Commons Sitting of 18 April 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Hereford (Southern or Ross Division), in the room of Lieutenant-Colonel Percy Archer Clive, killed in action.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
EXPORT OF CEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 9, 1918).
Copy presented of Report on the Export of Cement from the United Kingdom to Holland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of two Orders in Council, dated 13th April, 1918, under the Act [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th April, 1918, under the Act, with respect to the Currency of Indian Notes in the Protectorates of East Africa and Uganda [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1894 AND 1906.
Copy presented of Provisional Order in Council, dated 13th April, 1918, with respect to the Registration of Ships in the service of the War Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 AND 1873.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th April, 1918, directing that the Extradition Ordinance, 1917, of the Colony
534
of Nigeria shall have effect as if part of the Act of 1870 [by Act]; to lie upon, the Table.

AIR FORCE (CONSTITUTION) ACT, 1917.
Copy presented of Provisional Order in Council, dated 13th April, 1918, entitled the Air Force (Application of Enactments) (No. 3) Order, 1918, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Interi Report on certain Essential Industries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Interim Report on the Importation of Goods from the present Enemy Countries after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Interim Report on the Treatment of Exports from the United Kingdom and British Overseas Possessions and the Conservation of the Resources of the Empire during the Transitional Period after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Final Report of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MODERN LANGUAGES COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister to inquire into the position of Modern Languages in the educational system of Great Britain [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the special attention of neutral Governments has been called to the reports received of

    535
    the ill-treatment of British prisoners of war in mines and in many of the working camps, also of officers and men throughout the 10th Army Corps district, and of prisoners behind the line on the Eastern and Western Fronts, a Report of which has been issued in the form of a White Paper; whether any general international representation of neutral Governments to the German Government on this subject has been asked for or arranged; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to invite such action on the part of neutral Governments?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury):It is not thought that the particular steps suggested in the question would prove effective for the desired purpose; but the matter is before the Ministry of Information, who will doubtless take every step in their power to enlighten public opinion throughout the civilised world as to the brutalities now revealed.
    Perhaps I may be allowed to say with reference, to another matter connected with prisoners raised yesterday that we have now heard that the camp at Changri has been broken up and the prisoners have been transferred to two other camps.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Are the Government taking any really definite steps to endeavour to ameliorate these conditions?
    Mr. HOPE: Yes, we have taken steps of different kinds, not always successfully.
    Mr. PETO: Can any steps be taken, not so much to enlighten public opinion in neutral countries throughout the world, but to bring the pressure of public opinion in neutral countries throughout the world to bear upon the Governments of enemy countries?
    Mr. HOPE: It must be a matter of every man's judgment how far diplomatic representations to countries that remain neutral can have any very great effect.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the Government approach the Governments of neutral countries to get from them an expression of definite opinion in the matter?
    Mr. HOPE: I have just said that it is not thought that such an expression of opinion would serve any useful purpose.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS (DIETARY SCALE).
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the weekly ration of meat, including bacon, sugar, and fats, now issued to interned civilian enemy subjects is now of no greater quantity than that permitted to our own civilian population; and will he give the scale of dietary as recently revised?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the very full reply which I gave on the 5th March to the hon. and learned Member for York. The revised scale of dietary in civilian internment camps was circulated with my reply, and there has been no change since that date.
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the proceedings at an inquest held on a civilian German interned at the Alexandra Palace, Wood Green, N., on the 9th instant; whether Major Foulerton, Royal Army Medical Corps, who inquired into the circumstances of the case, reported that the dietary was extremely good, that those interned were supplied with the same food as the officers and troops, and that the supply was so liberal that those interned had more meat than could be consumed at the mid-day meal and made it into rissoles for supper; and whether, as a result of the inquiry, he has taken measures to curtail the issue of meat to civilians interned at the Palace?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson):My inquiries into this matter are now completed, and I am informed that the statements ascribed to Major Foulerton were not made by him, nor by anyone else as far as is known. Prisoners of war are permitted to use the allotted ration as they think fit, and the fact that a few rissoles—not more than a dozen—were made from the meat ration of nearly 2,000 men for consumption at a meal other than the regular dinner does not indicate any excess in the ration.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that in this particular ease the German who died was a civilian and not a prisoner of war?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That does not affect the case at all.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not under the control of the Home Secretary?
    Sir J. D. REES: As the prisoners of War are allowed to be autonomous in their own internal management and have some excellent cooks, may not the explanation be that they have this amount of meat over by saving the rissoles out of the rations?
    Mr. HOPE: I think that very likely is the explanation.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that they select their own cooks from among their own number?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.

    RATIONING (SUPPLEMENTARY).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction has been caused through the introduction of a scheme of supplementary rationing, which attempts, upon a scientific basis, to discriminate between different classes of workmen, and between male and female workers employed upon precisely similar work; whether he is aware that such an attempt to differentiate in food supplies is likely to lead to industrial unrest; and whether, if any extra rationing can be given, he will give directions that it shall be applied generally and not sectionally?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes):The scheme of supplementary meat rations was introduced in fulfilment of the Food Controller's promise that so soon as additional supplies were available special consideration would be given to the needs of heavy workers. I have always adhered to the view expressed by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress that there should be no discrimination between different classes of workmen. As my hon. Friend is aware, I propose again to consult the Committee as to the position of women workers. I may add that I am discussing the matter now with representatives of the women on the Consumers' Council.

    BEANS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the judgment against the Ministry pronounced on the 30th July last by Mr.
    538
    Justice Rowlatt in favour of Messrs. Hindhaugh in the beans case has been settled; if so, what was the total payment made to the firm; how many other cases have been decided in accordance with this judgment; and what was the total loss to the Ministry?
    Mr. CLYNES:The judgment given in the case referred to was merely a declaratory judgment; no payments have been made by the Ministry of Food on the basis of that judgment to Messrs. Hindhaugh, or to any other person. It is not known whether any other cases have been decided in accordance with this judgment.
    Mr. LOUGH: If that were a declaratory judgment, may I ask whether the Ministry of Food have appealed against it, or whether they will obey the order of the Court?

    QUALITY AND PRICES.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether one price has been fixed for cheese, irrespective of quality, both for its purchase and distribution; whether the same limitation as to price and quality has been applied to other commodities; and whether, seeing that such a Regulation places a premium on inferiority of production and is for this reason contrary to the public interest, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: Cheese is purchased abroad by the Ministry of Food at prices which vary according to the quality, grade and country of origin of the cheese. On being imported into this country these varieties are issued to retailers to be sold to the consumer at a flat rate. For British-made cheese there is at present no flat rate, but a scheme is in contemplation whereby British cheese, with some small exceptions, will be purchased on behalf of the Ministry of Food at varying prices according to quality and will also be sold to the consumer at a flat rate. We have standardised flour and, as the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware, we have also standardised tea. I can only repeat that these are war measures, and I think that there will be no disapproval of the steps which we are taking.
    Mr. LOUGH:My right hon. Friend has not replied to the latter part of the question, whether he does not think that it is contrary to the public interest to fix the same price for an inferior article as for one of good quality, especially as he

    539
    admits that he buys them at different pries himself and only fixes a flat rate for the consumer?
    Mr. CLYNES: No, I do not hold the opinion that it is contrary to the public interest to take this course. It is the policy of the Food Minister to supply as far as we can similar articles to the public at the same price. When this cannot in all cases be done it means that here and there the public in turn take their share of getting an inferior article. It means that some of us at sometime or other get an inferior article. We have to take our chance.
    Mr. LOUGH:May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he means to consider the question, say, of cheese, whether he has noticed a great deterioration in the quality even of the cheese supplied to this House, and whether that is not due to the fact that he is only charging the same price for inferior cheese as for good cheese?
    Mr. CLYNES: The element of quality is not in the slightest degree affected by the policy being pursued by the Controller.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to fix the price of British-made cheese?
    Mr. CLYNES: Very early indeed.
    Mr. BILLING: In fixing the price will the hon. Gentleman base it on the lower quality and not on the higher quality?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that it is cheese?

    PIGS.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether satisfactory arrangements have been made by the London county and borough councils to keep and feed pigs on the kitchen refuse collected in their areas, or whether many tons of this is daily fed to the destructor furnaces?
    Mr. CLYNES: Conferences of all local authorities in the London area have been held under the auspices of the National Salvage Council, when the necessity for conserving all organic refuse for the feeding of pigs has been impressed upon them. It is hoped that schemes will shortly be put into operation for increasing the proportion of refuse so used.
    Captain WRIGHT: The schemes are not in operation at present?
    Mr. CLYNES: In one or two instances they are.

    VEGETABLES.
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the account of a small holder who sent about 5 tons of vegetables to Covent Garden Market, where the price allowed was £20, from which was deducted about £10 for railway carriage for 40 miles and for other expenses; and, in view of the fact that the consumers would have to pay about £50 for the £10 worth of vegetables, can he say what steps he proposes to take to prevent the producers and consumers from being mulcted in this way?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have investigated this matter, and it appears that the low price realised was due to the inferior quality of the consignment. The salesmen are paid by commission; the railway carriage was just over £2; and the only unnecessary charge was for cartage from station at 10s. a ton, which would have been avoided if the vegetables had been consigned to a firm at St. Pancras or King's Cross. I can only add that in growing vegetables a certain standard of quality must be reached before any profit can be obtained.
    Major HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman allow that half the price is taken by the railway companies and other people; was not the produce more than ½d. per lb.; and is he aware that you would pay more than that for pig food?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am assured that the quality of the consignment was very inferior. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the terms of my reply, he will see that the figures in the reply are totally different from those in the question.

    TIREE COTTARS (ILLEGAL CULTIVATION).
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether be is aware that eight cottars were, at the Oban Sheriff Court on Saturday last, sentenced to ten days' imprisonment and found liable to expenses for taking possession of 13 acres on the farm of Balephethish, Tiree, on the estate of the Duke of Argyll; that the illegality consisted in providing themselves with part of a sheep run on which to grow necessary food, and that they have already sown their crops; whether it is intended to continue the

    541
    persecution of these men, who are only voicing the demand in Scotland for access to the land which has been burked by the feeble administration of the 1911 Land Act; whether he has yet any practical proposals to make for giving access to the land in Scotland for those who desire it; (2) whether he is aware of the indignation expressed throughout Scotland at the imprisonment of eight Tiree crofters for the seizure of 13 acres of derelict sheep run for the purpose of growing food; whether he is aware that the men have already cultivated the land and planted their crops; and whether he will take steps to see that these hungry men and their families, many of whose relatives are fighting for their country in France and elsewhere, are not further disturbed until their crops are reaped?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Morison): My right hon. Friend is aware of the illegal cultivation effected by the cottars in question, and of the Sheriff Court proceedings referred to. He much regrets this misguided action on the part of men who are otherwise law-abiding citizens. It has placed an additional obstacle in the way of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in their endeavour to obtain additional land in Tiree. He has no authority to give any undertaking in regard to further legal proceedings. As regards the general questions of land policy raised by my hon. Friend, it is hardly possible to discuss them within the limits of question and answer.
    My right hon. Friend desires to add, in reference to this case, that the Board had had under consideration the advisability of action for increased cultivation under the Defence of the Realm regulations. The Board were prepared to draw up a scheme under those Regulations, whereby land might be offered to the applicants as a temporary measure in the interests of food production, and were about to request the assistance of the district agricultural committee when they were informed of the illegal action of the applicants. This made further proceedings on the part of the Board impracticable.
    Mr. YOUNG: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman state what in his opinion these men were going to do—were they going to starve or get off the island?
    Mr. MORISON: I think they might have allowed the Board of Agriculture time to make arrangements.
    Mr. YOUNG: And the men might starve in the meantime!
    Mr. PRINGLE: How long did the Board of Agriculture delay action so as to render this illegal action on the part of the men necessary?
    Mr. MORISON: I cannot say, but I can assure the hon. Member, knowing how anxious the Board of Agriculture is to increase the food supply, that there was no unnecessary delay.
    Mr. D. WHITE: When were these circumstances first brought to the notice of the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. MORISON: I am sorry I have not information on that point.
    Mr. HOGGE: Were there any sheep at all on this derelict land?
    Mr. MORISON: I rather think the land was under sheep at the time.
    Mr. HOGGE: How many sheep?
    Mr. MORISON: That I cannot gay.
    Mr. HOGGE: As many as are in the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Member for East Edinburgh to restrain himself from making these quasi-amusing observations. They do not really assist progress and stand very much in his own way when he wishes to speak. He would resent them very much if other people made them.
    Mr. HOGGE: No; I never do!

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CIVILIAN PRISONERS ON PAROLE.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to cancel exemptions from liability to military service granted to civilian prisoners who have been released on parole by our enemies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to Clause 1, Section 3 of the Military Service Bill now before Parliament, and to the Debate which took place on Tuesday, 16th April. My hon. Friend will then see that it is not proposed to call

    543
    up for military service civilian prisoners in cases where an undertaking which is recognised by His Majesty's Government has been given not to serve in His Majesty's Forces during the present War.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that prisoners who are released on parole by the enemy will not be permitted to do work of national importance in this country?
    Mr. BECK: That really does not arise at all. The question concerns His Majesty's Forces.
    Sir R. COOPER:What is meant by recognition by His Majesty's Government, because there were cases in the Southern Atlantic where men were released on their word of honour that they would not take up arms against the enemy, and are they to be made to treat their word of honour as a scrap of paper?
    Mr. BECK:There is no question of a scrap of paper at all. A man who happens to have been for a short time in the hands of the enemy, and has given an undertaking that he ought not to have given, cannot be exempted from service for the rest of the War. My hon. Friend may be sure that His Majesty's Government will have the most scrupulous regard for any undertaking which has been properly given in this matter.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who represents National Service in this House whether it is proposed to call up men for National Service who are recognised by the Government as having given their parole?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

    RAILWAY EMPLOYES.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great Central Railway Company released for His Majesty's Forces some time ago all their clerks in Grade 1, although all the other companies have considered it necessary to retain for the efficient working of their railways a number of Grade 1 men over the age of thirty-one, and that a number of married men over the age of thirty-one in Grades 2 and 3 arc about to be released by the Great Central Company, particularly from their cartage department; and, if so, whether, in view of
    544
    the retention by the other railway companies of men of all military service categories, including unmarried men in Grade 1, he will arrange for uniformity of treatment in regard to this matter to be accorded to all the employés on railways now under State control?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley):I am having some inquiries made in the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman when these inquiries; are complete.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of setting up a Committee so that men may be called up uniformly from the offices of these companies?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I understand that the present arrangement for dealing with men who may be called up is working satisfactorily.

    MEDICAL BOARD EXAMINATIONS.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Minister of National Service whether the National Service Instruction No. 3, of 1917 (Cd. 8834), regulating medical board examinations is still in force, or whether it has been modified or superseded by subsequent instructions reducing the minimum standards; and, if so, whether any such instructions will be published?
    Mr. BECK:National Service Instruction No. 3 of 1917 was revised and republished as M.N.S.R. 24 on 26th February, 1918, and can be obtained through His Majesty's Stationery Office by the public. The revised edition was undertaken with the object of making the Instructions regarding medical arrangements and grading more comprehensive and has in no way modified the general standards of fitness for military service. A National Service Instruction dealing with standards of vision was issued on the 6th April. This Instruction was drawn up after consultation by a Committee of Military and Civil Ophthalmic Specialists. The standards decided upon are slightly lower than before.

    ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
    Sir JAMES BOYTONasked the Minister of National Service if he proposes to continue to avail himself of the services of the Advisory Committees set up under the Military Service Act, 1916, and continued under the Military Service Act, 1918?
    Mr. BECK: These Committees are, I am happy to say, giving their assistance as heretofore, and my right hon. Friend hopes to continue to have the advantage of their services, subject to any changes which may be necessitated by any readjustment of tribunal areas made by the Local Government Board under the power contained in the Military Service Bill now before Parliament.

    CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to refrain from enforcing Conscription in Ireland until an Irish Parliament has been set up in Dublin?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can add nothing to the statements on this subject made by the Prime Minister.
    Sir R. COOPER: In view of the fact that two important statements were made last week, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Office may expect to get recruits from Ireland under this Bill before the 1st August next?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Most certainly. We hope to get them before that time.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the conflicting statements of the Prime Minister, are we to understand that it is or it is not the intention of the Government to enforce the Conscription Bill on Ireland before the Home Rule Bill has passed through this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is precisely the same question. I do not admit that there was any conflict of statement.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Prime Minister wished to convey to the House?

    DISABLED AND REJECTED MEN.
    Mr. PRINGLE (by Private, Notice)asked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that considerable anxiety exists on the part of disabled and rejected men previously protected, as to whether their position is affected by the Military Service Bill; and if, for the purpose of assuring these men as to their position, he will state the classes of such men who will be excepted from liability for military service?
    Mr. BECK: As regards the men mentioned in the question, the House will remember that on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, an amendment was moved lo the first Schedule of the Military Service Bill now before Parliament. The effect of this is to except from the operation of the Military Service Bill the classes of men who are set out in paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Bill. For the purpose of informing the men concerned, I propose to read the paragraph referred to, which, I think, quite clearly states the position, and is as follows:

    4. (a) Disabled men who during the present War have served outside the British Islands or at sea, or who have served in the field, or at sea in any previous War.

    (b) Disabled men who, though not having served as aforesaid, have during the present War served for not less than a week in any of His Majesty's Forces (other than Reserve Forces); and men who having been officially reported as wounded during the present War, have been discharged in consequence of the termination of their period of service, if in either case they are engaged in whole-time work which is for the time being certified by the Director-General of National Service to be of national importance,

    (c) Disabled men, or men who have been medically rejected after offering themselves for enlistment, if on further medical examination after the 5th day of April 1917 in accordance with the Regulation of the Army Council or as respects an examination after the date on which the Ministry of National Service Order, 1917, came in force, in accordance with the Regulation of the Director General of National Service they have been certined to be totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service?

    In this paragraph the expression "disabled men" means men (including officers) who have left or been discharged from the naval, military, or air forces in consequence of disablement or ill-health.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does that cover men who were re-examined last year under the Review of Exceptions Act and have received a certificate that they are totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service?
    Mr. BECK:To the best of my belief that is so, but my hon. Friend knows that there are very technical as well as legal points, and I do not want to be committed, but I will inquire.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do the words "offering themselves for enlistment" cover men who were called up in the ordinary course?
    Mr. BECK: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the question which the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire proposes to raise on the Adjournment in the House to-night, may I say, in reference to the attitude of a strong Minister—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better reserve his speech until the matter comes on.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly shall not be present to take part in the discussion.

  EXEMPTIONS FROM INTERNMENT.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the firm of Allhausen and Company, of Carter Lane, E.C, consists of Anton Ramisch and Ernest Kabisch, both aliens; and will he say, if they are unnaturalised, why are they not interned; and, if they are naturalised, why are they not called up?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that this firm consists of three partners—the two mentioned and the first-named's eldest son, who was born in this country and is therefore a British subject. Ramisch and Kabisch have been exempted from repatriation and internment respectively on the advice of the Advisory Committee. The former is an Austrian, aged sixty, who has resided here for thirty-eight years, and has two British-born sons, the eldest of whom has volunteered for the British Army, but has been rejected on medical grounds. The latter is a Hanoverian, who come to this country at the age of seventeen, after obtaining his discharge from German nationality, and has been resident here for between twenty-five and twenty-six years. I see no sufficient ground at present for revoking these exemptions, but Kabisch will be required to undertake work of national importance forthwith.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that if these gentlemen are still unnaturalised they will be roped in to do national work if they are not interned?
  Sir G. CAVE: The younger men certainly will be.

