the War, we have not yet had a single speech in support of the Government except from the gentlemen who are themselves members of this Committee. [Interruption.] Perhaps one. We are to-night being asked to vote an indefinite sum of money for a perfectly indefinite purpose, and the House of Commons is indeed being degraded by the Government in being asked to take a course of that sort. The Debate, at any rate, has had one advantage. We have got to know incidentally something of the sort of way in which this money will be spent, something of the purposes and something also of the sort of amount which will be required. The right hon. Gentleman who was once Chancellor of the Exchequer said, without contradiction from the Government Bench, that the amount which was going to be spent in this way was a huge sum.
    The sum was so large, as we know now, that all the party funds put together were not found to be competent to provide. The sum was so large that it was useless apparently to appeal to the patriotism of rich private individuals, although the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government admitted that that would have been the right course to pursue. It was a very large sum, and it was found that they could not provide for it effectively without drawing upon public funds to carry on this propaganda. How is the money to be spent? It is to be spent in large salaries to political agents, and some of it is to be spent in paying the expenses of Members of this House. I think that is

    335
    the way to corrupt modern politics. There are salaries of £1,500, £1,000, £800, and large expenses, with no sort of check from the Treasury or from this House. We have had already an example which has been pointed out during this Debate, in the Albert Hall meeting, of the way in which money is spent. There an economy meeting was addressed by the Prime Minister which cost £3,200 in the expenses of those ,who attended it.
    Mr. KING: That is not all. There is more to follow.
    Mr. MORRELL: My hon. Friend says there is more to follow. I dare say that is so. At any rate, that gives us an example of the way in which money will be thrown away and squandered by this War Aims Committee. We are told that it is necessary to have all this vast expenditure because of the propaganda of my hon. Friends who sit beside me and of a few other hon. Members of this House. We were first of all told that the House is so unanimous that it is right to pass this and put it upon public funds, and then we are told by another speaker that it is because the propaganda of a section of this House is making such headway that it is necessary to have this vast unknown expenditure out of public funds in order to meet that propaganda. I will tell the Government what is the real reason of this vast expenditure. It is because of their own incompetence that this money has to be spent. They know that perfectly well. It is because of the widespread and profound misgivings in this country as to the way in which this War is being conducted, a misgiving that will not be allayed by the speech of the Prime Minister reported in to-day's Press. The Government know that it is their own incompetence that makes it necessary to go through the country trying to persuade the country that all is going on for the best. They have already got the whole of the Press at their command, and they have all the paraphernalia of government. They have all the ordinary processes of public meetings, and they have got Members of this House to support them, who are apparently ready to go down to the constituents at any moment to make speeches telling them how well the War is being conducted and what a great victory we are to have. But that is not enough. We are to have all this corrupt
    336
    expenditure of public funds into the bargain. It is because the Government know that they are being found out by the country, and that the Government know the way in which the country is regarding the conduct of this War, that the expenditure of this money is necessary. The Government know perfectly well that all through the country there is a growing feeling that the original objects for which we went to war have long ago been altered, exceeded, and expanded. There is a growing feeling that now, if diplomacy had been properly carried out, and if the War had been properly conducted, the country might have been able to get an honourable and lasting peace. It is against that feeling that the Government are trying to make this last and desperate effort. I tell them they will fail, as they deserve to fail. They will fail and they will fall, and they have done their best to corrupt public life meanwhile.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want to put one or two questions to the Minister who is going to reply on behalf of the Government. I do not often have the privilege of agreeing with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but to-day I think he put an unanswerable case in opposition to this Vote, and especially when he demanded that the amount of the Vote should be stated. I do not believe for a moment that it is necessary in the interests of this country, or because of any information that will be given to the enemy, to conceal the amount that is to be spent on this form of propaganda. The action of the Government shows that this secrecy is unnecessary. With regard to the Vote for Secret Service, no Token Vote is used, The actual amount of the Vote for Secret Service during the War is stated in this House and is voted. Why is it necessary to bring forward this Token Vote to-night and to pretend that it is in the interests of the country and to prevent news getting to our enemies? I do not believe a word of that explanation. I desire to be helpful to the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Perhaps it is presumptuous to imagine that a private Member can be of the slightest assistance to this Government. It is not often that I have the temptation to offer any help to the Government, but to-night I desire to make one or two helpful suggestions to the Government. If these great amounts are being expended upon the literature that

