Commons Sitting of 5 August 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
South Suburban Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Smith Estate Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Canterbury, in the room of Major Francis Bennett-Goldney, deceased.—[Colonel Sanders.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 962 (Ashanti, Report for 1917) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INCOME TAX.
Copy presented of Statement respecting Allowances for wear and tear and obsolescence of Plant and Machinery, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1875–6 to 1917–18, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT.
Abstract Account presented of Receipts and Payments of the Treasury Solicitor, in the year ended 31st December, 1917, in the Administration of Estates on behalf of the Crown, and Alphabetical List of Intestates' Estates in respect of which Letters of Administration were granted to the Treasury Solicitor as Crown's Nominee, and of other cases (partial intestacies, etc.) in which accounts were opened in the Books of the Treasury Solicitor in the same year in respect of moneys received by him as Crown's Nominee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 107.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MATCH SHORTAGE (KENT).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are still complaints of a great shortage of matches in Kent, especially in the district of the Crays; whether he is aware of the increase of the population on account of the large amount of national work being done in the county and the military hospitals which have been erected; and will he state what action he proposes to take?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): No complaints have reached the Matches Control Board of any shortage in Kent for some considerable time. The supplies which are being delivered into the county have been, and continue to be, in excess of the quantity estimated to be necessary for the requirements of the normal population, special provision having been made some time ago for the influx of workers into certain parts of the county. The Crays district is receiving increased allotments owing to the increase in the population engaged on national work. This district is also served by wholesale distributors in the neighbouring towns, who are receiving their full proportion, and small retailers should not experience any difficulty in obtaining their supplies. Adequate supplies are always granted to military hospitals if application is made to the Match Control Office, Salisbury House, Finsbury Circus, London, E.C. 2.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whether they have been received or not, complaints are being made, especially from the Crays; and, in calculating the extra population, have the Department considered right throughout the whole of Kent the enormous number of new works down the further end, the huge number of places occupied there, and also the number of hospitals?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The reply indicates that the Matches Control Board have given consideration to that point, but I will look further into it.

    ALIENS.

      COMMERCIAL FIRMS.
      Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if Messrs. Merton and Company, a metal firm trading in this country, are financially connected with the German Metall-gesellschaft; if the Australian and African branches have been closed down with a view to excluding German control of the important industry affected; if he will give particulars of the present directorate of the English branch of Messrs. Merton and Company; whether any German or enemy subjects have now any financial interest, direct or indirect, in the company; whether the company is now carrying out any work for the Government; if so, will he state its nature; and whether he will consider the question of dealing with this firm in the same manner as has been done in the case of the African and Australian branches of this parent German undertaking?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The Metallgesell-schaft formerly held a large number of shares in Henry R. Merton and Company, Limited, but does not now hold any shares. The Australian branch of the company has been closed, but I have no information as to the African branch. The present directors of the company are: S. Baer, H. Gardner, W. Gardner, O. Lang, E. R. Merton, and M. Wilson. German subjects have an indirect financial interest in the company through the holding of 11,875 shares by a Swiss company which is believed to be under German control. I understand that the company is not now doing any work for the Government. Under the provisions of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act the company will not be able to trade in non-ferrous metals without a licence, and I may inform the hon. and gallant Member that in this case the Board of Trade have refused to grant a licence.

      BARON SCHROEDER.
      Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that but for the assistance given to Baron Schröder by the Bank of England, after his naturalisation by the Government in power on the outbreak of hostilities, be would have been involved in financial embarrassment by reason of his close association with

      885
      German business houses affected by the War; and if he will state precisely who it was advised the Government of the day that the naturalisation of this German would be of assistance to British interests, and for what reason?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I have no information to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question. I am informed that the naturalisation of Baron Schröder was recommended to the Government at the beginning of the War in connection with the exceptional steps which were being taken at that time to preserve the credit of the country. As this naturalisation will shortly come up for examination by a Committee, it is undesirable to discuss it.
      Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who advised the Government to grant this naturalisation, and whether it is not the law of the country that on the outbreak of hostilities it is against the law of the country for people of this country to deal with enemies? In these circumstances why was any exception made in this case?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I thought I gave an answer to that. I am afraid my hon. Friend's law must be wrong, or he would not have been naturalised after the War. As regards the general point, I do not know who gave this special advice, but I am told it was given on the simple ground that at that time it was believed that this firm, being representative more or less of city interests, would, if anything happened to it, do great damage to the general credit of the country.
      Sir F. HALL: Is it not recognised that it is the law of the country that upon the outbreak of war you are not permitted to deal with enemy subjects?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not say whether the Governor of the Bank recommended it and that he was backed up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now Prime Minister?
      Mr. HEMMERDE: Is it not a fact that this naturalisation took place at the wish of the Government and not at the wish of Baron Schroeder?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know as to that; but it is a fact, and the House will remember what the circumstances were, that there was a great fear that there
      886
      would be a general financial panic in the City of London. Representations were made to the Government that if this firm were allowed to go down it would damage our general credit.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if any statement can be made as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Report on Electricity Supplies; if he is aware that the uncertainty at the present time of the Government's intentions is embarrassing to public bodies owning electricity undertakings; if he is aware that it is difficult for the local bodies to determine the proper course of action in regard to the extension of their plant and negotiations with their large consumers; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Report is receiving careful consideration, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the intentions of the Government in regard to it.
    Colonel THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make any statement before the Recess?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I think not.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      TIMBER WORKERS.
      Colonel STIRLINGasked the President of the Board of Trade how many sawmills in Scotland have been thrown out of work by the recent calling up of 600 men in the employment of timber merchants; and what is the consequent reduction of output of sawn timber and pitwood in Scotland?
      Sir A. STANLEY: A number of saw mills in Scotland were idle or working below full capacity for want of skilled labour before these men were called up, and I have no definite information at present of the extent to which this number has been increased; it has been estimated that the calling up of these men will reduce the output of sawn timber and pitwood from Scotland by about 20 per cent., but it is too early to say how far this estimate will be realised or exceeded.

      WIDOWS' ONLY SONS.
      Mr. WINGasked the Minister of National Service if it is now the practice to take the only sons of widows; and will he give instructions that the only sons of widows shall, if so desired, be exempted from enlistment?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to the hon. and learned Member for the city of York on Friday last, where the position is fully stated.

      ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of National Service if he will state the final arrangements that were made to secure fair and just treatment of the proprietors of one-man businesses; and whether, in cases in which the local tribunals, which necessarily have the best knowledge of all the circumstances, are unanimous in granting exemption, he will instruct the military representative to abstain, as far as possible, from bringing such cases before the Appeal Tribunal?
      Mr. BECK: The final arrangements, so far as the Ministry of National Service is concerned, are contained in Circular R. 167, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. I may also add that since the issue of that Circular the Local Government Board have, through officers specially appointed by them for the purpose, been active in pressing forward schemes of co-operation for maintaining the businesses of one-man business proprietors who have joined the forces. I can add nothing in regard to the latter part of the question to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service to the hon. Member for Elland on the 16th of July last.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these schemes of co-operation have actually been put into effect; and is it not the case that these men are being called up and that the schemes are no comfort to them after their businesses are ruined?
      Mr. BECK: As the hon. Member is aware, the schemes are worked by the
      888
      tribunals of the Local Government Board, and I should require to have notice of that question.
      Sir H. NIELD: Is it true that the hon. Gentleman's Department is favouring the co-operative societies at the expense of independent tradesmen?
      Mr. BECK: No, Sir.
      Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of cases of hardship and injustice which are constantly occurring, he can see his way to at once introduce legislation, if necessary, giving the proprietors of one-man businesses the right of appeal from the County Appeals Tribunal to the Central Tribunal?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have been asked to answer this question. Much as I sympathise with the proprietors of one-man businesses, it is not practicable to make the change suggested. It is to be remembered that proprietors of one-man businesses are not the only men who have to make sacrifices, in view of the present military requirements; moreover, by schemes of co-operation for the maintenance of businesses, such as have been adopted in a number of localities, traders in many instances have in their own hands the means of mitigating the hardship to men who are required to join the forces.

      MANCHESTER APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
      Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that on 24th July at the Manchester Appeal Tribunal an applicant for exemption produced a letter from the Department of Overseas Trade saying that the applicant was a partner in this country with a Mr. Scotson, of Shanghai, trading in piece goods, and that in view of the attempts by Japanese and Americans to capture the German trade in the East it was most important that British trade should be protected and the applicant Withington allowed to continue his business in this country, and that the chairman, Mr. W. L. Hockin, said it was surprising that a Government Department should write such a letter, that he was glad there were no reporters present, that he would not care to hear of it being read in Parliament, that he quite agreed with the views in the letter, and he and his two colleagues at once agreed to

      889
      exemption to 31st January; and whether firms competing with Mr. Scotson's in Shanghai and other firms having trade relations with China will be entitled to apply to the Manchester Appeal Tribunal?
      Mr. FISHER: I have received a communication from the chairman of the Appeal Tribunal respecting this case. The case was considered and decided wholly on its merits. I may mention that the man in question is forty-eight years of age and in Grade 2. Firms must apply to the appropriate tribunal as laid down in the Regulations.
      Mr. KING: I suppose that the chairman of the tribunal admits the allegations of my question, as they are not contradicted?
      Mr. FISHER: I do not understand that he admits the allegations.
      Mr. KING: Are not these facts consistent with one theory only—namely, that people in the Department of Information are given the pull of things by reason of advantages they get given them by Government Departments?

      MILITARY REGRADING.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in view of the numerous complaints as to the way in which soldiers are being regraded and placed in higher categories without proper medical examination, he will issue a special instruction enjoining medical officers to exercise greater care in their examination; and will he make particular inquiry into the action of the Travelling Medical Board which recently transferred a considerable number of men from Grade 2 to A 1, the men in consequence being transferred from the Loyal North Lancashires to the King's Liverpool Regiment?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am not aware of the complaints to which my hon. Friend refers, and see no ground for taking the action which he suggests. As regards the last part of the question I have called for a Report, and will let my hon. Friend know the result in due course.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the facts stated in the earlier part of the question, and that I have myself conveyed a large number of complaints to the right hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe I got one or two complaints from my hon. Friend, but they do not justify the general allegation made.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an application has been received from two conscientious objectors in Princetown Settlement, named Walton and Alty, to be allowed to take up the exceptional employment scheme; and, seeing that these two men are qualified by length of service and good conduct, whether steps will be taken to allow them to proceed at once to the new scheme?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I am informed by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors that the cases of these two men will be considered in October next.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that conscientious objectors who have served about two years' imprisonment with hard labour are now being released from prison on the expiration of their sentence and are being re-court-martialled and sentenced to a further period of two years' hard labour; and whether, in view of his own admission that a sentence of two years' hard labour is the hardest known to English law, and in view of the injury to health which has been inflicted on these men, steps can be taken to stop these successive sentences for the same offence, and to liberate these men under suitable safeguards for work of national importance?
      Sir G. CAVE: If a person who is subject to military law, after serving a sentence of imprisonment, commits a fresh offence, the question of bringing him before a court-martial is one entirely for the military authorities. I have no power to interfere; but, as I have frequently pointed out, genuine conscientious objectors who accept employment under the Brace Committee, are liberated for work of national importance, and are not liable to further imprisonment. In the case of conscientious objectors who prefer to remain in prison, their sentence has been mitigated by the grant of privileges under Rule 243 A.
      Mr. KING: What happens to those men who are quite willing to undertake work of national importance, but are refused, and,

      891
      in cases I have recently brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, have been refused for over two years?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am sure there never has been any refusal where the tribunal were satisfied that the man was a genuine conscientious objector.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is not the fact that these men have suffered four or five consecutive terms of six months' imprisonment, sufficient to prove that they are conscientious objectors?
      Sir G. CAVE: That is a matter in regard to which I have no power.
      Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Is not a period of two years' hard labour a savage and excessive sentence, in respect of what is a continuing conscientious objection?
      Sir G. CAVE: I must refer my hon. Friend to previous answers I have given.
      Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the increasing number of men who are undergoing this prolonged labour?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not believe that is true.