  HALLSANDS (REMOVAL OF SHINGLE).
  Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade what decision has
  548
  been arrived at as regards compensation to the fishermen of Hallsands, South Devon, for the damage done to their houses by the removal of the shingle and the consequent inroad of the sea by which their houses were ruined?
  Sir A. STANLEY: It bas been decided that some compensation will be given, and I am proposing to arrange at once for a consideration of any claims which may be made.
  Colonel BURN: A claim for compensation up to a certain amount was made to cover the damage that has been done. Have not the Treasury considered that, and are they not willing to meet that claim?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware that any definite sum was named.
  Colonel BURN: If I give him a summary of the damage and the amount that it will cost to put it right, will my right hon. Friend consider it?
  Sir A. STANLEY: With great pleasure.

  PAPER CONSOLIDATION ORDER.
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to traders, and the loss likely to accrue to the State, by the provisions of the Paper Consolidation Order; and, if so, whether he is prepared to modify the terms of the Order in the manner suggested by chambers of commerce and other representative trading bodies?
  Sir A. STANLEY:I have recently received a deputation on this subject, and their representations are now being considered by the Paper Controller.
  Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the shortage of paper, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government to save paper by refraining from confirming oral questions in this House by written answers.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  HAY.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade what per-

  549
  centage of the 1917 crop of hay was allocated for the use of horses employed in town and transport work?
  Sir A. STANLEY: No specific quantity of hay of the 1917 crop was allotted for the use of horses in town and transport work. The hay required for such horses is about one-seventh of the total crop
  Mr. NEEDHAM: Can my right hon. Friend say what was the total crop of hay bought in 1017?
  Sir A. STANLEY: No, I am afraid not.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the complaints of the poor condition of horses employed in town work and that this condition is due to shortage of supply of hay; whether he can state the reason for the shortage of supply in view of the ample quantity of hay in the country; and what action is being taken by him?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Complaints of the poor condition of the horses employed in town work have been received, and it is considered that such condition is due largely to the shortage in the supply of hay. The whole question is being considered in conjunction with the War Office and the Board of Agriculture, but from the best information obtainable it is feared that until the new crop of hay is available there will be a shortage of hay in the country.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very pressing matter, and that quite recently there was a large meeting of owners of horses in Manchester to consider whether they should continue to work their horses owing to the bad condition they are in, this being due in the opinion of the meeting to the shortage of hay?
  Sir HENRY HARRIS:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that contractors in London doing Government work and engaged on carrying foodstuffs are unable to obtain an adequate and regular supply of hay for their horses?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am quite aware of the pressing importance of the matter, and we are trying to find some solution if we can.
  Mr. LOUGH: Has the whole of the control exercised in this matter by the Board of Trade been handed over to the War Office?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The Board of Trade has no control over the hay; it is in the hands of the War Office.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: What recommendation has been made by the Board of Trade or the War Office in regard to horses working in civil employment on this question of shortage of hay, which is really a, serious and pressing matter?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large quantities of hay of last year's crop requisitioned by the War Office were never even taken by them?
  Sir A. STANLEY: It is a matter which is under the consideration, I think, of the War Office and the Board of Trade.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that civilians in London and country districts are unable to obtain hay for the feeding of horses; whether the war authorities have commandeered all existing stores of hay; whether farmers are at liberty to sell any for the use of civilians, many of whom are engaged on work of national importance: and whether the military authorities have already obtained, or have the promise of acquiring, supplies of hay greatly in excess of their requirements?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Civil consumers have recently experienced difficulty in obtaining their full requirements but, so far as is known, no one has failed to do so. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative and the third in the affirmative. As regards the last part my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. A great deal more hay than has yet been purchased will be required by the military authorities before the next crop is ready for shipment.
  Sir ARTHUR FELL: What steps are being taken to enable job masters to get hay? They are entirely without it at present. Surely there is hay in the country?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is a scheme for enabling consumers to get the hay they require. I have arranged that a memorandum shall be prepared, and I. am willing to circulate it to Members of the, House, in order that they may see exactly what the scheme consists of. A portion of it has already been published in the Press, and that has been reproduced in pamphlet

  551
  form. I am having that pamphlet amplified, and I hope that will make the position quite clear
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is my hon. Friend aware that the military authorities have earmarked practically the whole of the hay in the country, and if they require further supplies where are they to come from?
  Mr. FORSTER: It is quite true that the military authorities have taken possession of all the crop. The British crop consists of about 11,000,000 tons, of which 9,000,000 tons is consumed by the growers, leaving a balance of some 2.000.000 tons. Military requirements call for about half that is, 1,000,000 tons a year. As I indicated in my answer, the whole of that 1,000,000 tons has not yet been taken up.
  CaptainWRIGHTasked the Financial Secretary at the War Office whether he is aware that there is a shortage of hay in the dairying districts and difficulty in buying it owing to the general ignorance as to what are the Regulations now affecting its release, sale, and purchase, and whether it can be bought through the Allotment Committee only at their price, and on payment of us a ton to that Committee, even though the purchaser finds his own vendor and no services are rendered by the Committee; and if he will issue a short statement making clear the position now and after 30th September next?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is undoubtedly a shortage of hay in some, districts, and the main object of appointing the Allotment Committees is to equalise and expedite the distribution of available supplies throughout the country. The ignorance referred to is gradually disappearing as the result of an exhaustive notice which appeared in the London and Provincial Press on March 29th. which has since been reproduced in pamphlet form I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend a copy. This explains that it is only when a producer avails himself of the prices and conditions granted to bay traders that he is called upon to contribute to the general expenses of administering the scheme. The position subsequent to September 30th cannot be stated until the volume of the 1918 crop is known and the terms and conditions governing the crop have been decided upon.
  Captain WRIGHT: Can a farmer buy from his neighbour surplus hay which is
  552
  not wanted for the Army without going to the Committee and paying the 5s. per ton?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that the only case in which a consumer has to pay the 5s. a ton is when he employs a dealer in the transaction.
  Captain WRIGHT: Is not the 5s. payable only in the case where the vendor cuts, ties and delivers the hay to the purchaser and so does the work of a dealer?
  Mr. FORSTER: In all probability that is so. You have to apply to the Allotment Committee.

  PICTURE SHOWS (MINING DISTRICTS).
  Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his Department will grant permission to the managers of picture shows in the mining districts of the country to open their shows in the mornings to suit the convenience of miners who are working on the night shifts?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I have carefully considered the representations that have been made to me on this subject, and have not felt justified in granting a special exemption in favour of morning cinematograph performances.
  Mr. STANTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had any application from any other Members representing mining districts?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am not certain, but it is very likely.
  Mr. STANTON: Will they have no consideration?
  Sir A. STANLEY: We have carefully considered this matter, and it would raise a very serious precedent if we made any exception of this kind.

  POOLING RAILWAY WAGONS.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the negotiations mentioned by his predecessor in office on the 27th March, 1017 (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 202), regarding the pooling of private users' wagons on railways, are yet complete and are the wagons being pooled; whether his attention has been called to complaints by farmers in certain

  553
  parts of the Kingdom that there is delay in moving seeds, fertilisers, and foodstuffs, while private owners' wagons are standing empty; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir A. STANLEY: It is not at present proposed to introduce any general scheme for the common user of all privately-owned railway wagons in England. Other measures to secure the object in view have, however, been taken, and arrangements have recently been made for a large number of such wagons to be taken over for general use. In Scotland it is proposed that a scheme for the common user of privately-owned wagons should be introduced at an early date.
  Sir R. COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it should be right to take the step in Scotland and not in England?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The conditions in Scotland are totally different from those prevailing in England. There is a very great number of privately-owned wagons in this country, and the difficulties involved in securing the competent direction of these wagons and the repairing of them make it inexpedient to have a scheme of this kind.

  STEAMSHIP "BEIJERLAND."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ship "Beijerland," of Rotterdam, was taken over by the Admiralty in the middle of March and released at Liverpool on or about the 30th March; and, if so, what was her cargo and why was the ship released?
  The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The facts are as stated. The vessel was loaded with a cargo of soda for Holland under a contract existing between His Majesty's Government and the Dutch Soda Commission. Any other course would have involved the broach of an existing agreement.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know from what firm the soda came?
  Lord R. CECIL: No Sir. If my hon. Friend wants that information, he must put down a further question.

  SICK-BERTH STAFF (PROMOTION).
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the very slow rate of promotion as it now exists in the sick-berth staff, more especially in the Portsmouth and Devon-port divisions; whether he is aware that it takes seven years for a sick-berth attendant to reach the rating of second sick-berth steward, twelve and a half years to reach that of sick-berth steward, and seventeen and a half to eighteen and a half years to reach that of chief sick-berth steward; and whether, in view of the fact that in consequence of this much pay and pension is lost and considerable discontent thereby engendered, he will cause a Committee to be appointed on similar lines to that granted in April last to the writer branch to hear the representatives of the sick-berth staff, in order that their grievances may be brought before the Board of Admiralty, and, so far as possible, remedied?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The slowness of promotion in this branch is fully recognised. But, of course, advancement must be governed by the actual Service needs of the various grades. The question, however, whether any adjustments are practicable which would result in an acceleration of the advancement of sick-berth ratings is now receiving careful consideration, and an officer has been specially detailed to investigate the possibilities, and report at an early date.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of allowing a similar inquiry to be held into this case as was hold in the other case?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; I have looked at that carefully and I have consulted the authorities. Here is an officer of the medical branch who will be expeditious. On the whole, I think this is the best way of dealing with it.
  Mr. LAMBERT: How long will it be before there will be a decision?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There will be no avoidable delay. I will do my best to accelerate it.

  REGISTRATION.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Conservative

  555
  and Unionist Association of North Islington has issued a circular to householders saying that it is essential that men and women should have the assistance of that association in applying for the vote; and whether he will make it clear that this is not in accordance with fact?
  Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Unionist associations in different constituencies in London are |handing from door to door forms of registration inquiries in colourable imitation of the official forms; and, in view of the; difficulty of householders to fill up the forms and the repeated statement during the passage of the Representation of the People Act that it would obviate the intervention of political parties in forming the register, whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the circulation of these party forms?
  The PRESIDENT or the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher):My attention has been drawn to the circular referred to by the hon. Member for the Dartford Division and also to the form which I understand was intended to accompany it. It is not, of course, essential that a person entitled to be registered should have the assistance of any party organisation, but I hope that all party organisations will assist the registration officers to prepare as complete a register as possible of all those entitled to the franchise. I think, however, the circulation by political associations of forms similar to the form prescribed by the Order in Council is to be deprecated as confusing the electors.
  Mr. BILLING: Is not this a clear ease of a political ramp, and in these circumstances does the Government propose to take any action against these people, who arc misleading the electorate into believing that the only way to get their vote is to obtain it through the political machine?
  Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member is a Loiter judge of all political and other ramps than I am.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some action to see that words to this effect should not be circulated by any political or other agency—this was delivered to my own house:
  "persons would be assisted by the association in every possible way in order to ensure their names appearing on the register."
  Mr. BILLING: Political trickery!
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Because it appears to the person who gets this, who is not well acquainted with the matter, that this is an official document, and it confuses him when the official document does come along.
  Mr. BILLING: Highly dishonourable!
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it not true that usually Liberals apply through Conservative Associations, and Vice Versâ. to ensure getting on the register?
  Mr. GILBERT:Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has power under the Representation of the People Act to prevent other people issuing a similar form to the statutory registration form?
  Mr. FISHER: A study of the Representation of the People Act will tell me that I have no such power.
  Mr. BILLING: The last dying effort of a dead party…
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the headquarters of the Unionist Association on what he has said here this afternoon?
  Mr. FISHER: The headquarters of the Unionist Association are intelligent enough to read my answer.
  Mr. BILLING: I doubt it…
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for East Hears (Mr. Billing) to behave himself.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in order to enable them to subsist on a reduced income, many wives of soldiers have temporarily left their homes and gone to live with relatives; that in the present compilation of the register it is being held that neither the soldier nor his wife are eligible to be placed on the local government register; and whether he can take any steps to" prevent this disfranchisement of soldiers and their wives?
  Mr. FISHER: If, in casse of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, an occupier has given up the occupation of the premises, neither he nor his wife would be entitled to be placed on the local government register. As regards the last part of the question, I may point out that the special provisions inserted in the Representation of the People Act for naval or military voters are expressly

  557
  limited to the right of a person to be registered as a Parliamentary elector. I am not empowered to take any steps in the matter.

  MUNITIONS.

    FLUE DUST.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions whether controlled establishments using blast, furnaces have received instructions to sell the flue dust from their furnaces to certain Government agents in various districts, to whom in their respective districts a monopoly of the sale of such flue dust as artificial manure has boon granted; whether any scale of prices was fixed by the Ministry for this flue dust so ordered to be sold, and communicated to its makers whether he is aware that flue dust sold under contract to one of these Government agents at Is. and 5s. a ton is sold by him to the user at the following prices: No. 1, potash content 2¾ to 3¼ per cent., price per ton 37s 6d.; No. 1a, potash content 3¼ to 5½per cent., price per ton 46s. 6d.; No. 2, potash content 5½to 9¾ per cent., price per ton 60s.; and No. 3, potash content 9¾to 13 per cent., price per ton 100s. 6d.; and if he will say what are the services rendered by this agent which justify these differences in price?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): I am informed by the Ministry of Munitions that no instructions have been issued requiring any blast furnace owner, to sell flue dust to any particular person. Licences have been granted on the advice of the Food Production Department to a limited number of wholesale collecting agents, authorising them to purchase certain qualities of blast furnace flue dust from blast furnace owners, and to sell the dust to licensed agents who resell to farmers. These agents are required, as a condition of their licence, to sell at prescribed prices, but the price at which the flue dust is purchased by the wholesale collecting agents from the furnace owners is not fixed, and is a matter of arrangement between the buyer and seller. With reference to the inquiry in the latter part of the question, it is believed that several firms have old standing contracts, which enable them to obtain supplies at low prices. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the contract to which he refers, inquiries will be made, and I
    558
    will let him know the result. I am sending the hon. Member a leaflet which we have circulated on blast furnace flue dust as a potash fertiliser, in which the prices and other details are set out.
    Captain WRIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries? My information, from responsible people, is that instructions were received from the Ministry to sell to particular agents, and these responsible people applied to the Ministry to know if there were any scale of prices.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now giving information and not asking for it.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Is my hon. Friend aware that the arrangements made by the Government in this matter have been received with much dissatisfaction by the ironmasters in the North and on the West Coast, and that representations were made to the Ministry of Munitions some weeks ago, to which no reply has been received, and should any further representations be made to his Department or to the Ministry of Munitions?
    Sir R. WINFREY: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will go into the matter closely.
    Captain WRIGHT: In view of these facts and having regard to the price of flue dust, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the prices charged to the farmer for artificial manure?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I will take up the matter with the Ministry of Munitions without delay.

  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

    SUSPENDED LEAVE EXTENSIONS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will make special inquiries concerning the position of Mr. W. Reddiough, farmer, Lower Heights, Cullingworth, Yorks, who is ill and totally unable to do any work whatever and whose farm of 73 acres, with twenty-four milking cows, four young cattle, sixty-six sheep and lambs, and 150 poultry, is left with the services of one youth in consequence of Mr. Reddiough's son, No. 240649, 59th Division, Y Battery, Trench Mortar Battery, Royal Field Artillery, British Expeditionary Force, France, being returned to his unit; and what action he intends to take to prevent

    559
    the further reduction of the stock on this farm which must take place immediately if no action is taken?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Gunner Reddiough had one month's leave from France for the purpose of helping on his father's farm, and towards the end of the period an application was made on his behalf to the Board of Agriculture for their assistance in getting an extension. But owing to the present military situation in France, the War Office have suspended extensions of leave for all men in the Expeditionary Force. Thy father has been advised to apply for any additional labour or help that he may require to the agricultural executive committee for the county.

  AGRICULTURAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICE.
  Captain WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in view of the importance of food production he will consider, in conjunction with the War Office, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Ministry of food the issue of a joint weekly publication or the setting up in every county of an intelligence office or clearing home of information and so plane at the disposal of war executive committees, owners, farmers, allotment-holders, labourers and the consuming public means for ascertaining in a concise and simple form the matters and conditions which are from time to time applicable to agricultural industry?
  Sir R. WINFREY: A Joint Committee of the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food has recently been established for the purpose of carrying out the objects to which the hon. find gallant Member refers. They will not issue a joint weekly publication, but they will send out explanations of new Government Orders or Regulations in the simplest possible form. A considerable number of correspondents have already been appointed in different parts of the country, and their number is being increased. The Committee is also holding and arranging public meetings through the country to encourage food production, and, incidentally, to explain Government Orders and Regulations affecting agriculture. The correspondents who are being appointed will continue the work of these
  560
  public meetings, and will generally act as information officers for their different districts.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  Sir J. BOYTONasked the Undersecretary of State for War if the Army Council will award annually the gratuity due to Territorial and Reserve medical officers, instead of at the end of the War, as in the case of temporary medical officers, so that the immediate financial position of these officers will be relieved and at no additional cost to the country?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  WET CANTEENS (TRAINING CAMPS).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State has received a Resolution from the Central Executive of the Church of England Temperance Society as to the establishment of wet canteens in training camps for boys of eighteen; whether he can give any information as to the number that exist; and whether any steps have been taken to close them?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; the communication referred to by my hon. Friend has been received, but I regret that it is not possible to take the action suggested.

  ST. GEORGE'S DAY.
  Colonel W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Irish soldiers serving in any unit are allowed to wear shamrock on St. Patrick's Day; if he is aware that English soldiers are forbidden to wear a rose on St. George's Day; if he is aware that St. George's Day falls on Tuesday next, 23rd April; and if the Government are prepared to place all English soldiers on an equality with their Irish comrades?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on Tuesday last to a written question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone.

  REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, BENGAL.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Bengal Government has taken any action in the question of investigating the position of persons interned in Bengal or by the Bengal Government; and whether such action, in any, as has been taken originated with the Bengal Government or with the Government of India?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement regarding revolutionary crime made by the Governor of Bengal at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 20th November. Lord Ronaldshay said that one of the first acts of his Government was to propose the appointment of a strong Committee of Indians and Europeans, with a judge of the High Court of England at the head, to investigate the whole subject, and that, apart from this inquiry, his Government were prepared to submit the case of every person whom they proposed to intern to two judges for opinion. The action originated with the Government of Bengal.
  Sir J. D. REES: Was that offer of Lord Londonderry to submit the case of every person proposed to be interned to two judges for their opinion accepted or not… Was any action taken on that as distinct from the action suggested in the first half of the question?
  Mr. FISHER: I think that action has been taken.
  Mr. KING: Has an English High Court judge been selected for this position?
  Mr. FISHER: Yes.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether a Committee of Indians and Europeans, with a. judge of the English High Court as chairman, has been appointed to investigate the revolutionary movement in Bengal; and, if so, whether it has submitted a, Report to the Government of India?
  Mr. FISHER: The answer of the first question is in the affirmative. The inquiry is as to the nature and extent of the criminal conspiracies connected with the revolutionary movement in India, and as to the legislation, if any, necessary to enable Government to deal effectively
  562
  with them. The Secretary of State is not aware that the Committee have as yet submitted a Report.
  Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Report in that case will be submitted to the Government of Bengal, and whether an English judge of the High Court has actually been appointed; if so, who has been appointed, and will he be sufficiently free to devote his time to this solo purpose?
  Mr. FISHER: Sir Sidney Rowlatt is the High Court judge who has been appointed.
  Sir J. D. REES: Can he be spared indefinitely for this sole purpose?
  Sir J. JARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this inquiry Committee is a Statutory Committee with statutory powers and restrictions, or is it what is called a Departmental Committee with no particular powers under a Statute?
  Mr. FISHER: Will the hon. Gentleman give notice of that question?