    337
    is provided, and which is the medium for this propaganda, then the Government is not getting value for its money. I think it would be very interesting, and the Committee has a right to know, who writes these wonderful pamphlets that are circulated in such extraordinary quantities throughout the country. I saw a little time ago in his place the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt) and I thought at first that the hon. Gentleman was the author of them. But I decided that he was not the author because, having read the communications which he makes to the Press from time to time, I felt that had he written them he would have written them with far more literary artistry than is displayed in these pamphlets.
    The Chief Whip (Captain Guest) is a little embarrassed. I trust the Chief Whip is not the author of these pamphlets. I will give way at once if he wishes to deny that he is the author of them, but I see that the Chief Whip preserves a discreet silence as to the authorship. I suggest to him that his Committee is not getting value for their money if they are paying any considerable sum for these crude utterances, although they are embellished in the case of the pamphlet I hold in my hand with a very fascinating picture showing a naked gentleman, representing, I believe, our patron saint, St. George, putting his foot into a dragon's mouth, so that the dragon can take a nip at it with the least possible inconvenience to himself. This naked gentleman is also trying to hit the dragon with a very short wooden staff which will not reach the animal by some yards. This literature is unworthy of this country. It is unworthy of any country. It makes an appeal to what, after all, are happily the fleeting passions that sometimes sweep over the world. I would rather, if this Committee is to be set up, and is to continue to receive these huge secret votes of money, that it should put forward a great constructive programme, showing us how peace may be kept through all the ages. I would rather that it dealt with that war aim which has been dealt with by President Wilson, and that it showed how by a League of Nations absolute disarmament and adequate international machinery for preventing war we can be delivered from the horrors that have overtaken the world. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman not to use this propaganda to increase the
    338
    hatred of the world, but to make it constructive, and to show us how all may be led into the paths of peace.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. Member who has just spoken, before he reached that Ciceronian peroration which pleased, himself so much, came out in an entirely new light. I never heard him before come forward as a humorist, but he was very successful to-night in amusing the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He also came forward as a literary critic. Whether or not he has any qualification for the part of a literary critic I am unable to say, but I. do not think—I can speak perfectly disinterestedly, for I have no hand in the matter myself—that the authors of the pamphlets to which he has referred are likely to be much perturbed by the criticism which he has passed upon them. But, as he has given his opinions of some of the literature produced by the War Aims Committee, perhaps he will allow me to say a word or two with regard to the literature which he and his Friends have produced. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Trevelyan), speaking earlier in the afternoon, appeared to me to accept the pacifist literature in bulk as the work of himself and his Friends. He spoke in the first person plural as the party against whom the propaganda work of the War Aims Committee was directed. Therefore, I do not think I am doing him any injustice if the leaflets and pamphlets which have been produced by the various organisations of a pacifist nature are attributed to him and his Friends. Now, there has been a great deal of talk this evening about expenditure on an object which is not worth the money. The hon. Member below the Gangway opposite spoke very vehemently just now about the scandal of spending public money on an object of this sort. I am sure that hon. Members have little idea of the sort of literature which has been spread very widely in this country. I have seen a great deal of it. It is quite true if you were to take it paragraph by paragraph and sentence by sentence it is very difficult to say that there is any paragraph or sentence against which a prosecution could be directed or even perhaps any very strong exception urged. It is only when you read a complete publication that you see the clever, insidious, subtle way in which it is endeavoured to undermine the whole spirit with which this nation is conducting this War in