    RAILWAY SLEEPERS.
    Colonel STIRLINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the average cost of 9 ft. by 10 in. by 5 in. railway sleepers produced by Scottish home timber merchants and by overseas contingents, respectively?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I have no information as to the cost of production of 9 ft. by 10 in. by 5 in. sleepers by Scottish merchants, but the merchants sell the sleepers at the maximum prices allowed by the Home-grown Timber Prices Order, 1918. These sleepers can be produced at costs within those rates by the operations of the Timber Supplies Department and overseas contingents.

    IRELAND.

      COAL SUPPLIES.
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been, or are being, made to supply Ireland with its proportion of coal supply?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The returns of coal shipped to Ireland for six months ending
      892
      June show that that country has actually received its proportion of coal. The position from the beginning of July has been, and is still, affected by the influenza epidemic amongst the miners. The matter is under observation, but naturally available supplies have to be more or less regulated in accordance with the importance of consumers as regards the national interest.
      Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give us more information at the deputation to-morrow?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Certainly, the Coal Controller will bear in mind the points arising out of this question, and I shall be glad to call his attention to them and to ask him to fortify himself with the information necessary for to-morrow's meeting.
      Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable scarcity of coal among the working classes in Dublin; that 130 councils and other borough councils in this country are permitted to purchase and re-sell quantities of coal, and thus to supply the small and working-class people in the district; and will he see that similar powers are given to borough councils in Ireland?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I would suggest that the hon. Member should raise these points at the deputation to-morrow. I would remind him that, so far as any shortage of coal is concerned, Ireland is no worse off than any other part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Coal Controller has cognisance of the fact that Messrs. A. Guinness and Sons, brewers, Dublin, have stored at the Grand Canal Harbour, Dublin, some 50,000 tons of coal, which has lain there for nearly five years, and on which grass two feet high is growing; whether they have other large supplies at James Street and the North City Quay; and whether, in view of the number of persons in Dublin who are faced with the prospect of a fire-less winter, it is proposed that Messrs. Guinness should be allowed to accumulate and retain such large stocks of coal?
      Sir A. STANLEY: The question of the stocks of coal held by Messrs. A. Guinness and Sons, Dublin, is under notice at the

      893
      present time, and the Controller's information is that the stocks do not approximate to anything like the quantity named by my hon. Friend; but an intimation has been conveyed to the firm that it may be necessary to divert a portion of their supplies.
      Mr. FARRELL: Will this include an order to the firm not to take coal already commandeered by the Coal Controller and dumped with them?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot answer that without notice.
      Mr. FARRELL: If I send the right hon. Gentleman the facts, will he direct an inquiry to the Irish Coal Controller?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes.

      CALVES (RAILWAY TRANSIT).
      Mr. MULDOONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the practice which prevails in Ireland of sending young calves tied up in sacks instead of crates; and whether he will direct prosecutions for all such offences, and direct that the law shall be strictly followed in future?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): The Department are aware that the practice prevails in some parts of Ireland of sending by rail young calves tied up in sacks instead of in crates. It is understood that the charge for conveyance in the former instance is generally the cheaper. Railway companies have been requested to take all necessary steps to secure the better treatment of young animals carried on railways otherwise than in hampers or in crates. If any instances of cruel treatment of calves in such circumstances occur, the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, would apply.

      PRISON OFFICERS (TRANSFER).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the six officers who were transferred from Armagh to Belfast Prison and unable to find houses for themselves and their wives and families have not received any separation allowances to cover the extra expenses involved; if he will say whether they have been given a reply to their application of about six weeks ago asking for the allowances; and whether he is aware that officers in English prisons get
      894
      6s. per day for separation allowances for the first three weeks and 3s. per day afterwards, whilst the Irish officers get nothing?
      Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 20th June last.
      Mr. FIELD: As I understand that no action has been taken since, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it?
      Mr. SHORTT: The Prisons Board have forwarded the application, which was made to the proper quarter, and they have not yet had a reply.

      ULSTER VOLUNTEERS (ARMS).
      Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Government have, in accordance with his promise, taken any steps to lift the arms and ammunition in Ulster; and why there was any differentiation made between the rebels of Ulster and those of the other three provinces?
      Mr. BOLANDasked whether any steps have been taken to disarm the Ulster Volunteers in North-East Ulster?
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when he intends to demand the Ulster Volunteers to give up their rifles in accordance with the Government's expressed intention?
      Mr. SHORTT: As I have already stated in reply to previous questions on this subject, I cannot make any general statement at present with regard to the matters referred to, beyond saying that steps are in progress to secure the surrender of arms throughout the entire country.
      Mr. MEEHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of consulting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, with a view to getting his consent to the collection of those arms in Ulster?
      Mr. SHORTT: His consent has nothing to do with it.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Has any Member of the Ulster Provisional Council yet been called on personally to surrender rifles or to use his influence to have them surrendered in any part of Ulster?
      Mr. SHORTT: I have already said that I cannot make any statement at the present time.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps he is taking?
      Mr. SHORTT: No.
      Mr. DEVLIN: In reference to the statement of the hon. Member for East Down that the Ulster Provisional Government offered their rifles to the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman say is the statement true, and did the Government accept the offer?
      Mr. SHORTT: I cannot make any statement.
      Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of his question.
      Mr. DEVLIN: As we are now coming to the end of the Session and this is a very important matter, are we not entitled to the information for which I am asking?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his question on the Paper.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. F. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick Mulhern, of Derriniskey, Arigna, county Roscommon, was on several occasions granted an old age pension by the local sub-committee, Boyle, but on appeal by the pension officer it was disallowed on the ground that Mulhern had spent a term in America; and whether, having regard to the fact that he is over seventy-one years of age, and always had his home in Ireland, and only visited the United States periodically for the purpose of earning money, all of which he expended on his home, and being now a poor man, he will be granted the pension and arrears?
      Mr. SHORTT: The facts are not as stated in the question, as Patrick Mulhern, the man referred to, was in the United States from 1870 until 1912, with the exception of about two years, 1883–5, and there is no evidence that he supported any dependant in Ireland, within the past twenty years. In the circumstances, under the Old Age Pensions Acts, no pension is allowable.

      FLAX GROWING.
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can ascertain if any, and, if so, what Govern-
      896
      ment Department has given any financial guarantee to any body or company in Ireland in respect of flax growing; and whether it is proposed to distribute any such guarantee equitably over all the counties in Ireland?
      Mr. SHORTT: No financial guarantee has been given to any body or company in Ireland respecting flax growing by any Department of the Irish Government, but I understand that two bodies have received guarantees from other Government Departments.
      Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any action has been taken by the Irish Government with a view to the establishment of scutch-mills and setting machinery in the South and West of Ireland in order to avoid the present waste of money and wagons in transit?
      Mr. SHORTT: The Department of Agriculture are prepared to grant loans for the erection of scutch-mills in suitable cases where sufficient scutching facilities are not already available in the district. Such loans have already been granted in both Munster and Connaught. No machinery is required for retting.

      WOLFHILL COLLIERY.
      Mr. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the price at which coal from Wolfhill Colliery was sold to Messrs. John Wallace and Company, coal merchants, Dublin; and if he will state the price subsequently charged to Mullingar Asylum for this same coal?
      Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that no coal from the Wolfhill Collieries was supplied to Messrs. Wallace and Company, of Dublin, and afterwards sold by that firm to the Mullingar District Asylum. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars, I will have further inquiries made.

    FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to issue any short form of the new-Coal and Lighting Order that can be easily understood by the consumer; and, if so, will he arrange that copies can be supplied either at post offices or local town halls so that consumers can obtain

    897
    them easily and at once, and so realise the necessity for reducing immediately coal and lighting consumption?
    Sir A. STANLEY: A short and concise form of the Household Fuel and Lighting Order, 1918, for the benefit of consumers and embodying the chief points of the Order in which consumers are interested has already been printed, and is being circulated to coal merchants and gas and electricity undertakings throughout the country at the present time. Inasmuch as consumers will have to approach these three sources of fuel and lighting supply for their application and requisition forms, it was decided that this was the best method of distributing the notice to consumers. I will consider whether any additional arrangements can be made on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      BEE-KEEPING.
      Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the importance of the bee-keeping industry as a means of employment for soldiers and sailors invalided in the War and also as a source of sugar and in view of the ravages inflicted on the industry by the Isle of Wight disease, he can see his way to take similar measures for stamping out disease among bees as are taken in the case of swine and cattle?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): In reply, I fear I can add nothing to the information given to the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicestershire in an answer of the 12th June last.

      ALLOTMENTS, ELTHAM.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what has been the result of the negotiations with regard to the allotment holders in Glenusk Road, Eltham; and has he been successful in preventing these men being deprived of their allotments?
      Mr. PROTHERO: The purchaser of the land in question has agreed that the present allotment holders may retain possession of their plots till the 1st October, 1919, and the Board have informed them accordingly.

      APPLES (MARKETING).
      Mr. TICKLERasked the Food Controller if he is aware that quantities of immature apples are being placed on the market which sell at high prices; and if it is intended to control the price of this fruit so as to stop the marketing of the same, and thereby secure and augment a supply for the future?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): This matter is receiving careful consideration, but I am not prepared at present to indicate what measures, if any, will be taken to control the marketing of apples.

      MAIZE STOCKS.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Food Controller whether there is a considerable supply of maize in Great Britain at the present time; whether any has been sent to Ireland; and, if not, whether it is intended that any shall be sent?
      Major ASTOR: The stocks of maize in Great Britain are considerably below the normal, and much of this maize has already been allocated to munition services. Small parcels of maize have recently been shipped from British to Irish ports, but it is impossible to guarantee that anything approaching the usual supplies will be available for any part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. BOLAND: Do I gather that within the last few weeks a supply of maize has actually been sent to Ireland?
      Major ASTOR: I said in my reply that small parcels of maize have recently been shipped from British to Irish ports.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that meal made from maize is the main food of numbers of people in Ireland, and now that the crop is done farmers will not be able to get maize to fatten pigs, as it will be kept for human food?

      FROZEN BEEF (CONDEMNED).
      Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Food Controller if he is aware that 1,264 lbs. of Government frozen beef sent to Buckfastleigh last week were condemned and destroyed and that since 21st June 3,000 lbs. have been so dealt with in this town; will he inquire of the executive officer the cause of this loss; is he aware

      899
      that there is a danger of the Food Committee resigning unless good meat is sent; and will he provide that the meat sent in future shall be fit for consumption?
      Major ASTOR: I may refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on this point last Thursday. I can only add that-all possible care is being taken to ensure sound quality and condition in supplies of frozen beef.