  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (TEMPORARY CONTROL) BILL.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill is to be introduced during the current Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. ARNOLD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the Government have received many protests against this Bill from important sections of the community?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a fact, but it is not an uncommon experience of any Government.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Major NEWMANasked whether the proposed measure dealing with Irish government will be an amending Bill to the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, or a Bill based on fresh proposals for self-government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Bill is only in course of preparation, and I cannot, therefore, make any statement about it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely to be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot name the date now.

  BRITISH ARMY IN FRANCE (STRENGTH OF FORCES).
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Prime Minister whether, when he stated that the British Army in France was considerably stronger on the 1st January, 1918, than on the 1st January, 191, he was including the labour battalions and other non-combatant units; and whether the combatant strength of the British Army was greater or less at the beginning of this year than as the beginning of last year?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The combatant strength of the British Army was greater on the 1st January, 1918, than on the 1st January, 1917. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not necessarily include the labour and other non-combatant units, but their inclusion would, of course, make the increase more marked.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    RESIGNATION OF GENERAL SIR H. TRENCHARD.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether, before the resignation of Major-General Sir Hugh Trenchard was accepted, the differences or policy between General Trenchard and the Air Minister came before the War Cabinet; and whether he can, consistently with the public interest, state the questions of policy upon which a. difference of opinion| arose between the Air Minister and General Trenchard?
    Mr. BONAR LAW:The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Docs the right hon. Gentleman not realise that great public interest is taken in this matter, find can he not see his way to make a statement which will allay some of the unrest which has arisen?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I realise that there is great public interest in it, but I think
    564
    the House will see that it is obvious one cannot discuss in public questions of principle of that kind.
    Mr. PRINGLE:Is it not the case that the question of principle is one not affecting any war policy, but simply as to the methods of organisation in which the leading expert of the Air Staff had regard to efficiency in the field and the Air Minister had regard to advertising in the Press?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is apparently giving his own version of the difference of opinion. As I have said, in our opinion it is not desirable to discuss the matter by way of question and answer.
    Colonel Sir H. VERNEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the dismay and disgust in the Air Force in France over this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. Sir; I think it is obvious that I cannot be expected to give an answer to a question of that kind, which would give rise to difference of opinion.
    Mr. HOGGE: As the Government have got rid of the head officers of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this practice is to continue of getting rid of competent people?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS:Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be possible to make a statement adding a little more information, which will give no help to the enemy, but might allay feelings which to some extent undoubtedly exist?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite ready to consider that, like any other desire on the part of the House to discuss a question. I do not think it is desirable, at all events in question and answer, to discuss a subject of this kind.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    RESIGNATION OF GENERAL. SIR D. HENDERSON.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked whether, since the resignation of Major-General Sir Hugh Trenchard, any and, if so, what other member or members of the Air Council has or have tendered his or their resignation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Vice-President of the Council, Lieut.-General Sir David Henderson, K.C.B., D.S.O., has tendered his resignation, on the ground that he felt that he would be unable to work with the new Chief of the Air Staff.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that for two years and a half we have been endeavouring to get a strong policy in our Air Service, and now that we have a-Minister who is taking a strong policy, this House seems not to agree with him?
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is the policy?
    Mr. BILLING: Having his orders obeyed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Getting advertisement in the Press.

  TAXATION IN MANGE.
  Mr. HOLTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount raised by taxation in France during their last complete fiscal year before the War and during their last complete fiscal year?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The total amount raised by the French Government in taxation amounted in 1913 to 4,558,000,000 francs, and in 1917 to 5,489,000,000 francs. It is estimated that the tax revenue of the current year will amount to 7,869,000,000 francs. It must be remembered that, owing to the invasion of France and to the occupation by the enemy of some of the most prosperous parts of the country, a large part of the normal revenue disappeared in consequence of the War.
  Mr. ARNOLD: Is it not the fact that France, like other belligerent countries on the Continent, has been obliged to modify or remit any tariffs during the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously that has been a necessity from the nature of the circumstances.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that originating agreements for the purchase of the Stearne estate, Middletown, county Armagh, were lodged with the Irish Land Commission in 1907 on the basis of twenty-two and a half years' purchase of the agricultural portion and twenty-six years' purchase of the town holdings; that the agreements for the town holdings were
  566
  ignored, after inspection, and these holdings were purchased by the town landlords for the sum of £4,829 instead of £8,224, as was originally agreed upon; and that the local landlords were thereby relieved of all rents, as the amount payable out of the sub-tenants' holdings exceeded the entire sum payable as interest by the middlemen on the £4,829 advanced; and if he will state the reasons why the Land Commission decided to ignore the interests of the sub-tenants?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This was not a case of direct sales, and agreements such as those referred to in the question were not lodged with the Estates Commissioners in 1907. The owner instituted proceedings for sale to the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the portion of the property purchased by the Commissioners included holdings wholly or partly in the town of Middletown. Such of these holdings as were purchased by the Commissioners were resold for £4,144, of which £571 was paid in cash by the tenants, the balance — £3,573—being repayable by purchase annuities.
  As regards the sub-tenant in the town of Middletown, I cannot add anything to the answers given to questions by the hon. Members for Mid-Armagh on the 11th February and 28th March, 1917, and the 26th February, 1918. I may remind my hon. Friend that the law with regard to town holdings dealing with estates in Ireland is different to the law relating to agricultural holdings, and if he looks at the Regulations he will appreciate the significance of that.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Land Drainage (Lotting Fen) Provisional Order Bill,
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, what is the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday and Tuesday we propose to take the Budget. On Monday it will also be necessary to get the final stages of the Army (Annual) Bill.
  On Wednesday we propose to take, the further stages of the Increase of Rent, etc. (Amendment) Bill.
  On Thursday we propose to bake the Vote for Munitions.
  Sir D. GODDARD:When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Motion which has been on the Paper for some days in reference to the statutory powers of gas undertakings?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It might be possible to take it on Monday. We will take it as soon as we can. I hope that it will not be necessary to sit to-morrow, but that depends on the Lords Amendments to the Military Service Bill, and it may be necessary to sit for the purpose of considering them.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman put down the Home Office Vote for an early date, and have a division on it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that the Government are guided largely by the wishes of the Opposition as to what Votes the Prime Minister puts down.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench say when we may have this Vote?
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity of considering the new appointment in the War Office, by putting down a War Office Vote, so that the appointment of the new Secretary of State may be considered?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that we cannot have every Vote on the same
  578
  day. The Government are willing to put down any of these Votes that are most convenient to the House.
  Mr. BILLING: On what Vote can we discuss the appointment of Lord Derby?
  Mr. HOGGE: What is the Opposition to which my right hon. Friend refers in reference to putting down Votes?
  Mr. ARNOLD: Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that Tuesday will be devoted to a general Debate on the Budget?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, in the usual course.
  Sir R. COOPER: Do I understand that to-night, when the Motion for Adjournment comes on, the Air Service will not be represented?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I did not say that, but I did wish it to be made quite plain that I do not feel bound to attend on the Adjournment whenever an individual Member wishes to raise a question.
  Mr. BILLING: Will any member of the War Cabinet attend?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I can say what the right hon. Gentleman was doing the last time I raised a matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. HOGGE: Playing at chess!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I really must deprecate these very offensive observations. I have already had to reprimand one of the Press Gallery for introducing into the public Press references to the private acts of Ministers and of Members when they are in attendance here. If, in addition to that, hon. Members are going to make in this House statements as to what Ministers and Members do in the Lobbies and the smoke room and the dining room, then life here would become intolerable.
  Ordered, "That on this day,' notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Consideration of any Amendments made by the Lords to the Military Service Bill may be entered upon before Eleven of the clock, and shall not be interrupted under the Standing Order (Sitting of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  SUPPLY.— [Seventh Allotted Day,]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1918–19 — [Progress.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy Chairman, in the Chair.]

    OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.— Class II.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £64,340, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."—[NOTE: £100,000 has been voted on account.]
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): On the last occasion when I moved this Vote I thought it only right to give some general statement as to the work of the Department a year before and during a part of the War—work which was largely accomplished by those whose salaries and wages are in the Vote moved to-day in respect of urgent and onerous and responsible duties. I do not think it necessary to detain the Committee at any length with a general statement, as the most interesting portion of the work which is being done by the Office of Works can only and will only be disclosed at the end of the War, and its many activities both in this country and in France on behalf of the War, the new Air Board, the Ministry of Munitions, Shipping Controller, Food Production, and other Departments, will form a great part of the work that has been accomplished. With regard to the Vote itself it shows an increase of some £5,000 over the Estimate of last year, and is practically entirely due to automatic increases;
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to say anything about the National War Museum?
    Sir A. MOND: A statement will be made on that subject on the Vote for Museums, which will come before the House in due course.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    ROYAL PALACES.—Class I.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £34,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid."—[NOTE: £23,000 has been voted on account.]
    OSBORNE.—Class I.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."—[NOTE: £7,000 has been voted on account.]

    ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.— Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £57,050, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."— [NOTE: £44,000 has been voted on account.]
    Captain CARR-GOMM: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he can make any statement with regard to Royal Parks, especially St. James's Park, or rather what was formerly St. James's Park. There have recently been put up, in addition to temporary buildings, structures of rather a permanent character in that open space, and can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether these buildings of a permanent character have been erected owing to the fact that he is unable to obtain the necessary material for putting up temporary buildings? It seems to me that even during the War those who have an interest in these open spaces should seek to draw from the Minister some statement as to the future. We are to hear nothing about the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department until after the War, but I think the Committee would like to know in regard to the Royal Parks whether there is to be any limit to this covering of open spaces with buildings. Is there any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to increase

    581
    the covering of St. James's Park, or any other open spaces? St. James's Park has almost wholly lost its former pleasant character, and we would like to know whether other spaces and parks are to be utilised for temporary buildings in a similar way? I do not know whether the Minister will say anything about his agricultural undertaking in Richmond Park. I would, however, only remark that if potatoes obtain as serious a growth as public buildings have done under his sway, the crop will be an undoubted success.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to draw attention to the subject of the Royal Parks and to the right hon. Gentleman's experiment in the way of breaking up grassland in Richmond Park to grow cereals. He broke up the grassland there and planted oats. I believe that the experiment was very unsatisfactory, and that a considerable amount of money was lost, notwithstanding the fact that the seed was presented to the nation by a generous donor. We must take it that if the seed had been purchased in the ordinary way the loss on this transaction would have been much greater. I want to know whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to pursue this policy, and whether he intends to break up further grassland in our open spaces and parks, notwithstanding the extensive loss to the country which has already occurred. I do not know whether his experiences in agriculture has led him to abandon these experiments, and that he will no longer cut up grassland in the parks, but, if he proposes to continue the policy, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to-day to explain how it is that agriculturists are supposed to be making money and that there is a loss in his Department? I think it is an indication that Government Departments cannot enter upon these undertakings and make them commercially successful, and we get an example of the unwisdom of Government Departments trading on their own account and losing money.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    4.0 P.M.
    I am glad attention has been called to the really deplorable use which has been made of St. James's Park and other parks, which are necessary to the health and enjoyment of the people during the summer months. It is to be regretted that
    582
    a place like St. James's Park should be disfigured with such buildings as have been erected there. I cannot believe that in this huge Metropolis there were not other spaces more suited to buildings of this hideous character than is St. James's Park, one of the most beautiful in the country. It is most desirable, from the public health point of view, that public parks should be kept as free and open as possible during the hot weather. I should like the Board of Works to be more vigilant custodians of all the open spaces in London than they have been during the War. I believe that if the Department had looked about them more than they did, they could have found many spaces where public offices could have been put up without prejudice to the people's enjoyment of their open spaces and parks. I think it is time this House marked its dissatisfaction with the present policy being pursued.
    Sir J. BOYTON: I desire to emphasise what hon. Members have said about St. James's Park, but however well laid their complaint may be with regard to St. James's Park, I think the conditions there are quite outdone by what has been done in Regent's Park. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, or the War Department, but we have had large offices, a post office and an ordnance office, and also a large factory, put up there. I will not describe, for obvious reasons, what kind of factory, but we have two factory shafts set up, and many acres of park land has been given up to buildings of a substantial kind. I have been approached by many of my Constituents to know whether there is going to be any limit. We do not want to quarrel unduly as to the reasons which may have compelled the Government's Departments to use these parks, but we think some limit should be put upon them. We have not many acres for the public use, but one particular green, which I should think is 10 or 12 acres in extent, has been permanently shut off. There has been a huge post office set up, and the whole of the inner circle is a stable for motor lorries. The amenities of the park have been entirely destroyed. That is not the only complaint from my Constituents. There is the peril they feel themselves in from the fact that particular enemy attention may be paid to-the class of buildings that has been set up.

    583
    Considerable alarm is displayed, and while of course we have to put up with discomforts and inconvenience, we should like to feel that other parks were having their turn. Why is Hyde Park so sacred? You wreck Regent's Park and St. James's Park, but except for a few trenches over by Kensington Gardens, you have done nothing in Hyde Park. Give Hyde Park a turn, and take your attention from some of the other places. If you are serving some of us badly, try to serve everybody alike. Do not regard that immediate neighbourhood as a holy of holies, never to be touched or entrenched upon. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that we shall not have our pleasures and delights in Regent's Park and other parks move encroached upon. I do not hear that much has been done in any of the parks south of the Thames. For goodness sake give some other people a turn, and do not visit all the sins upon one particular park and upon my Constituents.
    Sir A. MOND: No one could sympathise more heartily than I do with the complaints made in regard to the condition of the parks. I assure the hon. Member for East Marylebone that I am not responsible for the buildings going up in Regent's Park, but I am quite sure those buildings are of vital importance to the conduct of the War. The hon. Member says, "Why do you not use Hyde Park? "I should have thought he would be grateful that one park had been spared, but as a matter of fact Hyde Park is practically reserved for military purposes, and the military authorities object to any part of Hyde Park being used either for building or cultivation. There has been a question recently about allotments in Hyde Park for a certain number of enthusiasts who wanted to dig and delve and produce food there, but the military authorities most sternly opposed, for military reasons, the details of which it would not be proper for me to disclose. With regard to St. James's Park, I can assure hon. Gentlemen that nobody suffers more than I do from the condition of St. James's Park. As chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation, I had to spoil the view from my own window in order to put up a building urgently required for the Admiralty Headquarters Staff, and I can assure hon. Members that that was not done without
    584
    the utmost reluctance. What speakers do not seem to realise is the importance of proximity to some of the important Government Departments. The reason why buildings are put up in St. James's Park is because the offices there are in close touch with the Government offices in Whitehall. There is a building at Storey's Gate for the Headquarters Staff of the Admiralty, and the Admiralty claim, with a good deal of force, that it is vitally important that this staff should be close to headquarters. Then there is the Shipping Controller. One of the buildings is an annex to his office, and he is connected intimately with the Inter-Allied Maritime Council. On the other hand, there is the War Trade Intelligence Department, which is closely linked to the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe, so far as I can give any undertaking, certainly my Department will at the earliest possible opportunity remove these buildings and restore the park to the beautiful condition in which it was before the War. I know the buildings recently put up give the impression of being put up to last for ever, but that is not the case. As I have explained before, the only reason why the places have gone up with the material that has been used is absolutely the shortage of timber. It was impossible to put up the buildings with any other materials than those used.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Can you give an undertaking that there will be no more such buildings erected in the park?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not think it is quite fair to press me to give an undertaking of that character. Accommodation is not a subject for the Office of Works but for the Cabinet Committee, and, therefore, I do not think it fair to ask me to give an undertaking. I will say this, however, that at the present moment I do not know of any projected further buildings—it is certainly most undesirable that any further part of the park should be occupied with buildings—unless possibly it may become necessary to extend some of the buildings, say on the bed of the lake in St. James's Park, which does not interfere with any part open to the public or where children play. I sympathise most earnestly about these encroachments being made upon open spaces, but hon. Members know as well as I do that owing to the demands of the War and the difficulties of

    585
    providing accommodation we have to take what we are very reluctant to take. With that assurance I hope the hon. Member for Barnstaple will not press his Amendment. One word in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow. He referred to the cultivation which was carried on at my instigation in Bushey and Richmond Parks last year, and he pointed out, as I have stated in my return, that there was a loss at Richmond, although he quite forgot to state that there was a profit at Bushey.
    Mr. WATT: How much?
    Sir A. MOND: There was a net profit of £105. That is not a bad profit. It must be remembered that there was a good deal of land ploughed up last year which did not give any better results. But I did not take up these operations to make money but to provide food, and I would remind hon. Members that any food produced in this country and any tonnage saved is of value during the present time. It reminds me of a story I heard many years ago of an unsuspecting southerner who met a drover in Scotland, driving his beasts to the local market. He asked the price which would be obtained, and then informed the drover that he could get three times the price at Smithfield. The drover looked at him very scornfully, and replied, "And if you had Loch Lomond in Hell it would be worth a guinea a drop."
    Mr. HOGGE: A very old story.
    Sir A. MOND: Yes; but it is very apposite. The hon. Member asked what are we doing this year. When this scheme was first commenced, obviously, I had in my mind at the time the question of how long the food shortage was likely to last. I came to the conclusion that it would last, at any rate, several years. That was one of the reasons that induced me to undertake these operations. Obviously, ploughing up relatively poor land and planting late in the year is a rather dangerous agricultural operation, but it was largely a preparation for future seasons; and having prepared the land last year, I am proceeding now with the operations for this year. I am cultivating in Richmond Park the same acreage, 79 acres. There are 21 acres sown with wheat last October. That is coming up very well. Thirty-three and a half acres will be under oats, 10½ acres under beans, and 9½acres of potatoes. In Bushey Park 27 acres were sown with wheat, 30 acres with oats, 7 acres with beans, and 5 acres of potatoes.
    586
    Reasonable crop conditions did not exist last year; last year was notorious, and if you take the returns of oats last year, not only on new land but on all lands, it was exceedingly bad. With reasonable crop conditions I see no reason why the results this year should not turn out as good as those under any other agricultural operations.
    Mr. WATT: Is this policy being continued?
    Sir A. MOND: Certainly. It is a continuous policy, which was embarked on when there was a food shortage. I think the hon. Member, in endeavouring to make a point, made a very unmerited reflection. The "people carrying out this work are practical agriculturists—people used to farming—and the work is being done in a very workmanlike way. I certainly think we have every reason to hope that we shall recoup some of the loss incurred last year, and certainly add to the food supply of the country.
    Sir H. CRAIK:I am sure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is very satisfactory on the whole. Even if the interference with the amenity of our parks goes much further than it has, I do not think we shall raise the slightest objection. But I wish to take special note of what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the restoration to their former state when the time comes. I say this purposely, because the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the record of his own Department in this respect is not entirely without a stain. Parks are made for the cultivation of grass and trees, and not for buildings, however much may pieces of masonry suit the taste of his Department. Under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the parks suffered rather severely from the erection of rather depressing masonry. I remember about seven years ago, when the new public buildings were being erected in St. James's Park, and there was a considerable slice of the park surrounded by a hoarding, I put a question to the late First Commissioner of Works, now Lord Harcourt, asking him to give a pledge that the trees in that slice of the park would be preserved and the amenity of the park not disturbed. Mr. Harcourt, as he was at that time, gave me a very definite pledge that the trees would be preserved. That went on until the building was nearly completed, when one week