    339
    order to suggest that our cause is unjust, that the real truth about the origin of the War and its objects has not been truthfully stated by the representatives of the nation, whether the present Government or the last Government or the one before that, and that that has been subtly suggested in such a way as to spread an atmosphere likely to undermine the morale of our people.
    I will give one single illustration of the sort of thing I mean. I hold in my hand a leaflet which is in the form of a sort of catechism. I find Question 4:
    "What about the air raids on inoffensive people?"
    The questions are supposed to be put into the mouth of what we should call a patriotic person, or at any rate one who represents the dominant opinion of the nation. The answer, as in all catechisms, is intended to express the truth.
    "They were not made upon inoffensive people, but as a reprisal for the attempt to starve women and children, and against a nation at war and at work, making every kind of weapon of warfare."
    In that answer the aim is to suggest, to inculcate, that these air raids, which have excited such an amount of just indignation throughout this country, are, as the Germans profess them to be, reprisals for our making war by blockade on starving women and children. Is it to be said for a moment that an attempt of that sort, to put forward the German case on a question of fact of that sort, and to undermine the whole spirit with which this nation is carrying on the War, is to go unchallenged by the Government? In the next question, the questioner says:
    "But the Germans attacked us first."
    The answer is:
    "No, England declared war against Germany first on the 4th August, 1914."
    There again you have the whole case of the origin of the War reversed, largely by implication. None of the facts are gone into; but the suggestion is made that, because we made war first by declaring war against Germany, we were the aggressors in this War, and that the righteousness of our cause, on which the whole nation has been building itself, is a sham. Is it really to be said that that sort of thing is to go on, and that the Government of the day is to take no notice of it?
    Here we have the nation, not absolutely unanimous or we should not have the hon. Gentleman opposite and we should not have these leaflets, but we have the nation
    340
    as the present Prime Minister, the late Prime Minister, and all the leading men of the day have testified from time to time, as nearly unanimous as any nation ever was, or more united in the belief that they are carrying on this great War for a just cause and with good reasons, and we have an attempt here to instil into the public mind drops of poison. Is it not the right of the nation to supply itself with an antidote to that poison? That antidote can only be supplied by the Government, which is the mouthpiece of the nation, and it is not merely the right but the duty of the Government when they find this sort of thing being spread about the country to take the matter up and see that the people are not misled in this way. The hon. Member for Elland objected to this propaganda work on the ground that it was doing political work out of public funds. Quite true, it is. You may even say that, in a sense, it is doing party work out of public funds It is a party on the one hand composed of a small body of gentleman and their followers who are deliberately attempting to frustrate the will of the nation and to paralyse its arm. On the other side you have a party which is composed of the nation itself. Under these circumstances the Government is bound to take stock of what is going on and to exercise all its powers to see that the efforts of these people do not meet with success.
    Mr. C. EDWARDS: I had no intention of intervening in this Debate until I came into the House and listened to the denunciation of expenditure of the War Aims Committee which was attempting to throw ridicule on the work which is being done by that Committee. It was done by him while assuming the attitude of a detached and perfectly disinterested Member of the British Legislature. It was a lofty attitude which he took up when attacking the propaganda of the War Aims Committee. But that propaganda has been imposed on the country by the conduct of that hon. Member and his associates who have had the luck to be treated cheaply by those responsible for the administration of the criminal law in this country. I say to the Government that if the Home Office had done its duty, if the Public Prosecutor had done his duty, and if the Law Officers of the Crown had done their duty by my reading—and I speak as a lawyer—by my reading of the Defence of the Realm Act, that hon. Gentleman and his associates connected with the