      SWEETMEATS.
      Mr. HAY MORGANasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that many retail distributors of sweets who were their own manufacturers before the Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) Order. 1918, came into operation are still manufacturing sweetmeats, but, being unable to retail them to their customers, are compelled to sell them to competitors in the trade; whether he is aware that the sweetmeats so manufactured are of a higher quality than those sold by the small shopkeepers, and that the public is inconvenienced without any compensating advantage to the small shopkeeper; and whether he will consider the advisability of so modifying the Order as to allow firms who manufacture sweetmeats to retail those sweetmeats on their own premises, and thus avoid the waste of time, labour, and money of transferring to another place?
      Major ASTOR: The Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) Order, 1918, was made for the purpose of enabling those retailers of sweetmeats who wholly or mainly depend for their livelihood on this class of trade to obtain a larger proportion of the available supplies. One effect of the Order is to compel manufacturers who formerly sold sweatments by retail to dispose of their products at wholesale rates to other shopkeepers, and thus to increase the supplies of sweetmeats available for sale by those whom the Order was designed to benefit. The Food Controller can see no valid reason for amending the Order in the direction suggested.

      GRADING COMMITTEES (LOCAL BUTCHERS).
      Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in order to do away with a large measure of the dissatisfaction which now exists, he can see his way to substitute for local butchers on the grading committees butchers who do not buy meat in the locality?
      Major ASTOR: No, Sir. Experience has shown that work of this character is more satisfactorily performed by men who are acquainted with local conditions.

      TEA (RETAIL SUPPLIES).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the Food Controller has distinctly stated that while the consumer is required to register for tea that article has not yet been rationed; whether he is aware that since it was decided to require registration the Civil Service Supply Association and other large tea dealers have rationed their customers in tea by supplying no more than 2 ozs. per head per week; and will he say what measures it is proposed to take to prevent this infringement by retail tea dealers of the powers of the Food Controller?
      Major ASTOR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Retailers are supplied with sufficient tea to enable them to give 2 ozs. per head per week to each of their registered customers. If some registered customers require less than 2 ozs. others may obtain more. In these circumstances the action complained of by the hon. Member merely amounts to a wise precaution.

    MUNITIONS.

      WOOLWICH ARSENAL (STOREMEN).
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in connection with the Order of the 19th July, that storemen, assistant-storemen, and labourers in the ordnance factories, Woolwich Arsenal, who were in such employment previous to the 1st August, 1914, shall, upon joining the Colours, receive their civil pay while enlisted, he will consider the possibility of extending this to men who have given three and four years' service in the same capacity, but who were not so employed prior to the date named, in view of the efficient and intelligent service they have rendered?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): It would not be in accordance with Government policy to allow the continuance of civil pay to employés who had entered civil Government service after the outbreak of war on their being called up for military service.

      901
      To do so would be to place at a disadvantage soldiers who had joined the Army direct instead of obtaining civil employment.

      ALLIANCE AEROPLANE WORKS.
      Mr. ROCHasked the Minister of Munitions if he can now state the terms on which the Alliance Aeroplane Works of Messrs. Waring and Gillow have been acquired by the Government?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): This matter is still under consideration by both sides. I fear that the final decision will not be arrived at before the House rises, but an announcement of the terms of settlement will be made in the Press as soon as possible.

      WILLIAM BEARDMORE AND COMPANY, LIMITED.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to a notice issued by William Beardmore and Company, Limited, to their clerical staff inquiring whether members of the staff are or have been members of the National union of Clerks; and, if so, will he give instructions that this notice be withdrawn?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been in communication with Messrs. Beardmore respecting the circular referred to by my hon. Friend. The firm state that it was necessary for them to obtain the names of those of their clerks who are members of the National Union of Clerks, in order to ascertain how many of their employés are entitled to an award of the Committee on Production in a difference which had existed between the firm and the union. They endeavoured to obtain this information by application to the Committee on Production and the union, but were unsuccessful. They state that this was their only motive in issuing the circular. No offence against the Munitions Act has been committed by the issue of the circular, and the Department has no power, therefore, to require its withdrawal.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the employés have regarded the circular issued as of the most intimidatory character, and can he not make recommendations to the firm in question that such circulars should not be issued in
      902
      future, so that there should be freedom for every man in its employment to join whatever union he pleases?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I agree. The firm have stated that the issue of the circular in no way interferes with the freedom of the men to join any union they please. We cannot interfere until it is shown that the firm have taken action contrary to that principle. We shall continue to watch what is done, and if it appears that there is any action taken by the firm which interferes with the freedom of men to join a union we shall act.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the circular referred to, and does his interpretation of it not agree with the interpretation put upon it?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I have seen the circular. More than that I cannot say.

      FUSE MAKING, WOOLWICH.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions if he has received a protest signed by the staff of the Fuse Section, M. F. E. Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, protesting against the appointment of a shop manager inexperienced in fuse production; what reply has been sent to this protest; and what action it is intended to take in regard to the appointment?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

      OFFICES COMMANDEERED, MANCHESTER.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works if negotiations are proceeding in connection with the commandeering of an office building in Manchester belonging to the Provincial Insurance Company; whether he is aware of the fact that this firm has already had one building in Manchester taken over by the Government; and, seeing that the work for which this building is required can be equally well carried out from London, whether the whole matter can be reconsidered?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The requirements of the Ministry of Munitions in Manchester necessitate the commandeering of three rooms now occupied by the Provincial Insurance Company in a building belonging to the company, the remainder of which is already occupied by the Ministry of Munitions. I have no

      903
      knowledge of any other building in Manchester belonging to this company which has been commandeered by the Government. I am assured that it is quite impossible for the work, for which the accommodation is required, to be done from London.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Do I understand they will have only three rooms in addition to what they have already?
      Sir A. MOND: Yes.

      AEROPLANE WINGS (CELLULOSE ACETATE).
      Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if his attention has been called to the criticism passed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure in their last Report as to the action taken by the Department responsible for financing the Cellonite Company, of Basle, and the refusal to arrange with British companies for the supply of cellulose acetate; what action is proposed to be taken in view of the terms of such Report; and if he can state what amount of German capital is invested in the Basle company which has had such preference over British companies in this matter?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The original contract referred to by my hon. Friend was made by the War Office and was inherited by the Ministry of Munitions when it became responsible for aircraft production in 1917. The Ministry of Munitions' dealings have been with the British Cellulose Company, and no financial assistance has been given to the Cellonite Company, of Basle. I have no information as to the amount of German capital invested in that company. I desire to add that, in view of the Select Committee's Report, I am appointing a Committee to consider and report to me on the criticisms and recommendations made therein. Until I receive the Report I cannot make any statement as to future action.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the Commission, presided over by M. Léon Bourgeois, on the question of a Leage of Nations, will fee issued as a White Paper, or otherwise made accessible to the British public;
    904
    and whether the Government are prepared to publish any other memoranda on the subject for the guidance of public opinion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The Report of the Commission presided over by Monsieur Léon Bourgeois is a confidential document of the French Government, and the question of its publication in any form must therefore be left to the French Government. At present I do rot think it would be possible to publish any memoranda as suggested without hampering the discussions now going on between ourselves and our Allies.

    RUSSIA.

      TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.
      Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has made to the Provisional Government of Siberia a categorical declaration that they have no intention of infringing the territorial integrity of Russia?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

      NEW CONSTITUTION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Fifth National Congress of Russian Soviets held in Moscow on or about the 8th July adopted a new constitution for Russia, and that in the regions of Russia which are thereby federated in the Russian Republic the constitution is firmly established; and whether he will obtain a copy of this constitution in Moscow through Mr. Lockhart?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I believe that the fifth Congress of the Russian Soviets approved a new constitution, but I have no precise information on the subject. Communication with Moscow is precarious, but I will try to get a copy of the constitution.

      BRITISH GOVERNMENT'S DECLARATION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the declaration of the British Government, made in the Press on 31st July, that the action of the Allies in Russia is of a temporary character, no menace to Russian sovereignty is intended, and these objects once obtained, not a single

      905
      Allied soldier would remain on Russian soil, was made on behalf and with the consent of France, Japan, and the United States?
      Mr. BALFOUR: We have made no declaration on behalf of our Allies. What we said on our own behalf was
      "The aim of His Majesty's Government is to secure the political and economic restoration of Russia, without internal interference of any kind, and to bring about the expulsion of enemy forces from Russian soil. His Majesty's Government categorically declare that they have no intention whatever of infringing in the slightest degree the territorial integrity of Russia."
      I have no doubt that this is in harmony with the view of all the Associated Governments.
      Mr. KING: Is it not just as well to enforce that admirable statement of our aims with the definite and express consent of our Allies?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Our Allies may or may not think it wise to have a joint declaration, but it is sufficient that the various Governments should make their own declarations. It might be a good addition to that, but I am not responsible for that.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the use of the words "restoration of the political position of Russia" in his answer?
      Colonel THORNE: Turn all the Germans out!
      Mr. BALFOUR: The words were
      "to secure the political and economic restoration of Russia."
      That means we hope to see Russia in a more orderly condition politically than it is at the present time. It means that among other things.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that it is the view of the Government and the Allies that the best way to promote the political restoration of Russia is to accentuate civil war there?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I made it perfectly clear in what I said. If I did not make it clear I will read the words again. We do not propose to interfere in the internal arrangements of Russia. Russia must manage her own affairs. But there is nothing inconsistent with the general statement in anything I have said.
      Mr. LEES-SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman make a statement that
      906
      they do not intend to assist any of those factions in Russia who are attempting to overthrow the Soviet Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: "Without internal interference of any kind."

      REGIONAL MURMAN COUNCIL.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the native or Russian population of the district of Russia now under the regional Murman Council?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I understand that the population of the district referred to is approximately 130,000, but that it fluctuates considerably, as large numbers enter the district at regular intervals for the fishing industry.

      GENERAL GOURKO.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that General Gourko has publicly declared for a restoration of the monarchy; and whether he can assure the House that General Gourko is not in command of the Murman Expedition?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have not seen the declaration to which the hon. Member refers. General Gourko has nothing whatever to do with the Murman Expedition.

    GERMAN SUBMARINES (SPANISH NEUTRAL WATERS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to previous acts of German submarines in Spanish neutral waters, he can state what action the Allies have taken in regard to the use of Spanish territory for warlike operations by the interned crew of U 56?
    Mr. BALFOUR: His Majesty's Government have made repeated representations to the Spanish Government drawing their serious attention to the necessity of taking the most stringent measures to prevent any violation of their neutrality by the crew of the U 56, and have in particular urged upon them the necessity of removing the commander of the submarine from Santander to a place of internment inland, and of preventing such actions as the charging of batteries on board the submarine.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Government received any answer to that?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir, we have received no satisfactory answer at present.

    PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal or suggestion in the direction of peace negotiations from any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any enemy Power has recently been received or discussed by any of the Allies?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No one with authority to act on behalf of any enemy Power has recently made proposals or suggestions to His Majesty's Government in the direction of peace negotiations, nor have we received any communication from Allied Governments to the effect that such proposals or suggestions have been made to them.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Were proposals of an unofficial character discussed at the Conference held not long ago at Versailles?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I know nothing about that.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (SICKNESS BENEFIT).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, what steps are being taken to reimburse insurance committees for the loss caused to them by the provisions of Clause 20 of the 1917 Act?
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Lieutenant-Commander Dudley Ward): The hon. Member's question presumably refers to the provision of Section 20 (1) of the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, under which, in the case of an insured person without dependants who is an inmate of a sanatorium, the amount of the sickness benefit is no longer payable to the Insurance Committee. The income derived by insurance committees from this source has in the main either accumulated as a balance or has been used to supplement their
    908
    administration income or their sanatorium benefit income. For each of these latter purposes the funds of insurance committees have recently been materially increased by new Exchequer Grants.