    587
    the whole of these trees disappeared, I asked for an explanation from Mr. Harcourt, and he said the plans of the architect had involved some different arrangement. In place of those trees there has been now substituted one of the things which I, myself, consider the most hideous eyesores in the whole park a piece of grass surrounded by obtrusive, clumsy, balustrades of stone, the most artificial, ugly thing that could be done in a park, and in the place of two broad and very convenient roads leading in two directions with a line of greenery, there has been substituted a hideous avenue, three times too wide for any traffic that ever passes, and inconvenient in the way it emerges upon the street at Storey's Gate. Let the right hon. Gentleman carry out his pledge to us that the parks will be restored at the right time, when the emergency is past, to their pristine simplicity and rusticity, and not be restored on some new-fangled plan according to modern ideas, which seem to me to be as nearly as possible a mixture of Selfridge's shop with the latest monstrosity of a Berlin avenue.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I share the view which has just been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities in regard to the parks. I think the Government are entitled in a time like the present to make certain use of the public parks for emergency buildings. It may be that the multiplicity of Departments has caused the growth of a larger number of buildings than were absolutely necessary, but that, I suppose, is a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman is not quite responsible. The main consideration, I think, is that advanced by my right hon. Friend, namely, that immediately the War is over and these Departments are consigned to oblivion, which all loyal subjects heartily desire, the parks will be restored to their old condition of simplicity and rusticity, as my right hon. Friend has so happily phrased it. I think it is hardly for London people to complain of this. These parks are supplied to London by the whole country. London is the only city in the, country which has parks such as St. James's Park, Hyde Park and Regent's Park, supplied and maintained out of public funds, and I am quite sure that many provincial cities which bear expenditure on account of public parks
    588
    out of the rates would have been quite pleased to allow their parks to be used for public purposes in an emergency like the present, and the experience of some of these cities has proved that when such parks have been used for emergency purposes it has been quite possible to restore them to their old condition. Therefore, I think, the main consideration is that at the earliest possible moment, we should have these parks restored.
    I would like to recall attention to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt), and that is the vagaries of the Office of Works in the matter of land cultivation. My right hon. Friend seemed to me to be rather misled by the analogy of the Scottish story that certain water would be very valuable in a certain place. If his analogy had been perfect, his scheme of land cultivation ought to have been a tremendous success. If the necessity of food in this country was comparable to the scarcity of water in Seoul, then, instead of having £105 profit out of Bushey Park, we should have ten times or a thousand times that amount, and I thank that, in view of the prices last year for cereals, and for other agricultural products, it is rather a remarkable thing that that Department should get such a scanty return, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman cultivated land which he got for nothing with seed he got for nothing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to recount his agricultural exploits next year, will be able to show a more satisfactory balance-sheet.
    There is a different point to which I wish to call my right hon. Friend's attention, and it is a matter which recurs in several places. I notice on page 12 of the Estimates one of the numerous footnotes says:
    "A certain number, averaging about 110, of the park-keepers and labourers employed in the Royal parks are in receipt of pensions from Army or Navy Votes or police Funds, ranging from £6 to £52 per annum. The visual pay of park-keepers in London is 26s., and in the country 25s. a week."
    That is not a very large payment in these days, but this point as to the receipt of pensions is constantly referred to in these footnotes. Why should this be mentioned in the footnote? Is it by way of excuse for the wages that are paid? If this is to explain the meagre remuneration given to Government servants, surely it is a matter against which we in this Committee should protest The Government, I understood,

    589
    were to take up the position of a model employer, and to hold themselves up as an example to all private employers all over the country. I think, if there is one thing which has aroused indignation in the country, it has been the endeavour on the part of private employers to exploit the labour of pensioned men by obtaining them at lower wages because of the pensions they were receiving in return for services rendered to the country. This footnote, if it means anything, simply indicates that this is the policy which the Government is itself pursuing. How can we preach to private employers if the Government are doing exactly the same thing? If it is the case that the footnote is inserted as an explanation of the small wages., then obviously the Government are taking the pension into account for the purpose of reducing the wages of the men in their employ. They are ceasing, therefore, to be model employers. They are holding up a bad and an unpatriotic example to private employers, and I am asking this question now so that the right hon. Gentleman may clear the character of the Government in this matter, for if he is not able to clear the character of the Government he ought at once to put an end to this practice, so that the Government may be able to restore the old example of being a model employer.
    Mr. HOGGE:I am glad my hon. Friend who has just sat down has raised this question, because, curiously enough, I have got it marked myself in the Estimate we are considering. After all, this is an occasion when nobody cares to attend the House of Commons, except those who are interested in spending the money of the nation efficiently. As we are not many present, and there is a great deal of time in which to do it, we can look at these things rather more closely than we otherwise would. I notice two members of the Labour party—one in the House and two outside the House — who may be interested in this question, because we hear a good deal from the Labour party about the remuneration of labour. If hon. Members will look at page 12, they will find, under the heading of "Park-keepers and Gatekeepers," we are spending £8,654, and that the wages vary from 20s. to 32s. a week—that is to say, there is some park-keeper or some gate-keeper who is receiving a wage from the Government of 20s. a week. On present prices that is
    590
    probably not above 10s. a week. If you look at the footnote to which my hon., Friend has just referred, you will. notice, that it says that these men arc in receipt of pensions ranging from £6 to £52 per annum—that is, ranging from an extra 2s. a week to an extra £l per week. So that plainly the remuneration of labour in this case depends, to an extent, in the maximum, of 50 per cent. on the pension of the man, and as my hon. and learned Friend has just pointed put, one thing which the Government is contending for, and certainly which Members of this House are contending for, is that no man's pension shall be exploited. In fact, we have the Ministry of Reconstruction, one of whose main objects, amongst other aims, is to prevent this. The Minister of Reconstruction has definitely given a Government pledge—I do not know when he spoke whether he was pledging the whole of the Government or any considerable part of it—but he definitely said that the Government would take steps to prevent the exploitation of a man's pension in the engagement and remuneration of his labour. Now, here we find my right hon. Friend, who before he joined this Government was a keen Radical, interested in labour questions, representing a large labour constituency in Wales—perhaps, after all, the most important labour constituency in Wales.
    Mr. THOMAS: No!
    Mr. HOGGE: I think so—the industrial capital of Wales. I should like my right hon. Friend to appreciate the situation. I should like to see him going down to Swansea, and explaining on a public plat form, as one of the large employers of labour under this Government, this progressive Government, this "Do-it-Now" Government, that, as a large employer of labour, he is exploiting these men's labour by taking advantage of their pensions to engage them at 20s. a week.
    An HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five shillings!
    Mr. HOGGE: No, it is only in Scotland they get 25s. a week. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Edinburgh Section dealing with the Royal Botanic Garden and the Arboretum he will find that the park keepers get 25s., or 5s. more than those in England, and living is not so expensive in Scotland—so I am told—as it is south of the Tweed. Those representing English constituencies will really, I think,

    591
    have to endeavour to secure the extra 5s. for the men who serve, and I hope serve well, south of the Tweed. If hon. Members will do themselves the justice of examining these figures with assiduity they will find that a female typist, unmarried, gets from 20s. to 26s. per week— that is to say, Is. more than she gets in Government offices in London when, under present conditions, she begins work. It is monstrous, surely, that a Minister like the First Commissioner of Works, who himself is a large employer of labour, who has done so much to ameliorate the conditions of labouring people, and who has done so much to bring capital into friendly relation to labour, should be forced into the position of defending such an extraordinary set of accounts as are printed on page 12. How, for instance, can he defend the payment of 26s. per week to a female typist who is unmarried, or who, if she is married, is probably drawing separation allowance in respect to her husband who is fighting at the front, while a park-keeper, a married man with children, whom he could never otherwise get but by compelling the men, who cannot resist the stress of economic circum-stances, to take a smaller wage because they are in receipt of a pension, gets what I have stated? Unless my right hon. Friend can give us some satisfactory explanation, we shall have to take some drastic steps in connection with this Vote before we can allow it to pass from this Souse. This is just one of those occasions when we are not troubled with the large political questions which have swept through the House during the last week, and when we can address our minds to questions which do matter—the questions of bread and butter of the people who work.
    I should now like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a matter in which I am more personally interested as a representative of one of the divisions of Edinburgh. Page 10 of the Estimates deals with Holyrood Bark. I notice that under col. D the park is still having spent upon it £750 for police and park-keepers, and £l,200 for maintenance and repairs—which are the two considerable items. But Holyrood Park is largely closed. The park has been in possession of the military for a couple of years, and anyhow, so far as I recollect, the public are not given access to that park at all except under very limited conditions. I
    592
    raised the point during the year with my right hon. Friend as to the question of the access to this park, which is one of the great open spaces in Edinburgh, and which is surrounded by some of the moat densely populated parts of Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend promised, and so so far as I understand, kept his promise, that he would make arrangements, in spite of the military restrictions that were placed upon Holyrood Park, that those people who live in the adjacent areas should have access to the park, and that they would at least open two gates from the neighbourhood of Dumbiedykes into Holyrood Park. I should like to be assured that these have been opened, and kept opened; and I should like to know whether what has been done has met the case I put to him, whether that access to the park has been maintained and is to be maintained, and whether he can tell us how soon the park can be restored to its general condition for the use of the public; whether, also, in view of the fact that it is largely under the control of the military, this charge is being put upon, or ought to be put upon, the Office of Works or transferred to the military?
    Mr. LEIF JONES: It is hardly for me to explain the action of the First Commissioner of Works on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, and the remainder of his party—
    Mr. PRINGLE: No!
    Mr. JONES: Well, those with whom he is associated—in regard to the mention of pensions as a footnote. It is due, I think, to the very simple cause that every extra payment made from Government sources to anyone employed in any particular Department must be made in a footnote. I hope, and believe, with my hon. Friend, that the fact that you are at present using pensioned men does not mean that you are taking advantage of their pensions to employ them at a lower rate of wages. I think we are perfectly agreed upon that point. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, when he answers, will be quite explicit on that point. Nothing could be more unfair at the present time than to take advantage of people pensioned and retired who come forward to do public work to cut down the scale of the wages given to them because they happen to be men who have earned their pensions. I rise, however, to ask my right hon. Friend:

    593
    a question with relation to page 11. I refer to two items under the head, "J. Appropriations-in-Aid." Is the Department going to receive a larger sum on account of rent? Last night we had introduced into the House a Bill to present the raising of rents. That Bill was given a Second Reading. I want to know from my right hon. Friend on what grounds he estimates that his Department is to receive from rents, including free bond rents and way leaves, £1,720 in the coming year instead of £l,500, and for grazing rents £900 instead of £700? May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is taking advantage of the public necessities to raise rents?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I seem to be correct that they are explointers!
    Mr. JONES: I want some explanation of these figures. I should like to have the thing in detail. Are these first the rents of houses which are gradually rising? To what is the increase due? The other item is as to grazing rents that are let year after year. I suppose the farmers are putting sheep into the parks? Is this by tender, or what? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain what I desire to know when he rises in view of the admonition addressed last nights to the landlords in various quarters of the House. I do trust that a Government Department has not been guilty of the offence of raising rents at a time of national distress.
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask with regard to Health Insurance, for I cannot reconcile with what appears on page 4 of the Estimates with what appears on page 10, I notice that the figures on page 10, Health Insurance (Employers' Contributions) are distributed this way: Salaries and wages, £15; police and park keepers, £30; maintenance and repairs, £380. What is the necessity for that in this Vote? On page 4 we get Health Insurance (Employers' Contributions), allocated as follows: Salaries, wages, and allowances, £40; police, £10; maintenance and repairs, £10. Does it mean that £380 is being spent of buildings in which that Department is housed? I reserve anything I have to say until I know something more about these unintelligible items.
    Sir A. MOND: The hon. Gentleman is usually very shrewd. As to the items, the £15 comes out of salaries and wages, and £30 out of the salaries to the police and
    594
    park keepers. The £380 relates to the salaries of people employed in maintenance and repairs.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear. What is the meaning of the items coming in here? Have they anything to do with buildings?
    Sir A. MOND: It has not to do with buildings. It is part of expenses and wages. It relates to employers' contributions, and is under the various sub-heads.
    Mr. BOOTH: Nothing to do with accommodation?
    Sir A. MONO: With regard to the question raised by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Jones), I must say that I feel sad that such a champion of the economic direction of public funds desires to get more money out of the public purse.
    Mr. JONES: I hope my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me. I am not going against the Governments' policy last night, neither do I sympathise with the remarks addressed to the landlords. The contrast I am trying to put is between the admonition addressed by the Government to the landlords, and the Government's own action.
    Sir A. MOND: With regard to the increase on rents for grazing lands, these lands are let out mostly by tender, and the tenders are on different bases. No doubt some of the tenders have been higher in the past year than formerly. But in addition to that the amount of land let has varied, because the amount available for grazing has increased. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) and East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) they involve a much more important point. I entirely agree it would be a wrong thing on the part of the Department to take advantage of a man's pension in order to get cheaper labour. I am very sorry the hon. Members did not think it worth while to give me notice that they intended to raise this question, but I would point out that the figures with which the hon. Members made such great play do not tell the whole story. They do not, for instance, include the war bonus, and these men are all receiving a substantial war bonus. Again they do not take into account the fact that the men get their lodgings. I do not want the

    595
    impression to go out that the Government employ any people at a very low and bad rate of wages. They do not do so. The hon. Member drew a comparison between Edinburgh and London, but he forgets the difference in the cost of living at these places. Consequently, the case he makes out must be accepted with qualifications. Still, on the main principle I am in agreement with him, and I shall certainly use my influence to ensure that no men who are in receipt of pensions or may hereafter receive pensions shall suffer in any way by having that pension considered in fixing the remuneration for their employment.
    Mr. WATT: I want to refer for a moment to the raising of rents this year. The Committee must be aware that a grievance exists throughout the country at the raising of rents. The Government are exerting great pressure on owners and tenants of land to break up grass lands, and they say it is their duty as patriotic agriculturists to do that. As a matter of fact those who refuse to break up their grass lands, are now getting an exorbitant rent for grazing lands, and I am bound to say that large landowners throughout the country are guilty of this conduct. It is an extraordinary thing for the Government to set a bad example in this respect, and to be demanding much higher rates for grazing lands while it is bringing pressure to bear on agriculturists throughout the country to do away with grazing land. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department should be guilty of this inconsistency. I repeat that large landowners who refuse to obey the call of the Government to grow food for the people by breaking up their grass land are deriving great financial benefit by reason of their exorbitant charges for grazing, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman's Department should be guilty of similar conduct.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sorry to again press my point. The real question which I wish to raise is as to this item of £15. I can quite understand that the Government as an employer is contributing its proportion of insurance payments. What I want to know is, What is this £15 paid for exactly?
    Sir A. MOND: It is the Government contribution on behalf of its employés.
    Mr. BOOTH: My real point is, Is any part of this payment due to the fact that the
    596
    Government do not pay a sufficient wage to their employés? It is well known that where the wages fall below a certain point the employer's contribution increases, and I want to know if it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that in this case the employer's contribution has increased because the wages are below the standard.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not see how the wages could be below the standard.
    Mr. BOOTH: I mean the standard of the Insurance Act.
    Sir A. MOND: I am pretty certain that that is not the explanation, but I cannot, of course, give a definite answer.
    Amendment negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.— Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[Note: £19,000 has been voted on account.]
    Sir W. ESSEX: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some particulars on a matter connected with this building. I have not given him notice, but I think the facts are so simple and so obvious that I have no doubt he will be able to convey to the House, in response to my inquiry, practically all that is necessary in the way of information. I believe some very properly appreciative Members of this House and the other have got together and have raised, or are raising, a fund wherewith to provide a richly-deserved memorial in this palace to perpetuate the memory of those of our membership who have fallen in the War, or may hereafter be called upon to make the great sacrifice in the discharge of their duty. No one, of course, will charge me with any lack of appreciation either of the Committee or of the very proper object of their labour, but I should like to be reassured with regard to the method that is to be adopted, or has been adopted, on this matter. I may remind hon. Members that this House is one of the few survivals of the Victorian era, of the beauty and glory of which we have reason

    597
    to be proud, and one gets a bit apprehensive lest a most well-meaning Committee may work on the feelings and emotions of my right hon. Friend to the extent of inducing him either to permit an inadequate or inappropriate memorial to be erected, or, whether the memorial be good or bad, to allow it to be erected in a wholly unsuitable position.
    5.0 P.M.
    With regard to the artistic quality of the memorial which it is proposed to erect I am not saying anything, except that I would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he, as the custodian of this building, has taken care to safeguard us by being assured that it will be the best and most artistic memorial as far as present day knowledge and artistic sense is concerned, because if the choice has been made merely by nomination I doubt whether that point will be reached. How it should be reached is another matter. It is one of a broader character, and I do not think I should be entitled to give any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman or the Committee at the moment. Although it is but a small sum it is proposed to expend, on selecting one or two gentlemen and getting them to do the best they can at the moment, working to order under a time limit, I do not think such a plan is always calculated to bring out the best. However that may be, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if he has taken due and proper steps—if he has taken the advice of the great architectural associations on this matter, and whether the great Barrie window at the foot of the stairs in St. Stephen's Hall, looking down the hall, is the proper place to put the memorial. We may all have our views as to which is the proper place, but I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken proper artistic advice and counsel or whether he has left the decision to the foreman of the Office of Works. As far as my own opinion is worth anything, as one of 670 Members, I think the place is unsuitable for the memorial as well as for the splendid window under which it is proposed to put it, and which it will to a certain extent, disfigure, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered that point carefully, and if he has taken advice upon it? I know that his great abilities are very far-reaching. But no one man is equal to forming a decision of this kind, not even the right hon. Gentleman, great as his powers may be and I hope he will
    598
    assure me that he has taken trained advice, and that the glories of this building, even in this matter with so noble an object, are not likely to be sacrificed. Some of us might think, for instance, that the Members' Staircase, which is thronged by all of us year in and year out, and is charged with the memories of many of these good souls, would be a good place. Others think that where the public gather would be a suitable place, but both as to the methods by which the artists are to be chosen for this memorial, which will cost the right hon. Gentleman's Department nothing, and will be made as a gift from Members of Parliament, we want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has exercised proper control, has satisfied himself by the best advice that all the proper steps have been painstakingly taken, and that thereafter he will assure himself by all the advice possible that the position is the best that this building can afford, and that no part of it will suffer in detriment by the addition which a proper gratitude seeks to make.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to one aspect of the matter, and I wish to follow him on that subject. He desires 'the First Commissioner of Works to make some declaration with regard to the site of this proposed memorial, and the character of the actual memorial itself. I wish to ask him something not quite of that nature, but about the memorial. I understand that this memorial is to be provided by private subscriptions, and that it is to contain and to be erected in the names of these who have lost their lives in this War, Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, officials of both Houses, the sons, and, I think, the grandsons, of the Members of the two Houses. Of course, one would hesitate very much before in any way whatsoever saying anything which could be detrimental to this proposal, or in any way to prevent such a very laudable undertaking, but I wish, as a Member of this House, as one who wishes to have a tribute and a mark of respect and admiration erected in this House—I do not mean in the Chamber itself, but in the precincts of the House of Commons—to our own Members who have left here and lost their lives, to urge the First commissioner of Works to have some special Government