    341
    pacifist movement would now be in penal servitude for high treason instead of being free to come on the floor of the House of Commons and to criticise with semi-humour the expenditure of money on war aims. I noticed that the applause for the humorous touch came from them, and they are still all smiling. I say to them quite deliberately that I have just come from a great and turbulent campaign in South Wales which has only been made necessary by their utterly unpatriotic and treasonable conduct. They are most of them university men of great education, but they have not scrupled to go down into a great seething population of workmen who have not had the advantage of their education and to talk to them in language which is treasonable and insidious in order to try and bring about what they have been glorying in the prospect that they were going to bring about, a great dislocation of industry among the Welsh miners by their propaganda. But they have been mistaken for practically every pre-war miner in South Wales, in spite of their propaganda, has voted in favour of combing out.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am sure the hon Member does not wish to misrepresent an opponent. I am only intervening by the courtesy of the hon. Member because of what he said at the beginning of his remarks. He referred to me, and I have to say what he probably does not know—that I have never made any speech at all about the War, that I have not spoken in this House on the War, and that when I rose to speak on the Consolidated Fund Bill the hon. Member and his Friends had not the fortune or the misfortune of hearing me. Therefore his remarks are wholly and entirely inapplicable to myself.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I am not surprised that the hon. Member should start apologising, but, at any rate, he has given utterance to a speech to-day just after his return from the United States without even consulting his constituents, and it is perfectly notorious that the hon. Gentleman is very closely and personally associated with hon. Members who now sit on that bench.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Certainly.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. EDWARDS: My remarks were intended to apply to the hon. Members on that bench who, if they have not thought fit themselves to personally go down to South Wales to face the music,
    342
    have instigated and paid agents to go down there for that purpose. I entirely exonerate the hon. Member for not going down to face the anger of the average patriotic miner in South Wales, but I do not exonerate some of his colleagues on that bench from the charge of instigating other people to go down there and take their chance of stirring up sedition and of possibly getting a vote which would be taken more or less as justification of their attitude as Pacifists. What I want to say is this, if the Government had really taken a firm attitude, if they had dealt with substantial bodies of people, whether trade union organisations or committees of so-called Democratic Control, or other bodies, if they had taken up the same attitude in the administration of the criminal law with regard to these people as they have taken in respect of isolated and quite unimportant individuals, then quite a different story would have to be told to that which has been told. As I understand the hon. Member, he criticises but does not question the origin of the money that is being used by the War Aims Committee, and he criticises the uses to Which that money is being devoted. But with regard to himself and his colleagues I do two things: I question the origin of the money and I criticise the purpose to which it is being devoted, and I say advisedly to the Law Officers of the Crown and to the Home Secretary that if they will do their duty, if they will investigate the accounts of certain propagandist bodies with which hon. Members opposite are associated—I know myself, and I am talking advisedly, I know the South Wales mining community as well as any person in the country—I say this deliberately, that for the purpose of bringing about this dislocation of trade, for the purpose of getting an adverse vote on the combing-out process, for the purpose of securing a vote in favour of a strike, there have been thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds spent by the Pacifist people in South Wales and by Syndicalist people as well.
    I go further and say to the Government that there have been scores and scores of active agents who, if they were working full time, would not have been earning more than £3 10s. per week, but who have not been working full time, and yet, according to proof which I can put before the Law Officers of the Crown, have been spending in treating other people any-