    TUBERCULOSIS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the present amount of accommodation in Scotland for institutional treatment for all classes of tuberculous persons, including soldiers, sailors, discharged soldiers and sailors, and other civilians; what is the total number of cases awaiting institutional treatment for Scotland as a whole and for Glasgow; whether the duration of the period of treatment is limited by the amount of accommodation available; and whether, instead of supplying increased accommodation for cases due to war service, the already inadequate accommodation for the civilian population is being further restricted in order to provide for such cases?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): Institutions have been approved by the Local Government Board for Scotland, containing 2,570 beds for the treatment of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis. In addition, there are some institutions approved for the treatment of cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis, out a specific number of beds is not set apart for this purpose. The Local Government Board have no information as to the total number of cases awaiting institutional treatment for Scotland as a whole, but as regards Glasgow, inquiries which the Board had occasion to make in April showed that on 1st March nearly 400 cases of pulmonary tuberculosis were receiving institutional treatment. The Board have no information at present to warrant them in expressing any opinion as to whether the duration of the period of treatment is limited by the amount of accommodation available. The Board are aware that accommodation provided by local authorities for the treatment of cases of tuberculosis has been taken over for other purposes, and they have been in conference with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners on the subject, and are about to institute an inquiry into the whole question of the sufficiency of the existing accommodation for tuberculosis cases, having regard to the number of such cases and the need for treatment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the provision which was being made at Robroyston for treatment of tuberculosis cases has now been taken over by the military authorities for the treatment of venereal disease?
    Mr. CLYDE: There was no treatment at Robroyston. In any case, the fact that some institutions have been taken over for various purposes was referred to in the answer and is fully in our view.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Has any Government Department or has the medical profession yet discovered any actual remedy or cure for consumption other than the open-air treatment?

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has reconsidered Regulation 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether he has any statement to make?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This Regulation has been reconsidered by a Committee of the Cabinet, which recommends that in the interests of the health of our soldiers and of those of the Dominions the Regulation must for the present be maintained.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that this Regulation imposes penalties on women alone and that it is received with intense hostility by every organised women's society in the country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is this part of the policy of social reconstruction for the election?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the provision for lust among the ideals for which we are fighting?

    GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (DIRECTORSHIPS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Secretary to the Ministry of Information is, or was, a director of seven public companies, one of the directors of American propaganda a director of six companies, the director of Swiss propaganda a director of nine com-
    910
    panies, and the director for Asia and the Far East a director of thirty-seven companies; whether these four gentlemen with fifty-nine directorships will be, or have been, asked to resign their directorships in order to devote their whole energies to their national work; and, if not, whether these directorships are understood to be held no longer in an active capacity?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Secretary to the Ministry of Information is Mr. Harold Snagge, who is a director of Barclay's Bank and of various commercial undertakings. With regard to the other gentlemen referred to in the question, they are, so far as I am aware, active directors of various companies. They give voluntary assistance to the Ministry as advisers and supervisors of propaganda in the countries of which they happen to have very special knowledge. I am informed that in some cases this service occupies the whole day; in other cases only part of the day; but in every case the advice and supervision by men who have executive ability and special knowledge of foreign conditions are of the greatest assistance to the Ministry. In these circumstances, I see no reason for taking the course indicated in the question.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Are these gentlemen Civil servants or are they Ministers of the Crown? If they are Civil servants they are precluded from holding directorships. If they are Ministers of the Crown it has been the invariable rule since Sir Henry Campbell's time that they should not hold them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are neither.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would be well advised if he would try to remove the impression that his Ministry—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it an inappropriate designation to describe a gentleman who is secretary to a Ministry as a Civil servant?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I do not think he is a Civil servant in the ordinary sense. He is, like many others, giving his services, as he thinks, for the country.
    Mr. KING: Is not Mr. Snagge a paid official if he is Secretary to the Ministry?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, he is not paid, I believe.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Have not these gentlement the disposal of public funds with which, if they choose, they can promote the interests of their companies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I do not think they have the disposal of public funds at all. The object for which they are put there is to control expenditure and not to authorise it.
    Mr. KING and Captain CARR-GOMMrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question had better be raised in the Debate.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether the attention of the Government had been called to the inadequacy of the scale of maintenance allowances in the case of mothers dependent upon sons serving in the Army or Navy; and whether it is proposed to revise the scale to meet the increased cost of the necessaries of life?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement published on the 24th July and to the statement made on behalf of the Government in the Debate on the Vote of Credit on Friday last.
    Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he would have inquiries made as to why an allowance out of his deferred pay of £5, made to his wife by Private C. Carroll, No. 7487, signaller, Connaught Rangers, signed for on 21st March, 1917, has not been forwarded to her although the said amount has been deducted from his pay; and whether, having regard to the fact that Private Carroll is now in the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, his wife would be paid the increased scale of separation allowance, together with the said £5?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The matter is being inquired into, and I will let the hon. Member know the result in due course.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the separation allowance now granted to the father of Private T. Breakall, No. 260257,
    912
    Royal Field Artillery, has not been paid from the 17th April of this year, the date upon which the son made the allotment and the claim for separation allowance; and will he see that this is done at once?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member will, no doubt, have received my letter of the 2nd instant, informing him that an allowance of 16s. a week is now being issued, and that arrears from date of enlistment have been paid.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      REPATRIATION OF BRITISH PRISONERS (COST OF VOYAGE).
      Mr. E. HARVEYasked whether the Government have approved the principle of charging British civilian prisoners who are sent home from internment in Germany the cost of their voyage from Holland to England; what is the amount of this charge to the individual and the basis upon which it is made; and whether, in view of the fact that the Rotterdam Steamship Company make no charge for the hire of their vessels beyond actual running expenses and having consideration to the long-continued hardships already undergone by the returning prisoners, the Government will remit the charge now made, which is one which many released prisoners can ill afford?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I have given on this subject on the 16th and 22nd July.

      CO-ORDINATION OF DUTIES.
      Colonel Sir JAMES CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to announce the new proposals promised for co-ordinating the duties connected with prisoners of war?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I am not yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government in this matter.
      Sir J. CRAIG: May I repeat the question on Wednesday?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid it would be useless. A proposal has been drafted. It will come up for the consideration of the Cabinet, and I do not think it will be settled by Wednesday.

    LEASES (REPAIRS OF PROPERTY).
    Mr. BRADYasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the hardships which might be inflicted on town leaseholders, both shopkeepers and householders, whose leases have expired, or will expire, during the war years, and the landlords are insisting on extensive repairs as a condition precedent to granting new leases, he will include Ireland in any proposed legislation having for its object the extension of the term of years in the lease or the pontponement of repairs until a reasonable time after the conclusion of peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Should it be found possible to bring in a Bill dealing with the hardship referred to the case of Ireland will not be overlooked.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARD, CHEPSTOW (HOUSING).
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any estimate has been presented to the Treasury as regards the cost of the housing scheme at Chepstow; and, if not, whether it is proposed to proceed with the scheme before submitting such an estimate and obtaining Treasury sanction for the expenditure?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I would remind my hon. Friend that I dealt with this question of the housing scheme at Chepstow somewhat fully in the Debate on Vote 8 on Tuesday last, and I explained that the additional expenditure required would be about £1,282,500, but that we had savings on other heads of the original estimate amounting to roughly half a million, thus making the net additional sum required £762,000. The estimates for that gross additional expenditure are now in course of preparation in full detail, and will be submitted to the Treasury at an early date.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the difference between what has been saved and the old expenditure was submitted to the Treasury before the expenditure was adopted?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that is so. The net additional amount required is £762,500, and we shall submit the whole of the gross additional charge to the Treasury.
    Sir C. HENRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, on account of the experience of that Department, he will consider the desirability of entrusting to the Office of Works the housing scheme at Chepstow, and make arrangements that the German prisoners, whom it is intended to utilise on this work, shall be made available to that Department?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of transferring this work to the Office of Works was discussed between the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding and the First Commissioner of Works, and, with the full agreement of the latter, it was decided, in view of all the circumstances, that the work of erecting the additional housing accommodation required at the national yards should be carried out by the Department which is constructing the yards themselves.
    Sir C. HENRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what were the reasons for the Office of Works coming to that decision? Is it not a fact that the Office of Works considers itself the best Department for carrying out these housing schemes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That suggestion cannot be accepted in this instance, because the matter was discussed between the First Commissioner and myself, and it was agreed that it would be better for the Controller of Merchant Shipping to do it.

    OVERSEAS TRAVELLING (WOMEN AND CHILDREN).

      ADMIRALTY RESTRICTIONS.
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty is responsible for the increased stringency of the conditions under which passports are issued for women and children passing overseas; and whether he is prepared to make a statement as to the present position of this matter?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
      The following is the statement referred to:—
      The Admiralty, as the Department of State solely responsible for the safety of vessels at sea and as the only Department with a full knowledge of the submarine situation and of the dangers involved by sea voyages, take full responsibility for stating that it is essential during the War to restrict severely the travelling of women and children overseas.
      The grounds on which the Admiralty have considered it necessary to obtain the concurrence of all the Government Departments concerned to this restriction are as follows:

      (a) The presence of women and children on board ship at the present time adds very considerably to the responsibility and anxiety of the master, and seriously hampers his freedom of action in attacking an enemy vessel if met with.

      (b) Should a vessel carrying women and children be torpedoed, the necessity of saving the women and children very materially reduces the chance of saving any military or naval ranks on board, and leads to the loss of merchant seamen who might otherwise have been saved, and makes a demand upon the self-sacrifice and chivalry of the men which ought not to be imposed upon them.

      (c) It is considered essential that vessels carrying women and children through the danger zone should be protected whenever possible. Unless the numbers to be carried be severely restricted, sufficient protection could only be given by withdrawing protection from vessels carrying troops or essential supplies on which the country depends.

      (d) The presence of women and children on board ship has recently necessitated a complete convoy being taken into port in order that the women, whose nerves had been seriously affected by the sinking of ships in company, might be sent home overland.

      (e) The risk of drowning to the women and children themselves, which is obviously greater than for men.

      The necessity for restricting the travelling of women and children overseas being therefore unquestionable, the Admiralty have, with the assistance and complete concurrence of all the Departments of State concerned, framed certain rules, under which no women or children under the age of sixteen years may travel by sea through the danger zone. The exceptions to this are women on duty and very urgent cases in which the refusal to grant a passport would involve great hardship. In such exceptional cases, children would not be refused permits to accompany their mothers, if necessary.
      These rules are administered at home by the Departments concerned, and overseas by their representatives, but in order to ensure consistent treatment, all cases in which the refusal to issue a passport might involve great hardship are referred for decision to an Interdepartmental Committee, of which the Admiralty representative is chairman, and passports are issued by the Foreign Office upon the Committee's recommendation only.
      It will, therefore, be seen that while the Admiralty accept entire responsibility for drawing attention to the necessity for restricting the travelling of women and children overseas, the Departments of State are equally responsible for the framing and administration of these Rules, while the responsibility for deciding cases of hardship rests with the Interdepartmental Passport Committee. Further, as stated by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Blockade, in the House on the 5th February, 1918, the restriction on women and children travelling overseas, save in exceptional cases of urgent necessity, was laid down with the approval of the War Cabinet.