    599
    memorial provided out of Government funds entirely separate from this large undertaking which these Gentlemen have pub forward. What I feel is that whatever site is chosen there will be, I am sure, such a terribly long list of names, with the relations of Members of both Houses, that the names of the Members of the House of Commons—and, of course, of the officials of the House of Commons, who have, I believe, a very high percentage of losses—will be really swamped in the general list. I have spoken to several Members about this, and they have agreed with me that the House of Commons—and the House of Lords, no doubt, too—should have provided by the Government—it is a very small matter—some simple memorial in the shape of a brass tablet with the names of the Members and their constituencies recorded thereon. I think it is important that they should be put there with the names of their constituencies, so that in the future when the public are going over the House they shall be able to say, "There was my Member; he went out and fought." I feel that this should be put up—I make the suggestion, and do not know whether it will be accepted—in some such place as the Members' Lobby, somewhere on the wall there, a brass memorial tablet. It should be for our Members. I am sure no one would in any way wish to interfere with the proposal of this Committee, but I think the First Commissioner of Works ought to know that there is a feeling that there should be a special memorial for the Members of the House of Commons and the officials, and that any large memorial set up should not prevent us paying our own tribute to our own Members.
    Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I was one of the three Members selected by the meeting upstairs to consider this matter. The meeting was held some months ago, and subscriptions were invited in both Houses of Parliament. The subscriptions came in very freely indeed, and we have now, I think, over £2,000. The first object of the Sub-committee was to try to see what place in this building was the most suitable. It was a very difficult question, because we thought it important that the position should be such that strangers coming into this House should be able to see it. If that is a limitation, the places where it could be put are very limited indeed, because the entrance down in the Lobby through the Central Hall, and St.
    600
    Stephen's Chapel, are not very much frequented. After a good deal of inquiry it was suggested that underneath the big; window in St. Stephen's Hall would be a suitable place, because everybody coming into this House passes that site. The only objection I have heard to that site was this: The large window nearly at the-top of the Hall makes the position underneath the window rather dark, and if a memorial were put there I think there would have to be a contrivance so that the electric light could be put on in order to light up the memorial when that was required. I think that would be necessary in any case. After that had been done the Committee, not binding anyone, asked three gentlemen to furnish designs for a memorial. The three gentlemen dealt with that, and these designs are now in the Tea Room. I do not wish now to say anything about the choice which has been, submitted. No selection has been made; nobody is bound by anything that we have-done at all. These designs are there, and it is perfectly open to a meeting of Members who have contributed to this memorial to turn them down and ask for other designs to be submitted. Of course, the Committee will recognise that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is finally responsible to this House to see that the artistic beauties of this building are maintained. The position now is that three other members of the Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), have been asked to reconsider the matter both with regard to the selection of a site and also as to what course should be taken regarding the design.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Who asked them to reconsider their choice?
    Sir S. ROBERTS: Perhaps the hon. Member was not present at the meeting of subscribers summoned about a week ago upstairs. That meeting asked these three gentlemen to take that in hand. That is exactly the position, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Essex) and my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Carr-Gomm) nothing has been done to pledge the subscribers or this House in any way. The matter is entirely open still, and I am sure I can give the assurance that nothing will be done without the full sanction and approval of the subscribers and my right hon. Friend.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: I am sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Roberts), and I venture respectfully to urge on the hon. Gentleman and the Sub-committee that before the subscribers to the fund actually settled a site for the memorial they should take the very best professional advice as to where that site should be. It is not merely a question as to where the memorial should be from the point of view of the public or Members of Parliament being able to see it. This is a very beautiful building; we are all very proud of it. It is very important from the artistic point of view that the memorial should be placed on the most artistic site, and, with all respect to the members of the Committee, I venture to say that their opinion on a matter of that kind cannot be so good as the best professional opinion. I therefore trust that they will secure that opinion both as to design and site. I should like to emphasise and endorse the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe (Captain Carr-Gomm) as to the desire which I know exists that there should be a separate memorial to our colleagues who have fallen in the War, and that that memorial should be provided out of public funds. The memorial need only be of the simplest character, but I would rather regret, and I think many other hon. Members would, if the memorial was not only to Members of this House who have made the supreme sacrifice, but was also associated with the sons of Members. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that it was contemplated that the grandsons should be included. We honour all the brave men who have fallen on behalf of their country in this War, but, after all, our colleagues who lost their lives in this War were our friends; we worked with them many of us for many years, and we should like to have in some part of the House of Commons which is peculiarly set aside for Members a memorial which should be as simple as possible to remind us of our friends and colleagues and officials of this House who have fallen in the War on behalf of their country. I do hope the First Commissioner of Works will tell us that that will be considered by the Government, and that quite apart from the more substantial memorial contemplated to Members and their relations who have fallen in the War there will also be a simple memorial provided by Government
    602
    funds to Members and officials of this House who have lost their lives in the War.
    Sir A. MOND: I would like to say a word or two in respect of this question in response to the remarks of my hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Essex). My own position with regard to the question of this memorial is a very simple one. I am sure that all Members of this House desire that the memorial should be erected, that it should be erected in the best place possible, and by the best artists we can procure. I have, as the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir S. Roberts) knows, assisted unofficially in helping to get a design from a very eminent artist, and in discussing this question, but I have always made it clear—and this is the reason why I rise to-day—that, of course, as first Commissioner of Works for the time being, I must reserve my judgment on the memorial and on the site till a scheme is definitely adopted. I do not say this in any autocratic spirit, but because I think it is only right that I should do so. I must confess that my experience of artistic matters in my office shows the widest divergence among the so-called professional experts, but I have no doubt that when general agreement has been reached hon. Members and myself will get the best advice possible. I do not quite agree with the hon. Member when he says it is not so much a matter of importance where the memorial is as its artistic effect, and I do not agree with the suggestion to put a big memorial in the middle of the Central Lobby.
    Sir G. BARING: I only asked the right hon. Gentleman to take the advice of experts.
    Sir A. MOND: Their advice has been sought already, and the Committee and myself will have to decide the point.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: But the right hon. Gentleman will have a veto.
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, I have pointed that out already. With regard to the further memorial suggested out of the public funds, I do not quite understand the purport of it. I understand we are to have one memorial, which is to include Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons and the officers of the House. Is it now suggested that there should be a duplication by a smaller memorial of a very particular character for Members of the House of Commons

    603
    and their relatives? I think there is less reason to ask the taxpayer to provide such a memorial. I do not think 670 Members of the House should ask for public funds to be used for the erection of a memorial to be placed where the public would never see it.
    Mr. HOGGE: The immediate predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman has already put a tablet upstairs to mark the spot where Lord Kitchener addressed Members of this House on the last occasion he was in the House, which is a much more trivial matter than recording the death of hon. Members.
    Mr. L. JONES: What we are asking for would practically cost nothing at all. It is merely the inscription of Members of this House and the officials who have lost their lives in the War. It is not a question of a memorial at all, and it does not really come up for discussion at the same time as a memorial. It is for a different purpose, but I think it is essential that it should be paid for by the House of Commons as a whole and not by private subscriptions. There would be no difficulty in getting money for it privately, but I do not think it is asking too much that the Members of this House who have fought on the battlefields of Europe and died there in the discharge of their duty, and who spent so much of their lives here, and then disappeared should have their names preserved in some part of the building where they would be read by future Members of the House and I think that is something which ought to be paid for out of public funds, small as it may be. At any rate, I think the right hon. Gentleman might keep an open mind on this point.
    Sir A. MOND: The proposal is a new one, and I have not had any opportunity of considering it. I am quite in sympathy with it, and I am ready to keep an open mind and discuss the subject with hon. Members.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I should like to ask a question with regard to the proposed memorial for the Houses of Parliament. There are certain features that even with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are not quite clear. I want to say first of all that we all wish this proposal to be carried out in as worthy a manner as possible. I suppose no subject offers more ground for divergence of view, putting
    604
    aside theology, than the subject of art, and no memorial has ever been designed or erected without causing a division of opinion, not only amongst the critics, but amongst the public. Even in regard to the proposal that a committee in America has made to present this country with a statue of Lincoln, there are differences of opinion in America as to whether either of the statues proposed are worthy of the man to be commemorated. That controversy has been transferred to this country.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. E-Wason): I do not think that is in order on this Vote. There is nothing in the Vote for the proposed memorial.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Am I to understand that the discussion which I have been listening to on this memorial is out of order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes; I think it is out of order, although I was allowing the hon. Member some latitude. I do not think, however, that it is relevant to bring in the question of America, and that is the point on which I ruled.
    Mr. HOGGE: If you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, will look at the Vote you will find that there is an item providing for unforeseen works amounting to £400, and under that there might be a proportion for this memorial and the work necessary for dealing with this statue. That item may contain money taken for this specific purpose, and I submit that we are entitled to raise the point as to how this money should be spent. I submit that it would be in order to raise the point as to whether this money should be spent for that purpose.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think so.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I wish to make a few remarks with regard to the administrative action which the right hon. Gentleman may feel called upon to take during the course of the year for which we are now voting this amount. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in this respect will bear in mind that in any proposal that is submitted he is the temporary guardian of the beauty of this building, and, therefore, I hope that he will avoid any mistake by giving the utmost publicity to whatever is proposed. It would be most regrettable if any scheme were adopted practically in secrecy and before anything is done every hon. Member of

    605
    this House should have the opportunity of knowing what was being proposed, and so should the general public. Before any decision is arrived at the opinions of hon. Members should be ascertained. I trust these remarks are not outside the spirit of your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. We all know the difficulties that have arisen in the past through hasty and ill-considered action.
    Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the administrative acts that were performed by some of his predecessors as illustrating this point. When statues were proposed in the past we at least got the First Commissioner of Works to put a small model of what was proposed in the Tea Room. I remember on the last occasion that a model was placed in the Tea Room, the project did not survive the exhibition of the model. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow that example, and place before the House and the public the very fullest information in detail before asking hon. Members to come to any decision, and if he does I am sure he will not regret having done so. I want to ask one or two questions with regard to Westminster Hall, certainly the most splendid physical possession that remains to this nation. There is a considerable sum of money in this Vote for work upon the repairing of the roof in Westminster Hall. When this proposal was first brought before Parliament an account was given not only of the history of the artistic work that composes the roof, and the steps that were to be taken to make the roof safe without interfering with the existing appearance of the roof as seen from the floor of Westminster Hall. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that some apprehension was felt as to how this work would be carried out.
    I think I took part in the controversy that was raised on that occasion. As I said then, the condition of Westminster Hall and the best way of protecting it was a matter for the experts, and that it was impossible for any lay opinion to be considered in the matter, and I suggest that we should have the considered opinions of experts on the subject. We are entitled to know whether the First Commissioner has found any unexpected difficulties in carrying out the repairs of the roof, and whether the repairs are being carried out in such a way as not to interfere ultimately with the old appearance of the roof before this work was
    606
    undertaken. This is the only occasion that we have of drawing attention to this matter and of being satisfied on these points. I know that to raise points like this seems to be dealing with very trivial matters, but it is not so really, because the roof was one of the special glories of these glorious buildings, and will remain, so long as it endures one of our most precious historical monuments. The Committee, therefore, is entitled to be reassured on this matter. We are having a new roof put on Westminster Hall, but it was on the understanding that it would not mean the destruction of the old roof and that the supports of the new roof would not be visible from below, so that when the repairs were complete the roof would look just as it did before the repairs were undertaken. I want to know if it is possible for that arrangement to be carried out or if any unexpected difficulties have arisen. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us what progress has been made with the work, what kind of difficulties have been met with, and how long he contemplates at the present rate that it will take to complete the work. I shall be very grateful of the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on that point.
    There is another matter of considerable importance upon which I want further information. It relates to item (c) dealing with the maintenance of the approaches to this House and of the gardens. I had the privilege a few years ago of taking some part in a very considerable discussion upon the responsibility of the First Commissioner with regard to the open spaces under his control, including the spaces that are mentioned in this Vote. My hon. Friend sitting opposite (Lieutenant-Commander Dudley Ward) will remember the many occasions upon which we had to cross swords on this matter. I will not say "cross swords," because the hon. Gentleman always showed the utmost desire to meet the views of the Committee. I gratefully remember and acknowledge that fact. As a result of the discussion that took place, the First Commissioner of that day, Lord Beauchamp, gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that no further statue would be placed in any of the public parks or open spaces under his control without the direct assent of Parliament, not an assent given on this Vote, but without Parliament being consulted on any specific proposal. An exception was made at the time with

    607
    regard to the Calais Group which has been erected in Victoria Gardens, but it was specially mentioned that no further addition would be made to the contents of the parks or open spaces under Parliamentary control without the assent of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has been, and will be again in the future, approached with regard to parts of these very pleasant open spaces being devoted to statues. In fact, I think the Lincoln statue is a case in point. I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not under his departmental consideration proposals for the erection of some form of memorial or statue in the open spaces under his control. I want to ask whether the pledge which was given by his predecessor is regarded by him as binding upon himself, and whether he intends to bring any proposal which involves taking any of the public open spaces under his control, either the Royal Parks or these spaces that are referred to in this Vote, without the sanction of the House. This is the only way that we can keep effective Parliamentary control over these most precious open spaces, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will renew the assurance so frequently given by his predecessor in this matter. I am quite sure that in deciding to put the responsibility upon this House, instead of upon his own Department, he will have no cause for regret. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am raising these questions for information and because they are points not only for immediate public interest, but also of permanent public importance, affecting not merely the amenities of the city, but also the health of its inhabitants.
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend a question with reference to the new Tea Room, which, before his time, was set apart and which the Committee refused. Is he satisfied with the present use of those premises? The furniture was of a most extraordinary character. What has become of it? If it is stored, I should think that there would be a very good chance of turning it into money and recouping the taxpayer, at any rate, of some of that extraordinary expenditure. Another question to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention refers to the use of the Victoria Tower Gardens. His predecessor sent a notice to Members that they might use the
    608
    gardens on their way to the House. I have tried once or twice, but the gates seem to be locked. It is a very pretty sight and the view of this building from that side of the river is unique, largely on account of the stateliness of the Victoria Tower. One cannot help regretting that it is not made better use of. If it were open when visitors were being taken through the House and they could get out that way, and so make a tour, it would make good use of it. I am not complaining of the expense. The gardens seem quite neat, and one does not want any ornamentation there. It would not be in keeping. I should be glad, however, if the right hon. Gentleman would say who is in charge of the gates, and how hon. Members can gain access to the gardens?
    Mr. WATT: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. White-house) has so thoroughly dealt with the question of the roof of Westminster Hall that I need only refer to one aspect of it, the financial aspect. I drew attention to this matter last year, and it will be my duty to do so so long as the expenditure goes on. The amount to be spent on the roof this year is to be 50 per cent. more than last year. We are to spend £12,000, whereas last year it was £8,000. Last year I asked what the expenditure altogether was to be, and the right hon. Gentleman told me £50,000. I should like to ask whether that statement still holds good, whether £50,000 is still the maximum expenditure on the roof, and whether, when that amount has been spent, we shall have the roof as it is desired, or whether the high prices that now hold for timber and other things have increased the cost of the whole work. I think the Committee will take the view that it was altogether unwise to enter upon the arrangement that was made whereby no contract was fixed for the repairing of the roof, and whereby the builders have there a permanent job going on year after year, spending the money of the nation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will admit that the financial condition of the country nowadays does not permit of such items being carried out by the Government. I suggested last year, and I suggest now that it is time that this expenditure which commenced before the War and which is continuing and becoming greater, should cease, at any rate during the War. None of us in his private capacity would have such a con-

    609
    tract as this entered upon in times when finances were bright and cheerful, going on now that a serious financial crisis has overtaken us. The right hon. Gentleman's Department still continues to pour out the taxpayers' money in repairing this roof. I know that it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and others that it is one of the sights of the world, and that it should be preserved, but I take a very strong view that at the present time and in our financial position £12,000 should not be Bunk this year, but that these repairs should be wound up, the place being temporarily repaired, and left in that condition until the finances of the country permit of such expenditure. That policy is being carried out as far as possible, and the only exception seems to be the roof of Westminster Hall.
    Sir A. MOND: I think I might conveniently deal first with the question of the roof of Westminster Hall. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has taken a great interest in this matter, and he raises the question whether the repairs ought to be continued or to cease during the War. I can assure him that since I have taken office I have gone most carefully into this question, and I have gone into similar questions where we are dealing with repairs to ancient buildings, with the obvious view of stopping, during the War, any expenditure that can possibly be stopped. I feel as strongly as he does that money should not be spent during a period like this on objects, however worthy, which are not absolutely necessary. But that is not the position in regard to Westminster Hall roof. I have spent several hours on the scaffolding of that roof myself, and if the hon. Member will some day go up, he will realise that it has been purely an accident that the roof has not fallen down long ago, that its condition is extraordinarily unsafe, and that it is most important to get that roof into a condition when you can guarantee its structural safety. The present position is as follows: Four trusses have been completely reinforced and secured. The reinforcement of three other trusses is in hand. Two of the bays between the trusses have been completely reinforced and secured together. The reason why more money is asked this year than last year, and that the work is proceeding, is a very simple one. It is of the utmost importance that the centre three trusses between the two bays should be completed and made secure, so
    610
    that we can get a solid block in the middle of the building in order that we may know, whatever happens, that the roof will be secure.
    You may argue whether or not it is worth while to maintain the greatest architectural feature in Great Britain. I have no doubt that the roof of Westminster Hall is one of the most wonderful architectural features in the world. The method of repairing that has been adopted is of such ingenuity and skill that I feel sure, from what I have seen of what has already been done, when it is finished hon. Members will wonder where the money has gone. My hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) apparently prefers that the work should be carried out in such a way that the roof would be spoiled, but that we should be able to see where the money has gone. I believe that the work we are doing will achieve the object of allowing us to have the roof in its pristine beauty. That is what we are going to obtain. From the point of view of economy, I believe it would be of advantage to get this work proceeded with even more rapidly than we can do. We have reduced the work to an absolute minimum, and more delay would add to the expense. When my hon. Friend objects to the form of the contract, may I point out that I object as he does, in ordinary business circumstances, to a contract which is not a lump sum contract, but where you are dealing with a building where no one in advance can say in what condition any part of the timber will or what will be required to be done, it is absolutely impossible for any contractor in the world to give you a contract to do the thing on a lump sum. You have to do it on a schedule basis. The House having voted—I am very glad it did so—to have the roof repaired, and also having voted that the scheme which was being carried out should be adopted, it seems a little unreasonable for hon. Members on the Estimates to go on raising a question which has already been settled. I undertake to say, after a careful study of the structure myself, that the work must go on if the work already done is not to be wasted and the roof is not to be allowed to fall down. That being the case, it is no good criticising either the principle or the method adopted. The only thing to do is to carry it out in as reasonable a way as possible in view of the present war conditions. The hon. Member for Mid-