    343
    thing from £15 to £40 per week. I shall be prepared to put before the Law Officers of the Crown particulars of individuals who are accredited agents of the pacifist group. I shall be able to produce proofs of their expenditure, and I call upon those responsible for the administration of the criminal law of this country—and I speak particularly to those on the Government Bench—to make inquiries as to where this money has come from. This I know, and know quite absolutely, that there has been money spent in great streams in South Wales, the like of which we have not had with the ordinary Syndicalist propaganda of the four or five years preceding the War; and when one hears hon. Members coming here and in a detached attitude, in an attitude of disinterested representation of the purity of the public life of this country, criticising the application of money through the War Aims Committee, I retort upon them and say, Disclose the origin of the money by which you have carried on so wicked, so mischievous, and so highly treasonable a propaganda as you have for six months past.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I do not know quite to whom the denunciation of the hon. Member who has just spoken was directed, but as I spoke earlier in the evening I take it as against myself. There is only one organisation with which I am connected, and that is the Union of Democratic Control. That organisation, I think, two years ago said, through my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Ponsonby), that it wished and desired the Government to send down any authorised agent to look into its accounts. That still holds good, and, so far as that organisation is concerned, the hon. Gentleman's accusation is absolutely and totally untrue. There may be other organisations.
    Mr. EDWARDS: The same people under a different title!
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am speaking for one, and I say that with regard to that organisation the accusation of the hon. Gentleman is totally and absolutely untrue.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I must ask leave to reply to the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Edwards) because he coupled my name with it. I have only to say to the Committee this, That so far as the hon. Member referred to me there was not a word he said that was true, or re-
    344
    motely true, or that had any connection with the truth. I am not a member of any organisation that he referred to, I have taken no part whatever in any such mythical campaign as that to which he, refers, and therefore, unless he desires to give currency to what I now tell him so far as he represented me as having been engaged in some treasonable business, to quote his own words, in stirring up strife, and, to quote his own words, in engaging in conduct which should be rewarded by penal servitude—I say all those statements are false, and that if he now repeats those statements so far as I am concerned he is repeating lies, and statements that he knows to be lies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I trust there is no ambiguity at least about my language. I therefore resume my seat with this statement: That there is not a single reference that has been made to, me that is true in any degree whatsoever.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I said that I understood the hon. Member was associated with the Gentlemen on that bench, and in that he acquiesced. I put the further point to him that his constituents had repudiated him. Why have they done so?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member really makes his most monstrous misrepresentation worse by his interruption—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I. must remind time hon. and learned Member who spoke just before the hon. Member who is now in possession of the Committee that it is the custom of this House when a motive has been imputed to an hon. Member to accept his explanation.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In accordance with your ruling, Sir Donald Maclean, and in accordance with the statement I have made, I await the hon. Member's unqualified withdrawal.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I thought that I was well within the usual order of the House I made certain statements. I gave way purposely to the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Whitehouse), and his having sat down I stated that I did not accuse him of having got directly at South Wales, but I did associate him with the hon. Members of the pacifist group on that bench, and in that the hon. Member acquiesced. The doctrine which the hon. Member has talked here to-night and that which he has talked outside are similar,

    345
    and that doctrine coincides with precisely the doctrine of that Bench with which I said the hon. Member was associated, in which statement he acquiesced. If he will simply say he is in no way associated with the conduct or doctrines of the pacifists on that Bench, then I will certainly withdraw in the most unqualified way.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Notwithstanding the fact that we are living in very troublesome and exciting times, I think the ancient Rules of this House should be observed. I allowed the hon. and learned Member to make a general charge of treasonable conduct. So far as I could gather he did not identify any particular Member of the House with that description, but when such a charge is closely identified with a Member and he denies it, I really must ask the hon. and learned Member, in accordance with the ancient and well-tried traditions of this House, in all sorts of times, to accept it.
    Mr. EDWARDS: With the profoundest respect for the observation to which you have just given utterance, Sir Donald Maclean, may I be just allowed to say this—
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Other HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Mr. EDWARDS: I certainly will withdraw that which I ought to withdraw. I say without the slightest qualification that the Committee of Democratic Control, of which hon. Members on that bench are members, have been preaching pacifism in such a form as amounts to treason in South Wales. I say that definitely, and without the slightest qualification. I have just come through the most turbulent campaign in my lifetime in trying to get the miners to vote the right way, and I have been met every time with the doctrine preached by that bench. What I said was that the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) was associated with that bench, and with that he agreed. If he now tells the Committee that he is in no way associated with them, then I will
    absolutely withdraw. But, having agreed that he is associated with them, and having found that their work in South Wales, that went to the extent of assisting in the proposal that the miners of South Wales should "down tools" to prevent any further recruiting from the mines, then I do not think, with very great respect, that I am called upon to withdraw.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I shall now, with very great respect if I may, put to you, Sir Donald Maclean, a point of Order. The hon. Member opposite has stated, and associated me with the charge—has stated that I, with some other persons, have been guilty of encouraging sedition, of stirring up a strike in South Wales, of treasonable propaganda, and of conduct that would be worthy of penal servitude. I have stated, in reply to that, that there is not a word or shred of truth in any of those statements so far as they refer to me; that I have not spoken in public; that I am a member of no society agitating on those lines; that I know nothing whatever of those matters; and that I have not subscribed to nor received any money for those purposes. The hon. Member has been invited by you, Sir Donald Maclean, to withdraw this very abominable statement. In reply to your ruling, Sir, he pretends that, because I am associated with Members of this House pleading for a negotiated peace, I am making what is a treasonable propaganda.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. and learned Member to accept the statement of the hon. Member now in possession of the Committee.
    Mr. EDWARDS: I withdraw everything that I imputed to the hon. Member in association with any treasonable propaganda in South Wales, in spite of his statement that he is associated with those who were mixed up with this propaganda.
    Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £900 be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 109.]