    HOSPITAL YACHT (BO'NESS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if a yacht owned by the wife of a British admiral has been lying in Bo'ness Docks for the past two years; if this yacht was taken over by the Government early in the War for the purposes of a hospital ship; if practically no work of this character has been done; if the Government are paying the full cost of maintenance; if the captain and crew are standing by the vessel; and whether, in view of the importance of utilising every available ton of shipping, this vessel can be put to a useful purpose?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The vessel in question is a yacht which has been used in emergency as a hospital ship, and will, if occasion arises, be used again. The Admiralty is at no expense in connection with the vessel which was offered free of cost, fully manned and equipped as a hospital ship in 1914, and so accepted. I am sure Lady Beatty would not desire me to say this, but in view of the form of the question, I take occasion to say that we owe the gracious act of placing this vessel at

    917
    our disposal to the kindly generosity of the wife of the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long during the last two years this ship has been used for hospital purposes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It does not accommodate many, but it has been used on different occasions, and will be used again. We are very much obliged to Lady Beatty.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Poplar Board of Guardians asking if it is possible for Parliament to grant any increase to present old age pensioners; if he will say if the guardians will be allowed to grant relief in cases of extreme hardship without invalidating the receipt of old ago pensions: if not, what answer can be given to the Poplar Board of Guardians; and, under the circumstances, if he will say how it should act?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It has been repeatedly stated in this House that the Government does not intend to introduce legislation for the alteration of the Old Age Pension Acts.

    REQUISITIONED LAND, CIPPENHAM (COMPENSATION).
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have decided the amount of compensation to be paid in connection with the requisitioning of land at Cippenham, in South Bucks, for military purposes; and, if so, what is the total amount which has been or will be paid?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No claims have yet been received in respect of the land referred to. The crops are being harvested on all but a very small portion of the area, and in these cases it will be difficult to assess compensation until the crops are removed. As soon as any claims are received they will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

    "REVEILLE" REVIEW.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a new review, called "Reveillé" issued at 2s. 6d. per copy, which is being published by the Stationery Office; whether any estimate of the cost of this production has been made, and also any estimate as to the probable receipts from sales; what Department is responsible for this production; what objects it is proposed to serve; and what section of the public it will cater for with a magazine sold at this price?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the review referred to. "Reveillé" is the new title of a review which was previously published under another title. It will be published quarterly by the Stationery Office at the request of the War Office and the Ministry of Pensions, and the object of publication is to create interest among the public in the work which is being done in the restoration of disabled men. In the form in which it is issued it will, it is hoped, appeal to that section of the general public which can afford to buy the reviews and monthly magazines. It is hoped that the cost of production will be covered by the receipts.

    SICK PAY (UNESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS).
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked whether a change has recently been made in the Regulations for paying certain classes of unestablished Government servants during illness; whether the pay which they used to receive during sickness has, since 1st July, been dropped in the case of such servants who have been in Government employment for less than six months; and whether such new Regulation constitutes a change in the contract between the Government and its servants to the detriment of the latter and without their consent?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The employés to whom the hon. Member refers were entitled to certain sick pay privileges, not in virtue of their contract of service, but under the National Health Insurance (Special Customs, Crown Employment) Order, dated 13th November, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and Commissioners in pursuance of Sections 47 and 53 (3) of the National

    919
    Insurance Act, 1911. With the repeal of those Sections by the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, as from the 1st July last the privileges lapsed, and a new set of sick pay regulations have now been issued providing inter alia that sick pay should only be allowed after six months' service.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very great hardship on young women who have to live upon their money, that young women are sent away because they are told they have influenza, and that when they come back they are told there is no sick pay for them?
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend to the Government that it would be better to give the sick pay to these women than to allow money to be squandered by the entertainment of Cabinet Ministers at the expense of the public by the Ministry of Information?

    TUBERCULIN TEST.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there are now, or if he intends to impose, any restrictions on the possession and use of tuberculin by persons other than members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in view of the fact that previous injection of tuberculin within six weeks renders the tuberculin test worthless?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of any restrictions at present. I am consulting the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in regard to the question whether any restrictions should be imposed.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Will my right hon. Friend say how he proposes to ensure that the consumers, who, under the new grading of milk scheme, pay 3d. or 4d. a gallon extra for their milk of Grade A or Grade B, get what they pay for, in the absence of any such restrictions?
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give any information as to the number and ownership of dairy herds which contain no animal which reacts to the tuberculin test?
    Mr. FISHER: I have not at present any information on the subject.

    IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether the decision of the late Government not to complete the Imperial chain of wireless stations was, as stated in a recent trial, the result of advice given by representatives of the War Office and the Admiralty; if so, can he state who were the officials responsible for giving such advice; what saving of expenditure was secured by its adoption; and whether the Dominion Governments were first consulted in the matter?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The decision taken in December, 1914, not to proceed with the Imperial chain was arrived at by the Cabinet with the concurrence of the Army Council and the Admiralty. It is impossible to say at present what saving of expenditure was secured by its adoption. The only Dominion Government concerned in the contract for the chain was that of South Africa. So far as I am aware, it has raised no objection to the decision.
    Sir F. HALL: Why were not the other Dominions consulted in the matter?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It was not proposed to put stations in the other Dominions.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this was not valued in the other Dominions?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: This affair happened many years ago. I was not a member of the Government at the time.
    Sir F. HALL: If I put a question down for a later date, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it and give a fuller reply?

    SUBMARINE ATTACKS (IRISH WATERS).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say if any compensation has yet been paid from any Government source to the victims of the recent attacks by submarines on county Down fishing boats; if not, whether steps will now be taken towards that end; and whether the Fisheries Board will consider the advisability of remitting the unpaid instalments on the boats sunk or damaged?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am informed that no compensation is payable from naval funds for the loss by enemy action of vessels in private employment, nor, so far as I am aware, are grants made from public funds in respect of such losses. I understand, however, that the Foreign Claims Office keep a record of such cases with a view to the possibility of a claim being made on the enemy Governments at the end of the War, and I would suggest that the hon. Member should communicate with them direct.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether there is any fund in Ireland from which a grant could be made for this purpose?
    Mr. SHORT: Yes, I will make such an inquiry.
    Mr. JOYCE: Can these cases be brought within the purview of War Risk Loans and awards be made just as they are made in the case of merchant ships?
    Mr. SHORTT: I suppose my hon. Friend means the insurance scheme?
    Mr. JOYCE: Yes.
    Mr. SHORTT: That question is being examined, but it is not yet decided.
    Mr. FLAVIN: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is preventing entertainments intended for the benefit of these men from taking place, ought not the Government to undertake the responsibility of looking after the dependants of those who have lost their lives?

    INFANTRY EQUIPMENT.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will call for the Papers No. 9988/8 (A.M.G. 8), with a view to a thorough investigation and a complete reconsideration of the claims put forward by Major C. Honey in regard to his personal position and his title to a suitable reward for his services in connection with the introduction of the 1914 Infantry equipment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This case has been fully investigated on more than one occasion, and I regret that the matter cannot again be reopened.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether captains of the Special Reserve serving in Salonika or other Eastern theatres of war are promoted to the rank of major on the completion of fifteen years' service in the same manner as all other Infantry captains?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Promotion to the rank of major is not by time in the Special Reserve, and a captain is only promoted major to fill a vacancy.

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (DAILY BULLETIN).
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the result of his consultation with the military authorities in France in connection with a proposed arrangement with the French authorities for the circulation of a translation of the "Bulletin Quotidien du Presse Etrangère" in the Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that the "Bulletin Quotidien du Presse Etrangère," which is a review of the Foreign Press, is not circulated by the French authorities to the troops, who depend on news from trench magazines and ordinary daily papers. As regards the arrangements generally for the supply of newspapers to the British troops in France, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply on Tuesday last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Antrim.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Is not that regarded as a publication confined to the staff?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer I have given covers all the points.

    ARTIFICERS (FRANCE).
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that under War Office Letter 114, Gen. No. 5,812 (A.G.), fifty artificers over forty years of age serving in France were sent down to the base and told to hold themselves in readiness to depart for home service at a moment's notice on 5th July last,

    923
    and that these men have been kept and still are on fatigue duty awaiting instructions; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This matter is entirely within the discretion of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, and I am afraid I cannot intervene.

    WIRE RODS.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in April last, there was a shortage of wire rods in this country but the increased output of British rods was officially expected to find employment for all wire-drawing plant in the near future; whether on 1st August the shortage had become accentuated, many wire-drawing mills were idle, and the shortage of wire rods, the raw material of such mills, was officially expected to last a further three months; and, if so, whether, in connection with the importation of wire rods now found necessary, he will consider the desirability of consulting the trade?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that the information supplied to my hon. and gallant Friend is not quite accurate. No wire-drawing mill was idle on the 1st August. Owing to a temporary breakdown of one of the largest rod-rolling mills the shortage of rods had become accentuated by that date. This mill is now in full operation again, and steps have been taken to guard against any such contingency in the future. As I stated on Thursday last, the importation of wire rods is only a temporary measure, and it is hoped that in three months' time no further imports will be necessary.

    Fiars (Scotland).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the Tithe Bill having been introduced for the benefit of England he can say when a Bill to regulate or commute fiars in Scotland will be introduced?
    Mr. CLYDE: I regret that at present I am unable to give any undertaking as to introducing a Bill on this subject.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the problem
    924
    is a much more onerous one, causing much greater hardship to Scotland than in England, that it was experienced earlier in Scotland than it was in England, and that attention was called to it earlier in Scotland than in England?
    Mr. CLYDE: My right hon. Friend is quite aware of the seriousness of the question. On the other hand, the hon. Member will realise the difficulty of legislation when the securing of a basis of agreement is the difficulty.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is it more difficult in Scotland to secure a basis of agreement than in England?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill,
Government War Obligations Bill,
Maidenhead Gas Bill,
Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Bill,
Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill,
Naval Prize Bill,
Public Health (Borrowing Powers) (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment,
Asylums Officers (Superannuation) Bill, with an Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Education Bill,
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill,
Trade Boards Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords],
St. Olave's Church, Southwark, Bill [Lords],
Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],
West Sussex County Council (Bridges) Bill [Lords],
Corn Production (Amendment) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to legalise in certain cases lotteries promoted by war charities." [Lotteries (War Charities) Bill [Lords.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

LOTTERIES (WAR CHARITIES) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
ASYLUMS OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
EDUCATION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]
BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 88.]
TRADE BOARDS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.
First Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Petroleum Production Bill be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  Resolved, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the clock."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL

    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. LEIF JONES: On the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, now moved, the Government have at last provided us with an opportunity, long desired, to put to them certain questions about the Ministry of Information. At present we know little about it, as it is not the creation of Parliament. It exists, and was announced to us through the Press, though up to the present we have been kept in the dark as to its constitution, its purposes, its methods, and its relation to other Departments of the State. I hope that to-day light may be thrown on all these matters. I confess that before bringing this question forward I felt some anxiety about dealing with the matter of propaganda in enemy countries, lest I might be treading on delicate ground, and possibly raising questions we had better not discuss during the War. But all anxiety of that kind is allayed by the action of the Ministry themselves, because we have seen the Lords and Commoners, who compose the Ministry, competing with one another, and advertising themselves and others, and the offices they hold in their public appointments. I therefore can debate this with much greater freedom than I should have felt if dealing with a more reticent body of public servants. It is, perhaps, desirable that the House should go back a little to examine how this Ministry has come into being. Before the War there was no Gov-
    948
    ernment propaganda from public funds in this country, and there was no Press Bureau for the selection and manufacture of news and views for consumption by the multitude. We had a Press absolutely free from Government interference, and our news was the fullest and our newspapers were the most informing and influential in the whole world. The Government made no use of the Press, though of course, then, as now, individual Ministers were more or less skilled in the art of advertising, but as a Government no use was made of the Press. But even before the War a Committee had been set up, consisting of representatives of the War Office and the Admiralty, with representatives of the Press, to consider what should be done with regard to the control of the Press in the event of war breaking out, and that Committee, as I am informed, decided that the only action to be taken should be of the regulative and restrictive character which is obviously necessary when war is going on.
    When the War broke out the Government felt it desirable, in view of enemy misstatements about our objects and our purposes in entering the War, that an authoritative statement should be made to the world of the purposes of the Government and the aims which this country had in entering the War, and of the great principles for which we held ourselves to be fighting in the War. I think, in the circumstances, that the Government were absolutely justified in taking that course. I think it was well that they should endeavour to put before the world a full and authoritative statement, drawn from official documents, of the policy which had been pursued by the Government and of the circumstances which led to our entrance into the War. I could wish that even then the Government had done it quite openly, and that instead of letting the pamphlets and leaflets appear as if they came from private individuals or committees, they had boldly put them forward as Government publications containing the vindication of this country's part in entering the War. However, that course was not taken. A small Department was set up at Wellington House in the office of the Insurance Commissioners under Mr. Masterman, whose duty it was to bring out these leaflets and pamphlets, and I am bound to say, as Mr. Masterman has been a great deal criticised in past years, that the early work done by that small in numbers and comparatively

    949
    obscure body of men, working in private, was exceedingly good, and that they brought out a very large number of useful publications, such as Mr. Headlam's "Twelve Days," Lord Bryce's Committee's Report on Belgium, and various other authoritative statements in regard to the position of the Government and of the country in the War, and to the action of the enemy. As I say, I think it would have been better had it all been done quite openly, in order that we might have fought the misstatements that were made about us in neutral countries, in enemy countries, and, indeed, in our own country, by an authoritative exposition of the policies and of the aims of this country, but that was not done. They were brought out privately by what was the very beginning of the information system in this country. Soon afterwards, alongside of Mr. Masterman's Department, grew up another Committee—partly, I think, under the Home Office, sometimes under the Foreign Office, more generally floating somewhere between the two, and owned by neither—a Committee which attended to films and to wireless news. Mr. Mair, I understand, was in charge of that Committee. That was carried on with increasing vigour and a comparative recklessness in regard to expenditure, because, apparently there was nobody to check the output, and everyone engaged in this work was left practically free to follow his own devices. They did the best they could, with little guidance from the Treasury, and, as a result, considerable waste and extravagance occurred in the work of the office.
    When the present Government came into office at the end of December, 1916, one of the measures they took in hand was the first reorganisation of the Department of Information—indeed, I did wrong to call it the Department of Information at that time, because it was the present Government, in January, 1917, which really set up and organised a definite Department of Information. They gathered together the various bodies and organisations which had grown up to do this work and divided them under four different heads. Colonel Buchan was placed at the head of the whole Department, and he had working under him four different bodies in four different parts of London. There was, first of all, Mr. Masterman's Department, carried on at Wellington House. That
    950
    continued to put forth books and pamphlets, with great vigour, which were circulated throughout the world. Mr. Mair continued his work on cinemas, and, I think, wireless, but it is very easy to go wrong in knowing exactly who had charge of any particular Department at any particular moment. Mr. Mair, I think, working from the Lord Chancellor's office in the House of Lords, controlled the cinemas and the wireless, and I believe that Mr. Mair's Department was also in charge of the entertainment of our foreign visitors. It is Mr. Mair who, I understand, is responsible, for instance, for the entertainment referred to in paragraph 13 of the Sixth Report of the National Expenditure Committee, where an incident is reported of a visit of twelve gentlemen to Dublin, when £31 of public money was spent in two days in drink and £5 in cigars. The House will recognise that I am not a great authority on how much should be spent in entertaining twelve gentlemen to wine and cigars.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Does it follow that the drinks were spent on themselves?
    Mr. JONES: I understand the drinks were consumed by the gentlemen present at the entertainment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Were there twelve or more?
    Mr. JONES: I do not know. I have heard it criticised by wine drinkers as being an excessive amount, but, as I say, I am no authority on these matters, and all I would say is that I think entertainment at the public expense is a rather dangerous power for a Department to exercise, and that it should be done with very great discretion. That was Mr. Mair's Department. There was a third Department, and that, I think, is the most important of all, namely, the Political Intelligence Department. That had its headquarters at 82, Victoria Street. The work of that Department was really to gather contemporary evidence from newspapers in foreign countries, to collate them, and to put them together as documents for the perusal of the Departments and the Government, and also, I think, of the Press. That was most important work, and I think it has been very well done, and I am glad to know that at the present time that Department of Political Intelligence is no longer

    951
    under the Ministry of Information, but has been transferred to the Foreign Office. I hope it will remain there, for it is a great deal better there than in the hands of the Ministry of Information, because this work is not propaganda work at all.
    4.0 P.M.
    It ought to be done with absolute impartiality, and I think it is so done. Daily extracts are published from all foreign newspapers, which are exceedingly interesting to read, and which fulfil a most useful purpose. That is material history. It is most important it should be done day by day, contemporaneously with its appearance in the papers abroad, but that is wholly distinct from the News Department of the Ministry of Information—the Fourth Department. If political intelligence is the History Department of the Ministry of Information, the News Department is the imaginative department, the fiction department, the body which dresses up the facts for presentment to the public, a most important function, and one leaving scope for individual imagination and individual propaganda, which again may be very dangerous if not exercised with the greatest possible care. Over these four Departments we had Colonel Buchan, who was supposed to have direct access to the War Cabinet; he was responsible only to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet. But the War Cabinet is a body with many things to do, and it did not find very much time to devote to Colonel Buchan and the Information Department. Consequently after a short period the Department was in 1917 placed under the control and supervision of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir Edward Carson). His was a brief and inglorious reign. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have taken the duties very lightly, and I cannot find any mark anywhere of his progress in the Department. He came and he went, and I know of nothing that occurred during that period. All this time there seems to have been little or no financial control exercised over the expenditure of the four Departments. Colonel Buchan was nominally the accounting officer. The Treasury had one interview with him to suggest some form of accounts which might be kept by the Department, but they took no steps to find out whether those accounts were kept, and in this matter I desire to say most emphatically
    952
    more blame rests on the Treasury for any waste in connection with the Department than on the men who had the actual spending of the money. Remember this was a new Department. The men were new to public service, they were not Civil servants, they did not know Civil Service ways and methods in connection with the spending of money, and it does seem most extraordinary that with the exception of one interview with Colonel Buchan the Treasury should have let the whole thing slide until the accounts got into inextricable confusion and waste had gone on in a hundred different directions. No doubt it was the duty of the accounting officer of the Department to bring to the notice of the Treasury any failure to keep accounts or any slackening in the manner of accounting. But then it must be remembered that in this case the accounting officer was not a man accustomed to accounting work and therefore the Department has reason to complain that the Treasury did not give it that helping hand in the management of its finances which might have been expected. But I am not going to say very much about the finances of the Department. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has been chairman of the Sub-committee of the Committee on National Expenditure which has investigated the expenditure of this Department, and I feel sure he will have something to say about it. Still, I hope that out of this Debate will come one result, that in regard to all Departments where men not used to public service have the handling of public money there will be more constant touch with the Treasury than has been the case in the past.
    Let us turn for a moment to the result of the expenditure. Admittedly the propaganda in foreign countries has not been of any very great value, judged by its results. I think that I may say it was a dead failure in Russia. A vast number of books and pamphlets were sent out there, but those who sent them appear to have been forgetful of the fact that 80 per cent. of the Russian people do not read. What was needed, we are told, was that men who knew the Russian language and were acquainted with the country should go out, but such men are very difficult to find. There are not many English people who know Russia and are capable of penetrating into the minds of the Russian people. It is a difficult thing to do. Vast sums of money were spent on doing things

    953
    which in their very nature could not reach the people in foreign countries whom it was desired to reach. Another mistake was that after the Revolution we continued to send cables to Russia from newspapers in this country which were well known to sympathise with the old regime, and I cannot imagine anything more foolish on the part of this country than to be sending after the Revolution messages and dispatches from sources which were notoriously unfriendly to the Revolution in Russia. Along with the Department of Information there was an advisory committee of editors, and it would take a far longer time than I have at my disposal to disentangle; the relationship between the committee of editors and the Department over which Colonel Buchan presided. A great deal of money was spent in Italy, not wisely. A large sum was spent in South America with very little result. America was perhaps best done, and that was due to the fact that Sir Gilbert Parker, a former member of this House, was responsible for a great deal of correspondence to America long before America intervened in the War, and at a time when it was very important we should make Americans understand our position. But, after all is said and done, it was not our propaganda that influenced opinion in America. It was enemy propaganda that did that. It is the custom in this country to admire German methods and use of propaganda. I have heard people express a strong wish that we had a similar system to the German system in order to make British ideas counteract German ideas. But I do not think German propaganda was well done. I entirely dissent from the doctrine that the Germans scored heavily by the way they put their views before foreign countries. The German touch is not a delicate one, and the propaganda which they carried on in the United States did far more to discredit the German case in the United States than anything our Department of Propaganda did. The doings of Germans in the United States were exposed not by our propaganda, but by the enterprise of American newspapers and by Americans in this country, who of their own accord thoroughly exposed the tangles of German propaganda and did so much to bring America into the War. I speak as something of a sceptic of the effects of this political propaganda in foreign countries Judging by results, from what was done by the Department of Informa-
    954
    tion in the early days of the War I think very little good has been derived by this country from the vast sums of money we have spent on this purpose. I suppose it was some recognition of the failure of our efforts which led the Government to a reorganisation of the Information Department. It is a very curious thing that each of the reorganisations has resulted in a larger superstructure, and in more changes at the bottom, while the work is being done less efficiently as the outcome. We started with Mr. Masterman working practically by himself at Wellington House, then came Colonel Buchan, who was put over him, and then we had Lord Beaverbrook, who was put over Colonel Buchan. We have all three of them now.
    Sir C. HENRY: Wellington House has gone now.
    Mr. JONES: Yes; the Department started modestly. For a long time it had no hotel; now the officials have secured an hotel, and the Howard Hotel is its headquarters. It has the status of a Ministry. I want to ask the Government, Why has this great change been made? Why this immense superstructure? What is there left to be done? We are reaching the time in this War when the need for propaganda is nearly over. The nations have made up their minds; you do not need any longer to tell them what we are fighting for. The whole of the nations know that the issue is between liberty and despotism, and they have ranged themselves on one side or the other. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Member for Blackburn?"] He does not agree with me about the War, but he has more sense than some of the people who cry out against him. I repeat that on the whole the world has made up its mind about the issue which is being fought out on the plains of Flanders. The nations have taken their stand by our side. It is a war between the free nations of the world and despotism, and there is now no need to be pouring out by the million pamphlets on elementary matters such as these. You are wasting your time and your energy, and that has been so far recognised that Wellington House has been closed down, yet Wellington House is the part of the Ministry which really produced the best results, which gave more information and by which more knowledge was shown in the pamphlets which were issued. Lord Beaverbrook has been placed in charge of the Ministry. He is a Minister without