    611
    Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) raised a question about statues. He is one of those Gentlemen who dislike statues. He is anxious to have no more of any kind ever erected in London. I do not quite share his view. The question is whether they are good or bad statues.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It is the Office of Works standard of statue about which I feel some apprehension.
    Sir A. MOND: The Office of Works have never been allowed to express much opinion on the statues. All they have had to do has been to find sites for statues which other people have given to them.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: They have not been hard-hearted enough.
    Sir A. MOND: It is very difficult to look a gift-horse in the mouth. With statues it is even more difficult. The hon. Member asked for an undertaking far exceeding any undertaking ever given by any First Commissioner of Works. I have here an answer given in reply to a question asked in 1912. The then First Commissioner, through the mouth of a Lord of the Treasury, said:
    "The First Commissioner is quite ready to grant that he will oppose any scheme which is brought before him for the erection of any statue in any Royal park."
    There is not a word there about any open spaces.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman will find that that is not the only answer given in this connection. If his hon. Friend and colleague will assist him a little further, he will be able to produce an answer which made reference, not only to the parks, but by implication at least, to the Victoria Tower Gardens, because it referred expressly to the question of the erection of the Calais group.
    Sir A. MOND: That is not a limitation of any open space. If the hon. Gentleman invites me to say I will not put any statue in any open space, I am not going to give such an undertaking.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Without the assent of Parliament, I suggest.
    Sir A. MOND: I do not see how any First Commissioner is to get the assent of Parliament except by a discussion on the Estimates. I know of no procedure by which I could get the assent of this
    612
    House except by asking Parliament to take a vote, when Amendments might be moved on the relative merits of the statue.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It was done in connection with the Grille.
    Sir A. MOND: In that case I had to move a Supplementary Estimate. Does the hon. Member suggest that every time there is a question of a statue being erected the Government should put forward a Supplementary Estimate? I should be very glad to get the hon. Member's assent. I think I might carry it as far as that, but I cannot undertake to give any binding pledge of the character he suggests.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The previous pledge is binding.
    Sir A. MOND: It is not binding on me. The answer said that the First Commissioner could not pledge his successor. I have never heard of any Minister who could pledge his successor. The hon. Member also referred to the question of the Memorial. We have already had a long discussion on that subject, and all I would say about it is that I hope the general sense of the House will be obtained, and I should like it to be obtained before I express any opinion on the scheme at all.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman answered my question as to the appearance of the roof of Westminster Hall when the restoration has been carried out. Is he now satisfied, as his predecessor said he hoped would be the case, that the old appearance of the roof will not be interfered with?
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly. I said, so far as I could see from the work which has been completed, that the old appearance of the roof would not be interfered with.
    Mr. BOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my two questions about the abandoned tea-room in Victoria Tower Gardens?
    Sir A. MOND: What the hon. Member calls the abandoned tea-room is turned to a very good use in providing additional accommodation for Members. The furniture is being used there and in other places to decided advantage. With regard to the Victoria Tower Gardens, I

    613
    will have that question inquired into, but I cannot give the hon. Member an answer now.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £24,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous legal buildings."—[NOTE: £24,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. WATT: I see that part of this expenditure is incurred in Scotland and on the sheriffs' court-houses there. That item is £330. I should like to know what particular part of Scotland the new erections have been made of Sheriffs' Courts. The larger item of £10,500 is for the maintenance of court-houses. I am sorry there is no Member of the Ministry representing Scotland here, because the right hon. Gentleman will not be aware of the local points I propose to put. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, knows that the Sheriffs' Courts have now very little to do in Scotland. There is a movement on foot that, instead of having a Court for each of the present existing sheriffdoms, the sheriffs should be fewer in number and that their jurisdiction should be conjoined. It would follow upon that that some of the sheriffs' court-houses, which are maintained out of this item, would be closed during the War, at any rate, and that the administration of justice should be in fewer hands and, therefore, fewer Sheriffs' Courts would be required. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman and his Department have considered the advisability of having fewer sheriffs' courthouses and so reducing national expenditure in that respect. There is a very large call for economy of every kind throughout the country. Certainly there is a large call for the saving of money on the administration of justice, for the simple reason that litigation in Scotland and elsewhere is very much reduced at the present time. There is absolutely no necessity for the maintenance of so many judges or so many sheriffs or so many Sheriffs' Courts. The right hon. Gentleman will find it quite possible to save money on the sheriffdoms of Scotland, and to close the Courts.
    Sir A. MOND: With regard to the first item, there are no new erections; therefore the question the hon. Member asks me does not arise. As regards the second part, my Department has no jurisdiction whatever over the number of sheriffs' court-houses. That is a question for the Secretary of State for Scotland. All we have to do is to maintain and repair such sheriffs' court-houses as the legal authorities in Scotland consider to be necessary for the administration of justice in that country.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: Surely the excuse offered by my right hon. Friend is not sufficient. He has surrounded himself with at least two members of the Government whose duty it is to see that Ministers are in their places, and when so eminent an authority as my hon. and learned Friend on questions of law in Scotland makes the speech which he has just made, which I regret not having heard myself, but in which, from previous knowledge of similar speeches which he has made, I am certain he covered the ground in a way which must have appealed to my right hon. Friend, though he admits he knows nothing about it, I should have thought, having heard that speech, his first duty was to send for the Secretary of State for Scotland in order to give some information about this large number of sheriffs' court-houses. There is nothing in the Estimate with regard to the maintenance of those houses, and something ought to appear in regard to them. It only amounts to £680, and all of it is put down for urgent and unforeseen work. I imagine what my hon. and learned Friend is afraid of is that some of the money will be used to create another sheriff-house in Scotland and thereby find accommodation for another sheriff, which would worry him considerably. I really think that on the Report stage my right hon. Friend ought to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present, especially as my hon. and learned Friend is going to take part in the discussion.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the

    615
    year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[NOTE: £25,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to put a a question with regard to the British Museum, some portion of the expenses of which is taken on this Vote. I want to ask whether the decision to close the Museum was one to which the right hon. Gentleman had to give his assent, and whether it is within his power department-ally to suggest to the War Cabinet that it should be reopened? When it was decided to close it, it was decided mainly, I think, as part of a general scheme of war economy, but I do not think anyone will wish to challenge the statement that if it had been realised that it meant closing the Museum for three or four years no one would have assented to this small economy being effected at such a heavy educational loss. The longer the British Museum remains closed the greater the educational loss to this country, and it becomes a matter of increasing urgency that it should be reopened. I want to take this, the only opportunity that arises during the year, to ask the First Commissioner what his attitude is towards the reopening of the British Museum? Public sentiment was outraged not long ago by the proposal to use it for one of the great combatant Departments. I want to ask him whether, now that that proposal is defeated, he will suggest, as the Minister responsible to the War Cabinet, in the highest permanent educational interests of the country, that the British Museum should be reopened.
    Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member must be aware that the decision of the Cabinet to close the British Museum was taken long before I took office. He asked me whether I was consulted in the matter. Obviously not. The question of the reopening is an entirely different matter. No one shares more thoroughly the appreciation of museums and their educational value. No one regrets more than I do, for many reasons, that these museums are not available both to the people of this country and to those who come from overseas, many of whom have been deprived of the only opportunity of seeing some of our greatest art possessions. But most Members will, I think, realise that there are reasons why it would be very unwise—in fact, almost impossible—to reopen the British Museum at present; and as far as I am concerned, although my advice has
    616
    nothing to do with the matter, which is one for the trustees of the British Museum and the Cabinet—I am not responsible except for the maintenance of the fabric—certainly I should not give any advice which would lead to the reopening of the Museum at present.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have not the same concern for the reopening of the British Museum as my hon. Friend; in fact, I do not mind confessing that I have never been in the British Museum in my life, which shows that one can get on without the British Museum just as one can get on without other public buildings. I do not see the necessity, particularly in time of war, for the reopening of any building of that nature which is shut up. It is far better to keep them shut and reopen them when we have the peace celebrations. But I got up to ask about this reference to the money provided for the Royal Scottish Museum. It is in italics, and I am not quite sure what it means, but as it is Scottish money I am rather anxious to know. Does it mean that this sum of £3,500, which was voted in 1917–18, is not being spent, but is being held up because some of the works are not in operation? If not, what is the precise reason, and what is being done with the money? I understand from observation that several of the buildings in Edinburgh connected with the museum have been stopped, but if my right hon. Friend can tell us whether, stopped or not stopped, this money is still available when the proper moment comes for the purpose, and will not go back to the Treasury to be absorbed, I should be glad.
    Sir A. MOND: The money is not available because it has been spent and the works have been completed.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.— Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."—[Note: £16,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not know anything at all about this, but that is all the more reason why I should make some remarks upon it. The way we spend money in an afternoon on the Estimates is extraordinary. This relates apparently to new works, alterations, additions, and purchases in connection with some Consular buildings. I understand the whole of the Consular Service is being reconstructed. We have created a new Department of State to associate the Foreign Office with the Board of Trade in providing a new Consular Service, and here we have required for 1918–19 another £4,400 for some Consulate in China, Japan, Korea, or wherever the place is. That brings the total expenditure up to the present moment to £10,400, and the original Estimate was £11,400. All these things have a marvellous habit of creeping up as we get fresh Estimates. I suppose next year we shall have another Vote for £11,400 put down, and a probable expenditure up to March, 1919. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether this additional £4,400 to be spent at this Consulate brings the buildings up to the original Estimate, or within £l 000 of the original Estimate, or whether more money will be required? I notice some new works are proposed. They are going to spend £150 in 1918 in providing a bathroom at some other unpronounceable place, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to waste on a bathroom. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell us what kind of bathroom it is: whether it is to be replete with all the modern comforts of a bathroom, and whether he could not get a bath much cheaper? I believe you can buy a bath for a matter of £10. There is another £2,500 for a new Consulate at Harbin. Is that an entirely new one or is it to be in place of one which already exists? Assuming that it is a new building, can my right hon. Friend guarantee that the Bolsheviks, who are now in authority in this district, will not prevent the building being erected, and that the money we have already given to Russia will not be further augmented by this sum, of which they may take possession in the materials which are provided? There are other items in the Vote, but I know nothing at all about them, and only made this speech in order to get some explanation, because on principle we ought not to agree to the passing of such votes of money without some explanation.
    Mr. WATT: This Vote consists of two parts, works in progress and works in contemplation. As to works in progress, it is impossible to stop them, and the first part of the Vote should be granted without further inquiry. I rise to ask about proposed new works, and particularly this new consulate at Harbin. I get back to what I said on the last Vote. Is this time a fitting occasion for erecting buildings such as these new Consulates in new districts at such expense? Are the finances of the country not in such a condition that we ought not to dream of putting up expensive Consulates in any part of the world? We ought to withhold such expenditure entirely and cease to enter into such commitments. My right hon. Friend had some sympathy with my sentiments in that direction in speaking of the roof on the last Vote, namely, that nothing should be done whereby the money of the country will be expended on unnecessary works owing to our financial position. The right hon. Gentleman had sympathy with that view. He has snow an opportunity of carrying into practice his general principle. Is it absolutely necessary to put up a Consulate at this place, and is it necessary to spend this sum of money on it, in view of the present financial condition of the country?
    Question put, and agreed to.

    REVENUE BUILDINGS.—Class I.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £304,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."—[NOTE: £185,000 has been voted on account.]

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE AND INSURANCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.—Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £151,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain."—[Note: £220,000 has been voted on account.]
    Mr. SHERWELL: This Vote stands in a somewhat different category from those which we have been discussing. The discussion of this Vote cannot be entered into apart from some knowledge on the part of the committee of administrative policy for which these Employment Exchanges are required. It is a most unfortunate fact in our procedure that we have to discuss to-day a Vote for buildings needed by a particular Department before we have been in a position of having had placed before us the Estimates of the Department itself. What I have to say must depend upon the explanation of this Vote or the administrative policy associated with it with which we may be favoured by the Minister of Labour. I do not at this stage intend to occupy the time of the Committee, but I do press that this particular Estimate should not be put to the Vote until we have had what we have not yet had from the Minister of Labour—some exposition of the important administrative policy connected with the Employment Exchanges for which these buildings are required. I surmise that these buildings are being provided with some regard to post-war reconstruction policy, and inasmuch as the Labour Exchanges and similar agencies must play a very important part in the work of reconstruction, I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation of that policy from the Minister of Labour.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Roberts): I had not anticipated that this matter would be raised, because this is not the occasion for an explanation of Departmental policy. We are simply dealing with sums coming under the purview of the Office of Works. I can appreciate the point raised, and perhaps it would have been better if the Departmental Estimates could have been taken before these Estimates of the Office of Works, but that is a matter for which I am not responsible. I can only assure my hon. Friend that, as far as I am concerned and those associated with me in the Department, we would be very glad to have the opportunity of explaining our policy in regard to this matter. It is quite true that some of the expenditure contemplated under this Vote arises out of our plans for demobilisation and reconstruction. Nevertheless, those plans are regarded in the light of permanent necessities of the Employment Exchange system. It is impossible for me to go at length
    620
    into this question now, though I would have been very delighted to have done so, but, as I have said, it is not my duty to arrange the business of the House. On some suitable occasion I shall be very glad to explain our policy.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The situation which arises out of the statement of the Minister of Labour is really a very serious one This Committee is asked to vote for buildings for particular purposes a very considerable sum of public money without knowing for what purpose these buildings are to be used, or at least what policy is to be carried out in the administration of those buildings. It is quite conceivable—and anyone who has had experience of this question may easily believe it to be possible—that a policy in reference to Labour Exchanges may be embarked upon which this Committee may at a subsequent occasion decide was at least out of question. Yet this afternoon we are asked to vote a large sum of money for buildings, and if we do so we may find on a later occasion that the policy is adumbrated with which this Committee may not agree. In that event we shall be in the position of having authorised the creation of a large number of costly buildings which would have to be scrapped. We have already had experience in reference to other Departments of large sums of money having been expended during the War upon the erection of buildings, with the result that those buildings have been scrapped immediately afterwards, because they were either not suitable for the purpose for which they were built or the policy of the Department itself had changed. I think it is extremely reprehensible on the part of those entrusted with the arrangement of Government business that this Committee should be asked to consider a Vote of this kind in complete ignorance of the policy which is associated with it. I am not sure that I am not in order, but I would earnestly desire to suggest that the sanction of this Vote should be postponed. At any rate, I think it will be our duty to challenge it on the Report stage, unless before we give official sanction to the expenditure we have some detailed knowledge of the policy which is to be associated with these buildings. The question of the Employment Exchanges is one in which many Members of this House, myself amongst the number, have taken very considerable interest. There are at least two schools of thought, or

    621
    two attitudes of mind, in regard to Labour Exchanges. I am not disposed to question the policy which my right hon. Friend has in view, because on labour matters of this bind I am inclined to trust to his guidance. I am not sure that I might differ from my right hon. Friend in the policy so disclosed, bat as a Member of the House of Commons I am indisposed to put the cart before the horse and give a vote for expenditure of a very large sum of money before knowing the policy for which the buildings are to be used. I do press upon the Government the necessity for some delay before they ask for the expenditure of this money, and that they should give us some idea of the policy which they have in view.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I agree with the hon. Member in the appeal that there will not be this large expenditure for Employment Exchanges which is foreshadowed in the Vote. We know that at least one right hon. Gentleman who has had control of this Department was in favour of reducing the number of Exchanges, and anyone who has gone into the expenditure of these Exchanges will be satisfied that very few of them give us value for the money expended on them. We find that in some places where buildings have been erected or extended very recently that that building is not satisfactory now, and the site in some instances will be thrown on the hands of the Government and a new site required. In the town in which I live we have had very recently a move from one Exchange to another, and a building taken specially for the women's department of the Employment Exchanges, and now we find that this is the place where they propose to erect a new Labour Exchange. Another point to be considered is that at the present time, with the cost of building materials so high and labour so scarce, every Government Department ought to do all it possibly can to reduce expenditure upon buildings. If you took a plebiscite of the organised Skilled workers in this country, there would be a majority of at least 95 per cent. voting in favour of abolishing the Labour Exchanges. The Labour Ministry over which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Roberts) presides is becoming one of the most extravagant Departments in connection with the Government. For instance, an hotel has been obtained or taken in London for the purpose of establishing a Labour Exchange for one branch of industry at a rent of £1,500 or £l,600 a year. That is
    622
    for rent only, without the cost of the staff and the other expenditure in connection with the Exchange. I would like to know from the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department has any control over the erection of these buildings, or whether, if the head of a Department gets the sanction of the Treasury to the expenditure of money upon buildings, the Office of Works is compelled to go on with the work? I certainly think that the opinion of the Office of Works ought to be taken in connection with the erection of buildings for any Government Department. The Office of Works manage their Department extremely well, and I would like to see them with more power put into their hands. If the Department concerned cannot see its way to economise, the House of Commons ought to see that the power to expend money extravagantly is taken out of its hands.
    Sir A. MOND: The position of the Office of Works in this matter, as in many others, is rather an anomaly. The Office of Works has no decision as to policy but only a decision as to execution. Of course, it is possible for the Office of Works to point out certain things in regard to plans, locality, or alteration, or to make suggestions where it thinks certain recommendations are extravagant or unnecessary, and to negotiate with the Department making the proposal. That is done. On this question of the Labour Exchanges, I have had more than one joint conference with the Department of Labour and the Treasury, and it is only right to say that the programme originally put forward was very much larger, and, owing to the difficulty due to the War conditions as to building, it has been very much reduced. Since the War started it must be remembered that the House passed, among other things, an Act enormously increasing the number of people insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. All this work has to be done under the Labour Exchanges, and a number of other things have been put on them, with the result that the accommodation required by the Labour Exchanges is largely increased.
    Mr. WILSON: The greater number of these people will disappear when the War is over.
    Sir A. MOND: But accommodation will be required. I only want to point out that we have been consulted, and the matter has received a good deal of consideration

    623
    by all the parties concerned. I will ask my hon. Friend not to press opposition to this Vote. A good deal of the work is very urgent, and ought to be carried out as speedily as possible. Reference has been made to one question on which I can express no opinion. I have no doubt that a more suitable occasion for discussing the question will arise, and that my hon. Friend will make a strong case from his point of view. Meantime I hope the Committee will allow the Vote to pass.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.— Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £138,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."—[NOTE: £637,000 has been voted on account.]
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Under subhead (a), New Works, Alterations, Additions and Purchases, there is a sum of £110,000 as against £15,000 for last year for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what this sum includes. It is impossible to believe that the cost of the whole of the new Government buildings last year only amounted to £15,000. At the beginning of the year there was great pressure brought in the public Press and in other ways with regard to this matter. The Government solved the matter in the usual manner by appointing a Committee, the Accommodation Committee. Then there is, of course, the Expenditure Committee, which, I presume, has inquired into this expenditure. Then there is a Special Committee presided over by a distinguished Civil servant, Sir John Bradbury, to inquire into the question of staffing by the Government. One reason for the provision of a great number of Government buildings was the necessity for housing the enormous staff which Government Departments had acquired. I have endeavoured by questions to induce the Government to see the necessity for having some result out of all this.
    Sir A. MOND: On a point of Order. I submit that the Vote under discussion has no connection whatever with the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: I wish to ask whether we can have a statement with regard to the method of procedure in selecting the new Government buildings which are taken from time to time by means of commandeering, or else by the erection of temporary buildings. There is in this Vote a sum put down for new buildings and alterations, etc. It is the method which the Government has appointed for meeting the charges brought by the general public against the Government of very largely increasing the cost of public buildings. I wish to ask whether we can have some statement as to what has happened.
    Sir A. MOND: On the point of Order. There is no amount in this Estimate or in any Estimate as to the question which the hon. and gallant Member mentions.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand what the hon. and gallant Member is saying is that he doubts the wisdom of the policy of making these alterations and additions, purchases, and new works, in. view of the Government needs. That comes under "A," and, as far as I heard it, what he has said seems to be quite relevant.
    Sir A. MOND: These alterations and additions have nothing to do with the question of accommodation, as you will see if you look at page 31, first sub-head. They refer to the erection of a research laboratory for gas fuel.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that the only opportunity which we had for discussing these things was the right hon. Gentleman's salary which was rushed through when nobody was listening at the beginning of the sitting.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member now in possession was making remarks as to the details set out on page 31.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: I was not aware that the salary of the right hon. Gentleman had been rushed through at the beginning, or I certainly would have raised these points. As it is, I shall endeavour to get some information about these buildings—the new County Hall, in addition to buildings for Munitions, Air

    625
    Board, and Ministry of Propaganda—by means of questions, which are the only moans now left.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
    Mr. SPEAKER: A Commission has been ordered for to-night. There may possibly be a Message from the Lords announcing Amendments made by them to the Military Service Bill. I propose to leave the Chair now, and, as soon as the Message arrives, I shall have the bells rung so that hon. Members may know.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Assuming that any Amendments have been made in the Military Service Bill in another place, shall we have an opportunity of discussing those Amendments?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes. The reason I suggest that the bells should be rung is that hon. Members may have an opportunity of coming into the House, and then we shall hear whether there are any Amendments or not. If there are no Amendments, then there will, possibly, be the Commission.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If any Amendment of substance arises, will it be in your discretion to consider whether it should be taken then or at what time it should be taken?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Order which was passed at the commencement of business to-day evidently contemplates taking Amendments to the Military Service Bill before Eleven o'clock.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There are alternative Motions, the first of which is that Amendments may be entered upon. Another, standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that this House do sit to-morrow, and the alternative Order is, in view of the possibility which I have suggested, that if there are Amendments of substance proposed by the Lords the House may have an opportunity of considering them, but that if they are verbal Amendments then they would be taken before the Commission, as you have just suggested.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that it would be better to wait and see what Amendments come from the other House. Then, if the Amendments are so serious that the
    626
    House is not prepared to consider them at once, the Motion to sit to-morrow will be taken, and the House will probably adjourn until to-morrow.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Would it be possible now, on the suggestion that you do leave the Chair temporarily, to raise any questions that may normally be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that would be a rather unusual procedure. We must wait until the end, when the Question must be put "That this House do now adjourn."
    Sir W. ESSEX: I am afraid that I have not made my point quite clear. You have suggested that you do now temporarily leave the Chair. Is it open to me on that to raise a question for discussion?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No; because I do not put any question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If the Noble Lord would move the Adjournment it would enable me to make a statement with regard to the subject which I gave notice I would raise on the Motion for Adjournment to-night, and the Motion could then be withdrawn.
    Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."
    Mr. PRINGLE: At Question Time, Sir, I put a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the resignation of Major-General Trenchard from his position in the Air Ministry, and owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which I then received I intimated that I would raise the question upon the Adjournment. The Leader of the House then intimated that he could not be present, that he would not be present, and on that intimation I desire to pass no observations at the present time. I gather, however, that the Leader of the House has since been informed that the Secretary to the Air Ministry will not be here this evening to reply to me. In these circumstances, the Leader of the House would have to come and take part in the Adjournment Debate. He himself has requested me, owing to his position in the mailer, that I should not pursue this on the Adjournment this evening. He has pointed out to me that he himself is not fully conversant with the facts of Major-General Trenchard's resignation, and that consequently any reply he could make would not be satisfactory. He

    627
    has further represented to me that in his view it would be more satisfactory, if there is to be a discussion, that it should be of more extended import, and is willing, if it should be the general desire, that a whole day should be given to the discussion of this subject. In view of these facts, in view of the position of the Leader of the House on this question, and in view of the promise, under the condition he has mentioned, I do not intend to raise the question now.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sitting suspended at Twelve minutes before Seven o'clock.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Nine Minutes before Eight o'clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Military Service Bill, with Amendments.

  MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."
  Mr. PRINGLE: On that Motion I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Home Secretary would make a statement as to the proceedings in another place. I understand that the majority of the Amendments are not material, and such a statement would enable the House to select the particular Amendments upon which any question might arise for discussion.
  Sir G. CAVE: I willingly respond to that appeal. In my view all the Amendments are drafting Amendments, intended to make clear points which otherwise might not be clear. There is one exception, and that is the new Clause—or it may be a new Sub-section—relating to the Volunteer Force, and perhaps it would be as well for me to defer any explanation on that matter until the Clause or Sub-section is reached.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power by Order in Council to Apply Act to Ireland.)
    His Majesty may by Order in Council extend this Act to Ireland, and this Act if so extended shall, subject to much modifications and adaptations as may be made by the Order for the purpose of making it applicable to Ireland, have effect accordingly.
    An Order in Council under this Section may, as respects the civil Court before which proceedings in respect of any offence punishable on summary conviction under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, the Army Act, the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, or this Act, or any Orders or Regulations made there under, are to be brought in Ireland—

    (a) make special provision with respect to the constitution of the Court; or

    (b) assign any such proceedings to such civil Court or Courts as may be specified in the Order.

    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "Act, 1882" ["Reserve Forces Act, 1882"], and insert instead thereof the words "Acts, 1882 to 1907."—Agreed to.
    In paragraph (a), leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "and."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power by Proclamation to Withdraw Certificates of Exemption in Case of National Emergency.)
    (1) His Majesty may, by Proclamation declaring that a national emergency has arisen, direct that any certificates of exemption, other than those granted under paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1916, granted or renewed to any class or body of men specified in the Proclamation, or to men of any class or description so specified shall, as from the date specified in the Proclamation, cease to have effect, and all certificates to which the Proclamation applies shall as from that date cease to be in force. Sub-section (5) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1918, shall apply to a Proclamation under this Section in the same manner as it applies to an Order made under that Section.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "those granted under paragraphs (c) and," and insert instead thereof the words "certificates expressed to be granted or renewed on the ground specified in paragraph (c) or on the ground specified in paragraph."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir G. Care.]
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Will the Home Secretary kindly explain the effect of this alteration? Is it merely a draft Amendment?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is, I think, a drafting Amendment. This is the Clause which enables certificates to be withdrawn by Order in Council, and the House inserted words to except the certificates granted under paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section (2) of the Act of 1916. It was pointed out that where a certificate of exemption was granted on two grounds, for instance, on the ground of occupation and also on the ground of ill-health, an awkward position might arise. It might be that the certificate was granted mainly on the first ground, the other being only thrown in. In such a case the man ought to have his exemption cancelled, and to meet cases of that kind, which are very difficult to deal with, the other House has inserted this Amendment.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Suppose there are exemptions which are granted both on occupation grounds and on the ground of conscientious objection, and then this Proclamation of cancellation is issued. The intention of this House when it put in these words was that that man should be exempted quâ conscientious objector, and I am not quite sure what will be the effect of the Amendment made by the House of Lords, and whether this man may not have his exemption repealed altogether. Is that intended, and, if so, is it right?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to these questions is in the affirmative. Perhaps I may state what the Amendment was intended to do. There may be cases where the certificate was granted on two grounds—grounds of occupation or business and grounds of ill-health. Both may appear in the certificate, yet it may be quite well known that the exemption on the ground of ill-health was a mere subsidiary reason, the real reason being the occupation or business ground. Health alone would not have been a sufficient ground for the exemption. It is difficult to distinguish these cases in an Act of Parliament, but the object is that both grounds shall be considered. It is quite understood that where a man has a claim for exemption for health or conscience, he shall have an opportunity of bringing his case forward. As regards health, of course the medical examination will dispose of any question. As regards conscientious objections, where that is a second ground for exemption, I quite agree that alone may be an adequate ground. I spoke to the Minister for National Service on that point
    630
    this morning, and he agreed that provision must be made in the Proclamation so that in a case of that kind the conscientious objections can be brought up.
    Mr. SAMUEL: You cannot, under Subsection (2) of this Clause.
    Sir G. CAVE: You can if the words in the Sub-section are utilised, "except so far as the Proclamation provides for making application for such exemption."
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The matter is one of some importance, because the Proclamation largely proceeds on the assumption, which may be well-founded or ill-founded, that that second ground may be seized upon in the renewal of the certificate as the major consideration in the original grant of the certificate of exemption. It is provided that the Proclamation shall give full security to an applicant of that kind. It is a little unfortunate we have not the nature of that security under our consideration at the present moment, and whether that security will be adequate or not and the precise form it may take are quite conjectural matters. I do suggest that the decision, or rather the assumption, as to which was the major consideration when the original certificate of exemption was granted should not lie wholly or absolutely with the authorities, but should be one which provides proper security for the person concerned.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have followed the discussion with some perplexity. The drafting is vaguely expressed, in terms that are not clear to the lay mind. As far as I understand the point, it is one of very real substance indeed. When it was under discussion in the House previously it was the deliberate decision of the House that certificates granted under paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) relating respectively to conscientious objection and to medical grounds, should not be certificates which could be cancelled by the Minister of National Service under that Clause. What I want to know is whether power is now being taken under the guise of this Amendment to cancel any of the certificates granted on the ground of paragraph (c) and of paragraph (d), and, if not, why the Amendment is necessary at all. May I remind the Home Secretary that when any certificate is granted by the tribunal under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) the ground is stated on the certificate. It is

    631
    granted for one of the reasons under one of those two paragraphs, or under both of them?
    Sir G. CAVE: And others.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes, and others; but will the Home Secretary tell me whether the Bill as amended by the Amendment which is now moved will give power to revoke certificates granted either on the ground of conscientious objection or medical grounds?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, if there is another ground—business, occupation, or something of that kind. A certificate might under this Amendment be revoked, but I have stated that the Proclamation shall reserve to the conscientious objector—when that is one of the grounds of exemption—the right to renew his application.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. It does really prove the point I make. It was the feeling of the House—and when we have a small House present to receive an Amendment from another place I think it is only reasonable to remind the House of what was the general assent expressed on the original proposal—that certificates granted on grounds of conscientious objection or on medical grounds should not be subject to this Clause 3, that the Minister for National Service should not have the power to issue any Proclamation dealing with certificates granted on those grounds. We are now being asked to go behind the deliberate decision of the House of Commons, and I think it is quite unfair and quite improper for the Government to take an Amendment of substance in a small House without any notice having been given. That is why I oppose this alteration, because I think it is a reversal of the deliberate decision of the House of Commons.
    Sir H. NIELD: I disagree entirely with the observations of the last speaker. So far from it being a matter of substance, I think I may say that I would almost give the Home Secretary a guinea for every certificate he could show me which was granted partly on the ground of business and partly on the ground of conscientious objection, or partly on the ground of health and partly on the ground of business. The health is settled by the grading, and no man gets exemption on the ground
    632
    of business coupled with that of health. If the grading is very low he is useless for military purposes, and he probably gets his exemption entirely on that footing. So far as conscientious objection is concerned, I do not think you will find that a certificate given on the ground of conscience is ever coupled with any other ground of exemption at all. It is regarded as the one thing which exonerates either wholly or with a provision for non-combatant service, and is given wholly and solely on that grounds. I think, therefore, that, far from being a matter of substance, this only really has substance in the imagination of the hon. Gentleman. There may be such a thing in other districts. I can only speak for a large and populous county which has done a great deal of this work, and where it is unheard of. But if there are such cases it is to be provided that the Order in Council will give an opportunity to the man to put forward an application on one or other of the grounds, and I am quite sure that tribunals will readily adhere to that.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Sub-section (5) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1918, shall apply to a Proclamation under this Section in the same manner as it applies to an Order made under that Section."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to Applications for Certificates of Exemption and as to Calling Up.)
    Lords Amendment
    Insert new Sub-section;
    "(6) Every person to whom a certificate of exemption shall be granted In a tribunal after the thirtieth day of April, 1918, shall, unless the tribunal by which the certificate is granted for any special reason otherwise direct, be liable on being so required in such manner as may be pre scribed by Order in Council to join the Volunteer Force and remain a member of that force for the period during which the certificate remains in force, and shall during that period attend such drills, undergo such training, and undertake such military duties as may be so prescribed."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is the Amendment to which I referred as a matter of substance, and it is only right that I should, as clearly as I can, explain its effect to the House. Hon. Members will remember that when this Bill was under consideration in this

    633
    House it was pointed out by some Members, particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sleaford (Colonel Royds), that the effect of raising the age from forty to fifty would necessarily be seriously to deplete the Volunteer Force, a force which, I believe, is doing good service and is preparing itself to do even better service to the country. I think we should all regret that the effect of raising the age should be to prejudice the numbers who are enrolled in that force. My hon and gallant Friend had put down an Amendment in this House of the nature of the Amendment which has now come down from another place, but owing to the Resolution of the House limiting discussion that Amendment was not moved and could not be dealt with in Debate in this House. Now it conies from another place in this form. The effect of it is this: It does not apply in cases where exemption has already been granted. It applies only to future exemptions granted after the thirtieth of this month. It provides that where the exemption is granted by a tribunal, then, unless the tribunal otherwise directs for some special reason, the exempted man shall be liable to service in the Volunteer Force and to perform duties which are to be prescribed by Order in Council, and which will resemble, no doubt, the duties now performed by the older class of Volunteers. I think the Amendment will give encouragement to the Volunteer Force, who are naturally exceedingly anxious that their numbers shall not suffer, and it will give a lead to the tribunals. If the House looks at it carefully, however, I quite admit it will not have a great legal effect on what is going on, because even to-day a tribunal exempting a man from military service can impose the condition that if he is exempted he shall serve in the Volunteers.
    Mr. T. WILSON: This will apply to men up to fifty-one years.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes; but to-day it applies only to men up to the military age of to-day. Tribunals very often do impose that condition to-day, and I know from experience that many of the men who are now training themselves in the Volunteer battalions are there because of the imposition of that condition. Very useful men many of them make. That is done to-day, and if this Amendment is carried the same thing may happen, but with this difference, that whereas to-day the tribunal can impose the condition, under this Amend-
    634
    ment the condition is imposed by Statute unless the tribunal otherwise directs, so that in either case the discretion is with the tribunal. The real difference is that the presumption will be in favour of Volunteer service, and it will be for the tribunal to find that there is some reason against it. I know that in many instances there are good reasons that make it impossible for a man to serve in the Volunteers, for instance, men engaged in very hard agricultural work who have not an opportunity of attending drills except by a long walk from the place where they work to the locality where the drills take place. Cases of that kind have occurred. It is right that the tribunals should have discretion, but for myself I should be very glad if the House would accept the suggestion made by the other House and adopt the Amendment in this form. As I have pointed out, it does not make very much legal change, but it will prove of great value to the Volunteer Force.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask, in supporting this Amendment, whether it also applies to men from eighteen to forty-one, because it is quite common to-day for men between eighteen and forty-one to obtain exemption without the tribunal making Volunteer service a condition of that exemption. That is quite common. I would also ask into what class these men will go in the Volunteer service. Will it be into what I believe is known as Class B, which will enable them to give fourteen days' notice to be relieved of their obligations to undertake Volunteer service, or will it be left to the tribunals to decide into what class men shall be put before they get exemption?
    Sir G. CAVE: This will apply from the ages of eighteen to fifty-one in cases which come before the tribunals after the 30th of this month. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many certificates are limited in time, and this will apply to renewals of such certificates. As regards the second point, the duties will be prescribed by Order in Council. I suppose they will fall under Class C, but I am not quite sure about that.
    Mr. PRINGLE: This illustrates the inconvenience of the conditions under which we are carrying on discussion. It is true that we are dealing with a question which was not reached owing to the drastic Resolution of the Government in this House. We are now being asked to give our assent to an Amendment in a still different form which none of the hon.

    635
    Members of this House have yet been able to see in print. I think this procedure is highly inconvenient, and practically makes it impossible for any Member of this House to undertake responsibility for what is now being done. I wish to make one remark on the subject. This proposal does not affect the men who are exempted otherwise than by tribunals. In other words, every man employed in a protected occupation or in a Government Department is not liable, and I understand that the only condition on which agreement could be got within the Government on this Amendment was that men in Government offices were to be exempted. We know now how the clean-cut is going' to operate in Government Departments. It is only going to apply to men up to twenty-five years of ago, so that we may therefore assume that there will be a considerable number of men over twenty-five years of age and within the existing military age who cannot by any possibility be brought within this Sub-section.
    These men cannot be compelled, as the other men very probably will, to join the Volunteers. I am not one of those who think that this is purely a formal change. At the present time it is perfectly true that many tribunals sent men into the Volunteers as a condition of exemption. Under this Sub-section, however, the burden of proof is shifted, and you are making it the duty of the tribunals to insist upon this condition; in other words, the man will have to show that he is engaged in some specially heavy occupation, or that he is not in a condition of health to take part in the drills and other exercises of the Volunteers before he will be exempted by the tribunals from service in the Volunteers. There is a further point that this power is being put into the hands of other tribunals. If it were simply a matter of the same tribunal exercising this power, I do not think it would be so objectionable. If you had the tribunals, as they were in the past, representatives of the local authorities exercising this function amongst their friends and neighbours, as has been the case during the past two years, then I think even this formal change would not have so much practical effect, but you are making this change at a time when you are turning the tribunals into merely nominated servants of the Government. In these circumstances I think the House ought to hesitate a great deal before it
    636
    agrees to this Amendment so hastily put forward, and I think very inadequately considered. We are told that the existing system works perfectly well. There are hon. Members here familiar with the working of the Volunteers, and who know the extent to which the tribunals exercise their powers at the present time. I am told that they exercise their discretion fairly, because Parliament has not made it an obligation upon thorn to sift out men for the Volunteers. They have only exercised this power when they thought there was a fair case that the man could reasonably be expected to go into the Volunteers. Now it will be the duty of the man to show why he should not go into the Volunteers, a task which may be much more difficult under this Bill. For these reasons I think it is the duty of the House to disagree with this Amendment.
    Mr. L. JONES: I think we really have some ground of complaint against the Government for accepting an Amendment with so much substance without any warning to the House. We have only just parted with this Bill. The Government could have put down all their Amendments and have had this Clause before the House, but they did not think it necessary to change the procedure of the tribunals in asking the men to join the Volunteers. They were in a position to say to the other House that the Bill was fully considered here, and in view of the urgency of getting the Bill, which had been considered by a very full House—many hon. Members knew that this was a Supply Day with no particular business going on—I think it is very unfortunate in a Bill dealing with men up to fifty-one years of age, and a Clause which is not the same as that in any previous Compulsion Act, because the men are more established in their habits and their positions in life, that so much further interference with men who-have not been taken for military service should be made on an Amendment without this House having any real opportunity of considering it.
    Nor is it a mere turning about of the procedure. There might not have been much to say against it had it been merely laid down what the presumption was. Now you turn it about and say, "You shall join the Volunteers unless you are specially exempted." I point out the wording of this new Sub-section which is now being moved. I desired to move an-Amendment, but owing to the fact that

    637
    the Home Secretary has moved to agree with the Lords Amendment it is not open to any hon. Member to amend the Lords Amendment. I think it is a little hard that the Government should have moved an agreement which shuts out the possibility of us moving any Amendment, and although the House may be willing to accept the Amendment in the main, we have no opportunity of modifying the wording, and that is entirely due to the ill-considered action of the Government. I want to know what meaning the Government attach to the words "for any special reason." Those are the words which create in my mind considerable anxiety. It is not only a direction to the tribunals that the general rule is to be to volunteer, but it is practically a direction to them that unless there is something very extraordinary they are not to waive that condition. That does seem to me to be going very much further than merely turning the procedure round. I am not at all sure, when dealing with men of this advanced age and of established position, that the House, if it had time to consider the matter, would be willing to put in words the exact meaning of which we none of us know. Can the Home Secretary tell us what meaning he attaches to the words "for any special reasons"? Will there be anything in the Regulations to make clear what are those special reasons? The tribunals which are going to be nominated by the Government will expect guidance in this matter. Are they going to exempt men on the same conditions as before, or is some particular meaning attached to these words by the Home Secretary and the Movers in the other place? I am exceedingly anxious about the way in which the tribunals in the country will interpret these words, and I hope the Government will do something to make the position quite clear to them. I am exceedingly sorry that our procedure does not allow me to move that those words be left out.
    Sir G. CAVE: If that is really the only objection, it would be quite easy for me to withdraw my Motion, and, if the House takes that view, to agree to those words being omitted.
    Mr. JONES: That is a relief to me, and and if that were the sense of the House my purpose would be achieved.
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I was very glad to hear what the Home Secretary
    638
    has just said, because, while personally seeing no objection to the Lords Amendment on general grounds, I very much, fear that the insertion of the words "for special reasons" may lead to some harsh user of them by some of the tribunals, which perhaps are not so well instructed as to how they can interpret words of that kind as are other more efficient tribunals. I am certain that it would be an improvement if those words were left out.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I do not for the moment venture any opinion as to whether the proposed Amendment is a good or a bad one, but there cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone that the Amendment is really an important one and may have very far-reaching consequences. The Home Secretary rather minimised the force of the Amendment by reminding us that the tribunals now have the power in respect of those who have already been enlisted, but the object of this Bill is to bring in the scheme of military control and discipline a wholly new category of the male adult population. May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one very important consideration? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) pointed out a very vital fact when he indicated a point upon which my right hon. Friend who has just spoken (Mr. Leif Jones) seemed to be a little obscure. His arguments were based upon the existing tribunals, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are to have new tribunals constituted we do not know how, and composed of we do not know whom. I have no doubt that the Government will do their best to see that properly appointed tribunals are established, but those tribunals are an unknown quantity. Their identity is entirely unknown to the-Members of this House.
    Let me put to him a case which may be one of real hardship. There are up and down the country a whole multitude of new allotment holders, whose energies and enterprise in that direction have been fostered and stimulated by the Government. Take the area which I have the honour to represent in this House. There is a federation of allotment holders for that area of over 3,000, more than 2,000 of whom are within my own borough. Outside in the adjoining boroughs, in the divisions of the Holmfirth, and the Colne Valley, there are other federations not