    AYES.

    [10.20 p.m.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Buxton, Noel

    John, Edward Thomas

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    King, J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.H

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Moltene, Percy Alport

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Mr. John M. Henderson and Mr. David Mason.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Amery, Captain L. C. M. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Archdale, Lieut E. M.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Pratt, J. W.

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Raflan, Peter Wilson

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Benn, Capt. W.W.(T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Bowerman. Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rowlands, James

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J.(Lancs.,Darwen)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hudson, Walter

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H.(Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West).

    Cator, John

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Levy. Sir Maurice

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Lloyd. George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wardle, George J.

    Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Weston, J. W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Currie, George W.

    Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

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

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

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

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Younger, Sir George

    Falconer, James

    Morgan, George Hay

    Fell, Arthur

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest

    Finney, Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Resolved, "That the Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1917–18 be approved." —[Dr. Macnamara.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to what I said in my speech this afternoon. I referred to the right hon. Member for Central Hackney as being a pacifist who had been repudiated by his constituents. That is an entire mistake, and I desire to express my extreme regret and my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hackney, and also, to the House for having made a statement which was not correct. The fact of the matter is I was led into the confusion owing to the fact that Mr. C. R. Buxton had been adopted as a candidate for Central Hackney at the next election, and in consequence of his views upon the War he was repudiated, and asked to

    349
    withdraw his candidature. As regards the present right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hackney, I wish to say as strongly as I can that he is not a pacifist, and that he has not been in any way repudiated or censured by his constituents. I repeat my regret to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that I made that mistake.

    GREECE.
    Mr. LYNCH: To-day I asked a question relating to the visit to this country of Prince Nicholas of Greece, and I received an unsatisfactory answer from the representative of the Foreign Office. I therefore desire in a few minutes to lay before the House the gravity of that matter, and to show how it was linked, either directly or indirectly, with important events affecting the very fate of this country. For the visit of Prince Nicholas of Greece to this country was not in any sense the visit of an exalted person, received with courtesy and enjoying the usual hospitality of this country. That man came from a Court which we now know to be bitterly hostile to the Allies. He came as a direct emissary from that hostile Court. He was received with open arms. He enjoyed exceptional facilities in this country, and immediately after his visit he proceeded to Berlin by special train, and was received with open arms by the German Kaiser. In order to show the gravity of this matter, I will call
    350
    forth a few cardinal facts which have been found in the correspondence, after the deposition of King Constantine, in the archives of Athens. As far back as 21st January, 1916, a definite contract seems to have been made between the German Kaiser and King Constantine, whereby King Constantine agreed to offer various facilities of a military nature to the Kaiser, to swear that he would never take up arms against the Kaiser, and that he would hamper any attempt of the Allies to use a military force in Greece.
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present.
    Mr. LYNCH: I beg to give notice that if I am counted out I will raise this question again and again until I get a hearing, in spite of the mean tricks which are now the only resort of the Government.
    Sir MAURICE LEVY: Is it in order for a Member to use the expression, "mean tricks"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order for an hon. Member to attempt to address the House when a count has been called.
    Mr. KING: Is it not also out of order to attempt to raise a point of Order when a count is on?
    House counted, and, forty Members not being present,
    The House was adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Eleven o'clock.