    955
    salary, we are told, and he is recommended on that account. I prefer Ministers with salaries. Ministers with salaries are answerable to the country which pays them. I do not believe in placing a great Department in the hands of unpaid men. If you really want to induce responsibility you must pay men for their work. We may have an unpaid Minister saying to us if we complain, "We do your work for nothing, and we decline to be talked to by paid Members of Parliament." I very much prefer that Ministers should be paid salaries commensurate with their work. And it is of some importance that we should know something about these men, in whose hands has been placed the difficult and responsible task, and the delicate task, of defending the honour of the Empire and this country, and of justifying the freedom on which the Empire is based. After all, it is a Ministry of Information, and the value of information depends at least in some degree on the people from whom it comes. Now let us take the Ministry—and one has to gather information where one can, and I hope my hon. Friend will correct me if I go wrong. The Minister in charge is Lord Beaverbrook. Lord Beaverbrook is known to most of us. He sat in this House for sometime. [An HON. MEMBER: "And did nothing!"] Though he took no prominent part in the Debates in the Chamber, he is supposed to have had influence behind the scenes, and it is confidently stated by those who profess to know that Lord Beaverbrook rivals Lord Northcliffe himself in the merit of having brought down the late Government and substituted the present Coalition Government. Lord Beaverbrook is a man interested in commerce. He is a director of seven companies. He takes an interest in banks, in power companies, in railways, and in newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "And cement!"] I will take that from my hon. Friend. It is so difficult to find out all the facts in these cases. A question was put to the Leader of the House at Question Time as to whether Lord Beaverbrook had given up his directorships.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): No; it was in connection with the employés of the Ministry. I understand Lord Beaverbrook has given up all his directorships.
    Mr. JONES: I am very glad to hear it. My information was otherwise, but I am
    956
    glad to have that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that has been observed in Administrations for some time past, and I hope the present Government will adhere to the same rule, and insist that men placed in responsible offices shall not have divided and distracting influences involved in the continuance of great posts in the commercial world. Mr. Snagge is Secretary to the Ministry. He is a director of nine companies, and seems chiefly interested in rubber. The Director of Information in Scandinavia and Spain is Mr. Hambro, a Member of the House, a banker, a railway director, and, I understand, he is placed in charge of information in Scandinavia and Spain because he has business connections with those countries. I venture to suggest that is not a very good reason for placing him in charge of propaganda in those countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "An excellent reason!"] I think it is a good reason for employing his organisation for carrying out the decisions of others in regard to propaganda in those countries, but it seems to me an unfortunate thing that you should make him Director of Propaganda in a country solely because he has business connections there, and to give him power to decide what shall be spent and how it is spent in propaganda is to incur great danger, and I regret it has been done in this and other cases in the Ministry. My hon. Friend opposite approves of it, and thinks it is the right way. Take the Director of Propaganda for Switzerland—Mr. Guinness, who is a director of nine companies. His interests are divided between insurance, tubes, railways, and Pullman cars, and I suppose his connection with Switzerland is the Pullman car. Colonel Bryan, who assists in American propaganda, is director of six companies mainly interested in ships and shipbuilding. Colonel Galloway, Assistant Director of Hospitality, is a director of five or six companies. His interests are divided between gas, iron, and railways.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: And cigars!
    Mr. JONES: No; that is Mr. Cunliffe Owen. He is the gentleman who is interested in tobacco. He is a director of thirty-six companies. I understand they are all tentacles of a great tobacco trust of which Mr. Cunliffe Owen is vice-chairman. This gentleman is placed in charge of propaganda throughout Asia and the Far East, including Japan.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does my right hon. Friend know of any individual who has a more valuable connection right through China and Japan for purposes of propaganda?
    Mr. JONES: That is a very good reason for employing this gentleman to carry out propaganda, but not to direct propaganda. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does not!"]
    Mr. WHYTE: Does he direct propaganda?
    Mr. JONES: I understand he is the Director of Propaganda in those countries. I should be extremely glad if I am wrong in that respect. As editor of the Allied Wireless, Lord Beaverbrook has secured Mr. Tewson. This is a very interesting appointment. Mr. Tewson was formerly editor of the Hearst newspapers in London, which were notoriously unfriendly to this country until America entered the War.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Mr. Tewson resigned his appointment of over £1,000 a year because he disagreed with the Hearst policy?
    Mr. JONES: I did not know that. If so, it is greatly to his credit. I am very glad to have heard that. It is a very creditable incident in his career. Finally, we have the Director for the British Empire, Lord Rothermere, who is director of two companies concerned with papers. Lord Northcliffe I may not mention in this connection. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because he is not part of the Ministry of Information. He is careful in to-day's "Times" to point out that he has no share in the improvement which Lord Beaverbrook has effected in the Ministry of Information, but that all the credit there is due to Lord Beaverbrook, and is not in the least to be shared by Lord Northcliffe. That is the Ministry of Information, and the House will observe that these gentlemen represent the most formidable combination at the Ministry of Information. The interests represented are banks, electric power companies, gas, railways, newspapers, rubber, insurance, iron, steel, Pullman cars, ships, and tobacco—a wholly formidable combination, and it is natural that this body of eminent business men should wish to play a great part. They are not there to carry on the hum-
    958
    drum work of an office. The world is their stage, and they mean to play a great part there. They are not people to be put upon by Treasury Regulations. I understand they consider they are better judges of the payment to give officials than the Treasury, and the business mind runs to high salaries. Let us see how this power is to be exercised. Lord Beaverbrook began in connection with information, as I have said, as Chairman of the War Office Committee for the Production of War Films. Now he controls all the official film business, and I suppose he is the sole producer—at any rate, the sole censor—of what films shall be produced. See what an immense power that puts in his hands! Take, for instance, the great film of "The Man who Saved the Empire." [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] It is in Lord Beaverbrook's power to decide that. He has to put the portrait in the film. He can put the Prime Minister in; he can put General Haig, or Admiral Beatty, or Lord Beaverbrook. It is in his power to decide who is the man who really has saved the Empire, and then Lord Beaverbrook has no part according to the—prospectus, I was going to say—programme in home propaganda, but he is doing it.
    I have a record of a very extraordinary film which is being performed now. I have had it from an eye-witness—I have not seen it myself—of a performance at Manchester on the 24th July of a play film. Usually they are comparatively unimportant official films, such as a burglar breaking into a safe and stealing a document which eventually turns out to be an intimation to buy War Bonds. That no doubt accounts for the satisfactory return of War Bonds purchases which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought before us last week. But on Wednesday, 24th July, there was a departure. The title of the picture was "Once a Hun, always a Hun." It first of all depicts two German soldiers in a ruined town in France. They meet a woman with a baby in her arms, and strike her to the ground. The two German soldiers then gradually merge into two commercial travellers, and are-seen in an English village after the War. One of the travellers enters a small village general store, and proceeds to show to the shopkeeper a pan. The shopkeeper at the beginning is somewhat impressed by what is offered him for sale, when his wife comes in and, turning the pan upside down, sees marked on it "Made in Ger-

    959
    many." She then indulges in a good deal of scorn at the expense of the commercial traveller and calls in a policeman, who orders the German out of the shop. A final notice flashed on the screen was to the effect that there cannot possibly be any more trading with these people after the War, and under this statement were the words, "Ministry of Information." The question of the policy of trade after the War has got to be decided by this country, but I hope the Ministry of Information does not intend to decide it before we have an opportunity even of discussing the Government policy. More than that, I want to put some other questions. If this sort of thing is to be done, are pans alone to have the advantage of this advertisement? What about iron and steel, cotton and wool, non-ferrous metals, dyes, and ships? Are these not to be advertised in this way? Let us have fair play all round and not pans alone. But, putting aside all jesting, I think it is a scandal that public money should be spent at the present time by the Government in order to push a policy which they may hold, but which this House was certainly returned to oppose eight years ago, and which has never been undone by any direction of this country or the House.
    It is not only in respect to films that Lord Beaverbrook has taken control, but there are war pictures and photographs; are they all going to be put under Lord Beaverbrook? Is he going to be sole draftsman? Is he alone to sanction what the illustrated papers are to publish? What about plays? There was an enterprise a while ago in which a Mr. Grein was concerned for producing plays worthy of the British race on the Continent. Mr. Grein showed more zeal than discretion, because he blazoned to the world, following the example of his superiors, I must say, about the great appointment that had been given to him by the Ministry of Information. This was repudiated by the Ministry of Information, and, I suppose, Mr. Grein will no longer produce his plays. This is interesting, as showing whether or not there was a necessity for Mr. Grein to produce British plays in Scandinavia and in Holland that he was carefully instructed not to produce Shakespeare's plays there because Shakespeare was better acted in Holland and Scandinavia than Mr. Grein could possibly hope to present the plays. If
    960
    Shakespeare was really so well acted, and if the public in those countries are thoroughly familiar with Shakespeare's plays, I do not think the Government need be at all anxious in that direction in respect to the Continent. We come to another Department, that of the War Correspondents. Is it true that Lord Beaverbrook wishes to take over the control of the war correspondents at the front? We at home have been accustomed to get messages comparatively free from interference from correspondents at the front. Is it true that Lord Beaverbrook is going to do this? I want an answer to that question. Another thing: Visitors go to visit the front. Is it the case that Lord Beaverbrook insists in being the shepherd-in-chief to all the visitors to the battle front?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"]
    Mr. JONES: Is it true, too, that Lord Beaverbrook wanted to get into his hands the Political Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office and the Admiralty, and that now he wants the War Office? If so, is the Government going to give in to him? These are questions on which I desire information. But he is going further. He appears to desire control of the wireless world. He wants to control the news to be flashed all over the world It is to be collected in London and redistributed, and I am not at all sure that this will stop with the War. I see a very interesting announcement, a Resolution of the Imperial War Conference dealing with an Imperial News Service, "with the object of securing an adequate news service available in all parts of the British Empire through British sources." What does that mean? If that merely means that there are greater facilities to be provided, well and good; but if it means that the Government are going to control the news, to collect it all through agents, and prohibit the publication of any news that is not their news, and distribute their news throughout the world, then it is a matter which merits the attention of this House and of the country. A power like that Resolution suggests, along with the censorship, which is being most rigorously exercised at the present time, is most dangerous to the freedom of the people of this country. One more thing. There is talk of a daily newspaper being provided for the soldiers at the front to contain Government information. If that is to be