    639
    included in the figures that I have given. These allotment holders have most loyally been devoting the whole of their Saturday's spare time and their evening leisure hours to food production. There is no security under this particular Amendment, unless it be provided in the form of directions to the new tribunals, that the new class, which will certainly include a large proportion of allotment holders, may not be forced by the new tribunals to at once join the Volunteer Force. It is perfectly obvious to anybody who considers the matter that no man can be an effective allotment holder and at the same time a Volunteer. There is, therefore, very great danger to food production in this country if the matter is to be as automatic as the proposed Amendment makes it. Under this Amendment a man automatically becomes a member of the Volunteer Force, unless the new tribunals direct to the contrary. This is a very important consideration, particularly in the Northern parts of this country, and I hope, before the Amendment is allowed to pass, that we may have some explicit assurance from the Government that there will be no disturbance of the enterprise and loyal energy of the allotment holders through ignorance on the part of the new tribunals.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: This Amendment does not touch what has been the existing custom of the great majority of the tribunals. It merely gives legislative sanction to the course that most of the tribunals have followed. It has been the custom in suitable cases—and I assume that the tribunals, according to the Clause, will only apply this in suitable cases in future—to insert as a condition of exemption that men should join the Volunteers, and it has met with general acceptance. Men have seen that the condition is reasonable, and there has been no trouble in getting them to attend drill. I pointed out, on the introduction of the Bill, that we are getting now very near to the bedrock in our man-power. If we call out a very large number of additional men from industry and trade, it is likely not only to dislocate industry, but also to cause a great deal of personal hardship. I ventured to suggest this then, and I again put it forward now. It is much fairer on business men and workers, especially middle-aged business men and workers, to allow them to remain in their present occupation
    640
    keeping industry going, and to train in their spare time, being liable for service only when invasion is imminent. The Government, after thinking about it for a very long time, have now come to that conclusion, and have established that principle by Act of Parliament. I believe that it will meet the views of the general body of workers of this country. I should like to see this force, instead of receiving as it did for a long time the cold shoulder, properly developed on the lines of the Territorial Force. The Volunteers should take the place that the Territorial Force held on the outbreak of the War. I see no reason why they should not have Artillery, Royal Army Medical Corps, Transport Corps, and every branch of the Service. There are a few units of Artillery which have proved most effective, a Motor Volunteer Corps, which has received very little encouragement from the Government, but which has become a complete success, and will provide the means of transport for the Volunteers if it is necessary to mobilise them. The same applies to the Medical Volunteer units. For along time I put forward a proposal that these medical units should receive recognition. It is only quite recently that they have received the status—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is hardly the time for a general discussion on the Volunteer Force.
    Mr. HARRIS: I quite see that I have been straying a little from the Amendment, but I was trying to impress on the House that the fact of these powers being given by Statute to the tribunals will be an encouragement to the tribunals to send men who are fit, and then you will be able to give the various units the full status that the Volunteers bring with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) referred to the allotment holders. I quite agree with him that in many cases where men are working long hours, if they have an allotment, it is very difficult for them to join the Volunteers, but we must assume that the tribunals will use discretion, as they have always done. These directions suggest that they should always exempt whenever the applicant shows good grounds for exemption. In fact, this Amendment gives the tribunals special direction to exempt a man if he shows good cause why he should be released, Naturally the Government will not want more than a fixed number of Volunteers, because every man who joins

    641
    the Volunteers has to toe equipped and provided with a rifle. Therefore, we may assume they will only take the most suitable men who have the time, whose industry will not be interfered with, and who have the physique to stand the strain. I quite admit that tribunals have in some cases sent into the Volunteers men who are not fit to undergo the training. In some cases they are men whose hours and occupation really make it very difficult for them to properly perform the duties of a Volunteer. But this Amendment would be a direction not to one tribunal, or to tribunals in a certain district, but to all tribunals to go into this matter thoroughly and properly, to examine each case upon its merits, and it would make the Volunteer Force not only an integral part of the defence of these shores, but a means of a fair distribution of the burdens of this War between the whole of the population according to their work, occupation, health, and obligations.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: The hon. Members who have spoken have all been of opinion that, on the whole, this Amendment will be a useful addition to the Bill, and I have no doubt that the House will be very glad to accept it. The only point at issue is whether the Amendment is not rather too rigid in its terms by including the words "for any special reason." You may possibly find, as the last speaker has said—he has been one of the moving spirits of the Volunteer movement since its inception—that you have too many Volunteers—too many in a certain district. All that involves cost to the State, and we want to ensure that we shall get our money's worth. There are also the considerations of food production, such as have been mentioned. The words "for any special reason" may be taken by the tribunals to mean some individual reason, a reason affecting the individual man as distinct from a class of men. If 2,000 persons in Huddersfield came forward and say they are allotment holders and ask for exemption on that ground, it might be held that a broad exemption could not be given with the law unlimited, not merely in the spirit, but also in the letter if these words are included. I am disposed to think, in view of what has been said, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), to whose opinions we are inclined to give great weight in these matters, that it would be better if the Home Secretary were to take the course he said he was willing to take,
    642
    that is, to withdraw the present Motion and let that Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. BILLING Mr. BILLING rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Herts has exhausted his right to speak.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am rather sorry the Government have accepted this Amendment. They do not quite see what the far-reaching consequences of it may be. In spite of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen who believe in the tribunals, the tribunals have made very big mistakes in compelling men to join the Volunteer Force. I am speaking now as an old Volunteer. I know what used to be the fatigue of drill, especially after I had to work on the days when parades were held. I know quite a large number of instances where men who are working overtime at arduous work and who are also tilling allotments have been compelled to join the Volunteer Force as a means of obtaining exemption under the Military Service Acts. If the tribunals which are set up or which may be set up are not going to recognise that men engaged in arduous employment and working overtime are not entitled to exemption from attending drill, they are going to create a force in this country which will do more to spread pacifism than any force we have at work now. That question ought to be considered by the Government in deciding to compel people to join the Volunteer Force, which is a contradiction in terms. I ask them even now whether it is not better to drop the Amendment? I am quite certain that in the long run the interests of the nation will be better served if it is dropped rather than if it is persevered in. I know there is a feeling of resentment among a good many men at being compelled to put in two drills a week or ten drills a month, as the case may be. I do not want to give the working-men of the country any reason whatever for a feeling against the Government, and in favour of bringing about a premature peace, but I am certain that if this Amendment is persevered in it will have that effect. I therefore appeal to the Government to reconsider its decision.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. Just now when this Amendment was put, I interjected to ask a question of the Home Secretary. It was my intention to elaborate that question and one or two others I have in my mind, but out of courtesy to

    643
    the Home Secretary, as he rose while I was still on my feet, I gave way, and that question was answered. I should like your ruling, Sir, on the point whether, in consequence of my giving way to the Home Secretary on the one question I raised, I am to be debarred from making any further contribution to the Debate on what is, in my opinion, one of the most important Amendments that is likely to be made, in this Bill. The further contribution I have to make is quite short, and I ask the Chair's permission to make it
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not my recollection of what occurred. I began by putting the question. The Home Secretary then made a speech, and he was followed by the hon. Member for East Hertfordshire. It is true that he did not make a long speech, but he made a speech, and that debars him from taking a further part in this Debate.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I was a little surprised at the remarks which fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel), which, if I understood him aright, referred to the unanimous chorus of approbation with which this Amendment has been received in this Chamber. I do not think he could have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend and colleague for another division of Lanarkshire, nor to the criticisms addressed to the Government by the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite him, because those two very weighty speeches in themselves showed how divided even this small House is upon this most important question. This is a point of very-great substance, which has not been examined in many of the bearings which it will have upon the life of the nation. I protest against an Amendment of this substance being taken in a House which, if this were an ordinary sitting would not constitute a quorum, and without the words of this lengthy Amendment being in the hands of Members. It has not even been typewritten, as was done on a former occasion, and we have to trust to our memories. What does the Amendment do? Unless a tribunal makes an Order to the contrary, there is now a statutory liability upon every person who receives a certificate of exemption to join a Volunteer Force. What is the ground for this alteration in the procedure of the tribunals? I listened with very much interest to a weighty intervention earlier by
    644
    the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Nield), in which he made certain aspects of the Government proposals clear. But I should like to hear from him, as well as from the Government, the grounds for this alteration in the procedure of the tribunals. We cannot consider this Amendment without remembering what the Government have done in the Bill itself. They have swept away the tribunals as at present constituted and have made them nominated bodies. If the old tribunals had the power of imposing Volunteer service, if they thought fit to do so, surely there is the more reason for leaving that power and not imposing it by Statute, and there is the less reason for any change seeing that tribunals are in future to be nominated… If the House had the Amendment before it it would be seen that it raises questions not only of principle, which is what I am chiefly concerned with, but also very numerous questions of administration. I heard, in the words which were read from the Table, no reference whatever to what happened in districts were there are no Volunteer Force, nor do I think it is clear how the liability is carried out or what steps have to be taken to make local arrangements. Apart from the question of principle, there are all sorts of administrative details which are left wholly unsettled by an Amendment such as this.
    But there is another point, which has not been referred to in this Debate, which illustrates the force of my contention that it ought not to be proceeded with to-night in this small House. We are considering this matter without a single representative of the Nationalist party being present.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Do you know it is never going to be applied to Ireland?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: No representative of the majority party in Ireland had any idea that an Amendment of this substance was going to be brought forward in a small House at this hour in the evening without previous notice being given. It has a direct bearing upon Ireland. Ireland is included in the Bill, and if the House now adopts the Amendment it will still further add to the complexities and the difficulties of the position in Ireland.
    Mr. PRINGLE: They are all Volunteers in Ireland.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This is to make them compulsory Volunteers. If it is only because of the absence of the Irish Members, this proposal ought not to be pro-

    645
    ceeded with. It ought to be considered when we can have the words of the Amendment in print before us, and when we can take the judgment of a far larger House than it is possible to do now. The Home Secretary suggested that if the House agrees he will withdraw the Amendment for the moment in order to omit certain words and move to agree to the Lords Amendment in a slightly different form by leaving out some of the obviously ambiguous words. I shall offer no objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment in order for it to be amended, but I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to think that then we can assent to this proposal even in its amended form.
    Mr. ROCH: I have listened to what has been said on the Amendment, but it really does not seem to me, so far as I can gather, for it is not before me, that any really substantial change is made. As far as I understand from the Home Secretary, this very condition can be imposed by the tribunals now, and this is really only putting it in the inverse way. But what I think is of some importance, it seems to give an indication of the possibility of a change of policy on the part of the Government. It may well be that the Government thinks it is desirable to largely increase the force of the Volunteers under this provision. If that is so, for goodness sake say so. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a great deal of uncertainty among these older men. They have been told, on the one hand, that only 7 per cent. of them are going to be called up, and now it may be that a substantial obligation is to be imposed on them. If there is going to be a change of administration and it is desired to largely increase the Volunteer Force, let the right hon. Gentleman get up and say so, and let people know where they stand.
    Sir H. NIELD: We have listened to a number of speeches, and I think hon. Members have been beating the air. I am inclined to agree with the last speaker. There is not the substance in practice that many people think. With regard to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, I could have listened far more attentively to what he said if I could recall to mind a single act on his part in furtherance of the War. I cannot for the life of me realize that he has spent five minutes in doing any work—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are you referring to me?
    Sir H. NIELD: No. When I think of the number of hours which have been spent in Debate in order to hinder the War by my hon. Friend opposite and those who are associated with him, I cannot help feeling that the time has come when on a minor matter of this sort we cannot listen without impatience to views put forward from that quarter. The hon. Member (Mr. T. Wilson) has spoken very frankly from the point of view of the working man. I cannot believe, though I do not claim to have the same acquaintance with his inner life that my hon. Friend has, though I might have much more than he will give me credit for, that the patriotic working man who feels that the possibility of invasion is a real one would deny himself, hard worked though he may be, the two hours a week or whatever will be necessary to qualify. I am perfectly sure of this, that those I know would readily forego an extra hour or two overtime if it were necessary for them to do this Volunteer work for their country. If the overtime was voluntary work for the sake of putting money into their pockets I give the average workmen credit enough to believe that they would readily forego a couple of hours or so in order to do this for their country. This provision will enable us to get another class of man. Watch the trains that go out of London night after night, especially on the London and Brighton line and the South Eastern line and see the gentlemen who play cards and who cannot even give up the time of the journey to thought or reading, which may be beneficial to their country, but who go backwards and forwards, day after day, without having done a single thing to defend the cause of this country, and who when they are called upon to pay money for taxation, are always grumbling and making a great burden of it. This Clause will get gentlemen of that class. I know a man with an exceedingly bad heart who has taken up volunteering, and although he is close upon fifty he has made himself so competent with the Lewis gun that he has come out at the head of the examination appointed by the War Office for those who make themselves proficient in the use of that machine. That is the type of man we want, and that is the type of man we shall get under a proper provision that enables the tribunal to discrimi-

    647
    nate. I cannot believe, though some are sneering at the Government for altering the constitution of the tribunals, that any Government would ever so jerrymander the tribunals as merely to get a body which is going to register their views apart from the merits of the case with which they have to deal. I give them credit for being actuated by motives of getting the most efficient work from the men who can most be relied upon, especialy having regard to the experience they have already gathered from the men who have administered these tribunals throughout the country. Whatever may be the circumstances, I do hope the House will accept this Clause when we have left out the words which might, it is feared, operate in the minds of some tribunals in a way not intended. When these words have been taken out we shall have done away with the objection which has been raised, and I do hope that the Committee will then agree to the Lords Amendment.
    Major DAVIES: I had an Amendment down in regard to this point. I would like the Under-Secretary for War to tell us what is the policy of the War Office in regard to the Volunteers. Many of us think that the War Office have not given The Volunteer Force the fair treatment which they should have got. Although these men have shown great patriotism, they have not received that consideration to which they were entitled. Therefore, I do ask the Under-Secretary for War to explain what the War Office intend to do and how they intend to develop this force in the future.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: I think hon. Members realise that this Amendment does affect many thousands of lives, and, therefore, we ought to consider it carefully. When the Amendment has been withdrawn with a view to its improvement, I hope some statement will be made by the President of the Local Government Board as to the Regulations that will be made instructing tribunals in their interpretation of this new power. We need in particular that there should be some clear guidance given as to the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) of allotment holders, and also the cases of a very large number of workers who are already working excessive hours. I have no sympathy
    648
    with the class of men mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), and if we can induce those people to do useful work it is all to the good. But there are many people who will come under this Bill who are now working ten or twelve hours a day, and even more, and who simply cannot undertake the regular obligations of the Volunteer Force. It ought to be made quite clear in the instructions issued to the tribunals that this obligation is not intended in any way to apply to such men nor to such persons as allotment holders, who are already, in addition to their ordinary work, doing an act of very great service to the community—a work which needs to be greatly increased. I have heard from a friend of mine who is an officer of the Volunteers that even under present conditions he has had sent to him by tribunals many men who are very inefficient, and who, possibly on account of the length of time they are working, are not capable of becoming good Volunteers. That position will be immensely increased if this provision is used unwisely, and I think it is of vital importance that instructions should be issued by the Local Government Board, making matters quite clear. I welcome the improvement which the Home Secretary has foreshadowed, while it does not remove my objection to the principle of the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to withdraw the Motion, with a view to the Amendment being moved.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. L. JONES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "for any special reason."
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BILLING: Speaking in support of that Amendment—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): The question has been decided.
    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of 7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 26).
    The Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, 1917, shall have effect as if for references to the Military Service Act, 1916, and to the Military Service Acts. 1916 and 1917, there were substituted references to the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, and this Act, and, in the event of this Act being extended to Ireland, as if for the reference to Great Britain there were

    649
    substituted a reference to the United Kingdom, and the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, 1917, shall apply accordingly, subject, as regards any country and the subjects of any country to which that. Act has been applied before the passing of this Act, to such modifications as may be prescribed.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "as regards any country and the subjects of any country to which that Act has been applied before the passing of this Act, to such modifications as may be prescribed," and insert instead there the words "to the modifications aforesaid and to such other modifications as may be prescribed by Order in Council made under this Act."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Presentation of Orders in Council to both Houses of Parliament.)
    Every Order in Council, other than an Order in Council made in pursuance of Section one, made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament, within fourteen days after the Order is laid before it, praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, and it shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "Council" ["Order in Council"], insert the words "made under this Act."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "made under this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "thereof, and every Proclamation so made."

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

    ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

    Session and Chapter.

    Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    7 & 8 Geo. 5, c. 26

    …

    Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act, 1917.

    Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two.

    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "paragraph (c) and," and insert instead thereof the word "paragraph."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This cannot be a drafting Amendment, because paragraph (c), which was to be repealed, is not now to be repealed. What is the paragraph?
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: That is merely a drafting Amendment?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "Order" ["after the Order"], insert the words "or Proclamation."—Agreed to.
    After the word "Order" ["Order may be"], insert the words "or Proclamation."—Agreed to.
    After the word "Order" ["annul the Order"], insert the words "or Proclamation."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Short Title, Interpretation and Repeal.)
    (2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
    The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by Order in Council.
    The expression "certificate of exemption" means any certificate of exemption from military service granted or renewed, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to any man belonging to the Army Reserve.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "The expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by Order in Council."—Agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is a paragraph in the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act. The draftsman at first thought that this would be exhausted, but on looking into it we came to the conclusion that the paragraph might possibly have some effect, and that it was better not to repeal it.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: What was the nature of the paragraph?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: To enable us to set up special tribunals. It might be necessary to keep these special tribunals alive.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Dealing with the subjects of other countries?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): I shall now leave the Chair. When the Commission is announced, Mr. Speaker will resume the Chair, and proceed to the House of Lords.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords, without Amendment.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
  Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1918. Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (STATUTORY PRICES).
  The following Motion stood on the Paper in the name of Lord E. TALBOT:
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report whether it is expedient that some provision should be made for the temporary modification of statutory requirements with regard to price and dividend in the case of Gas undertakings whose financial circumstances have been injuriously affected by causes arising out of the War; and, if so, on what terms and conditions and whether by private bill or general legislation:
  That Mr. Acland Allen, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Field, Mr. Macmaster, Mr. Ronald McNeill, Sir William Middlebrook, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Stewart be members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have leave to hear counsel upon the matters referred to them so far as they think fit:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
  That Three be the quorum."
  Lord E. TALBOT: I beg to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the Borough of Birmingham (West Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Joseph Austen Chamberlain, a Minister of the Crown.—[Lord Edmund Talbot].
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes before Ten o'clock, till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February.