    961
    like the films that are being shown, it will be used for propaganda purposes which are not of the War. A General Election is coming on. Is this newspaper subsidised by the Government to be circulated among the soldiers? Is it to contain electioneering propaganda for the electors at the front? Remember, they will be dependent wholly, not upon meetings, but upon the circulation of information to them. I view with the profoundest suspicion this suggestion that the Government are to run a daily newspaper. This will go hand-in-hand with a rigorous censorship. I find it very hard to believe that all this is really a war measure at all. I find it impossible to believe that this great combination of business interests is building up in the closing years of the War propaganda work proper, for that work, in regard to the attitude of this country, and so forth, is practically at an end. The matter is decided, and the world knows that for which we are fighting. I find it impossible to believe that this immense organisation is being put up solely for war purposes. I believe it is intended to carry it on after the War. I ask the Government to make that clear. News is gathered to a centre, sorted, sifted, and strained through Government strainers and then distributed to the world. Newspapers are to be controlled, and will publish Government news. Wrong opinions will be suppressed. The Empire is to be advertised!
    Mr. DENNISS: All this for nothing?
    Mr. JONES: All that for nothing. I ask my hon. Friend opposite, Are they to do all that for nothing? What does he think? He is familiar with business. Does he think that this is all being done for nothing? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I regard the whole thing with suspicion. I admit I am prejudiced, but I think the whole thing is detestably vulgar. But that is not the worst thing. It is a real danger to the freedom of this country. We entered this War a free nation, with free institutions, free services, with Free Trade, freedom of speech and of opinion. Remember, we could go where we pleased and do what we choose so long as we kept the laws which we ourselves had made. We are in danger of ending the War with surrender, not to the Germans—whom we shall conquer—but to German ideals, to German methods, to German systems of government. Free
    962
    service has gone; free opinion is not allowed to be expressed; free speech is non-existent. Free Trade is threatened. The Government talk of an election. The sooner we have it the better—if we are to have a free election! Do not let the Government deceive themselves. They have been face to face with great labour unrest. Do they know the cause of it?
    An HON. MEMBER: The Ministry of Information!
    Mr. JONES: The one cause really of the whole of the labour unrest is not doubt or uncertainty about the War. It is not uncertainty as to the issue of the War. It is profound distrust of the Government and all their ways.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Espionage!
    Mr. JONES: Bargains have not been kept. Agreements have not been observed. The whole truth is not told to the people in the speeches and publications of the Government. Ministers have boasted that they have made special pronouncements with the idea of influencing the country in a particular direction. I would remind the Government that they are dealing with the people of England, a people which have never long submitted to the tyranny of priest, king, soldier, or politician. I warn them that the people have taken their measure and are not to be fooled. The people mean to win the War, and, having won the War, they will contemptuously shake off the bonds you are putting about them while they fight, and will restore liberty at home as they have saved it for the world.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not intend to follow my right hon. Friend, either into the general or detailed analysis which he has made of this strange, extraordinary, anomalous Ministry. Some hon. Members seem to entertain doubts as to the validity of his arguments relating to the irregular position and the multiplicity of the directors of companies who hold posts of importance in this Ministry. I think, however, on a little reflection, that it will be clear to the great majority of hon. Members that such a situation is not only contrary to the traditions of our public life, but is liable to very grave and serious abuse. We have been told, for example, that directors of propaganda in various neutral countries are men with extensive business interests in those countries and directors of numerous companies which

    963
    are operating in those countries. We are also told that these people, that these extensive interests, are naturally the best people to direct the operation of propaganda in these countries. It is true that they may be commended to the Ministry for the knowledge that they have of these countries, but there is a very grave objection which seems to me to be absolutely insuperable in respect to their action in such a responsible position. We all know the aim of advertising in modern commercial life. We know, for example, that the elaborate work of this Ministry is done by means of advertising.
    Sir C. HENRY: In this country?
    Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. Friend knows that I am dealing with the neutral countries at the present time. I say you have appointed men with extensive business interests in those countries who have the power to dispose to advertising of such a value as has never before been in the bands of any individual. I hope that the House will see that it is not a proper thing that the advertising for purposes of the British Government should be in the hands of people in those countries whose business interest can obviously be served by the direction in which that advertising is used. That is an important consideration. New light, however, is shed upon this question of this Directorial Civil Service when my right hon. Friend told the interesting story of the film, "Once a Hun, always a Hun." That is a business films! It only refers to pans, it is true, but the principle goes through every sphere of our industrial life. We can understand perfectly well how the directors of all these companies, who, in former days, had to work in competition with the Germans, are interested in seeing films of this kind exhibited, not only throughout the United Kingdom, but throughout the Allied countries. It is going to promote their financial interests. We do not want the propaganda of this country carried on so as to promote the financial interests of any section of individuals in the country. We must separate the propaganda of the cause of this country from the promotion of any financial or unselfish interests whatever. If that propaganda is for one moment to be mixed up with these financial and selfish interests, then I say you are going to do more than anything else to discredit
    964
    the cause of the country, not only in the eyes of our own people, but in the eyes of people of other countries.
    From this interesting film I am naturally led to the other point—and this is the main point. After all, in regard to the Ministry of Propaganda, or Ministry of Information, a large part of the operations of this Ministry are not propaganda for the country but propaganda for the Government. There are articles published in the Colonial Press, for example, which do not deal with the great principles for which this country stands or with the conduct of the War. They are simply articles in glorification of the present Government and nobody else. Many of them also cast reflections of a somewhat disgraceful character upon others, who at another time have been responsible for the Government. I say that is not how public money ought to be used. It is bad enough to use public money in this country for that purpose, but I think it is worse to have this kind of thing spread abroad from one end of the Empire to the other. I think it has already been the policy of the Government of this country, until recent months, to separate the conduct and prosecution of the War from the political fortunes of special individual who may be, for the time being, associated with the Government. We all know that there is a General Election looming in the future, and we have at the Ministry of Information the means of making elections. We never have had made elections in this country before, but there have been made elections in Continental countries and in democratic countries. We know what the Minister of Interior is able to do in France in making elections, and we are having something of the same kind introduced here for the first time in this country. It is a grave departure from the best traditions of the political life of this country that anything of the kind should take place.
    I am not speaking without some information as to what has been going on, not officially on the part of this Department, but undoubtedly those responsible to it have, in many of the things which they have done, shown more concern as to the future fortunes of the Gentlemen who, for the time being, occupy the Treasury Bench than the successful prosecution of the War. We do not believe that those who are at the head of our great public services should give their time and atten-

    965
    tion to matters of this kind. For example, the Ministry of Information know all that is going on in the Press of this country. Every newspaper is read in the Ministry of Information, and if there is a paragraph referring to the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer it goes to the Ministry of Information, and what happens? Probably there is a note sent to the editor asking why he said so-and-so about the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister, and what can the editor do? The editor knows that he is responsible to these people for the news which he can print. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is warned!"] He knows that if he is friendly to the Ministry of Information he will get news and advanced information about the events of the future. It is not a matter of coercion, but there is this indirect compulsion, and a mere note from the Ministry to any editor is as coercive a thing as can be done by the most intimidatory Government. That is intolerable, and the House should insist, whatever happens in regard to this Ministry, that these powers and these resources should on no account be used for that purpose.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) referred to another aspect of the operations of this House. He spoke of labour unrest. I am told that there is a Department of home information in connection with the Ministry of Information which is, in effect, a special secret service, that they have men employed who are spies upon the labour movement of this country, that they have sought to enlist into their service leaders in various parts of the trade union movement, and that large pecuniary inducements have been held out to these men, and sometimes they have been successful. That Department, I believe, was originally in the Ministry of Munitions, but that Ministry discovered how unfortunate its action was and gave up all responsibility for it. I have, however, personal knowledge of cases where important leaders in the trade union movement in this country have been approached by this Department for the purpose of spying upon their fellows, and making secret reports in regard to their actions to the Government, and I think it is also safe to say that some of the men employed in this Department have not confined themselves to that action, but have gone so far as to deliberately excite men to strike, and to do even worse things than strike.
    Mr. DILLON: That is the Irish system!
    Mr. PRINGLE: There is very good reason for that. The profession of spying in this country is not recognised. We are not like Russia.
    Mr. DILLON: Nor like Ireland!
    Mr. PRINGLE: In this country no reputable man declines to enter upon the calling of a spy if it is against our enemies abroad, but no reputable man would spy upon his own fellow citizens in this country, and the consequence is that the Ministry which enters upon operations of this kind has had to depend upon an inferior type of men, without any sense of honour or obligation, men practically without morality, and you have had some of the agents of the Government in this Department deliberately inciting to strike. What is the effect on the labour movement? Can you wonder at there being suspicion; can you wonder at mistrust and unrest if these things are going on? You are bringing about a situation where a man cannot trust his neighbour, where they know the Government will not act in the open, but is acting in secret. You have all sorts of subterranean influences a work. It is not only the failure of the Government to redeem its pledges, but the knowledge that the Government is spying upon them through its own hidden agents in this way that makes it difficult to have that condition of confidence which is absolutely essential to the maintenance of industrial peace. Those are some of the main grounds why this House should look, first of all, with suspicion upon the operations of this Vote, and should insist upon a searching investigation into its expenditure, and that is why we should leave no stone unturned to prevent the un-British methods which I have described and stigmatised as taking a place in the public policy of this country.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As chairman of the Sub-committee which carried on the investigation into the accounts of the Ministry of Information, I should like to say that nothing came before us such as has just been outlined by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I hope that in three or four months' time my Sub-committee will further investigate the proceedings of the Ministry, and I will endeavour to see whether there is any foundation for the statements which the hon. Gentleman has just made. So

    967
    far, nothing of that sort came before us. I do not want to say very much on this subject, because the Report speaks for itself, but I wish to say that I think the system adopted of sending out large masses of circulars was not very efficacious. We all know what the majority of people do who receive circulars; they put them in the waste paper basket. The sending out of large blocks of circulars—which, from the evidence given, was in certainly one, if not two, cases allowed to remain for some time in sheds and warehouses, so that if they were read at all they were out of date—does not seem to me to have been a useful policy. At the Committee we were brought four or five blocks in order to show what sort of information was being sent out, and one of those books was an illustrated history of the life of the Prime Minister. Of course, there was no history in it at all.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who wrote it?"]—I do not know, but it was very nicely illustrated with pictures of his children and himself in various walks of life. But it did seem to me that, however interesting the book might be to me as a Member of Parliament, it certainly was not interesting to the ordinary person in foreign countries, and it could not have been said that it would exercise any influence upon the conduct or the course of the War. The question of finance, which is really what the Committee were there to look into, is a very serious one.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Was it before or after the appointment of Lord Beaver-brook that that book was issued?
    Sir C. HENRY: I think it was before.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's life was circulated in America under the previous regime?
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not aware of it. With regard to the expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1917, it amounted to something like £750,000, which is an extremely large sum, and the methods of that expenditure were severely criticised by two gentlemen, who sent in a Report to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson). Before we made up our minds to make any comment upon these Reports we asked the gentleman whose conduct was criticised to attend before the Committee and to give us their side of the
    968
    matter. I dare say it is quite true that their criticisms were somewhat exaggerated, but, as we say in our Report, I am inclined to think that the idea was still prevalent that money was of very little consequence as long as a certain amount of work was achieved. When we came to the Estimate for the current year ending the 31st of March, 1919, we were informed by the two accounting officers that the amount to be spent was between £1,800,000 and £1,900,000. That is a very large sum to spend upon matters of this sort. We were extremely careful to get the exact figures of this Estimate, which were given us in May. Towards the end of June Lord Beaverbrook gave evidence before the Committee, and his estimate of the expenditure for the current financial year was £1,200,000, or one-third less. The two accounting officers were purposely examined separately, and it is a little extraordinary that their estimates should more or less tally and that within five or six weeks there should have been an opportunity of reducing the estimate from £1,800,000 to £1,200,000. It is evident that Lord Beaverbrook is desirous of effecting economy. It is also evident that the prior estimate was very badly prepared, because unless it had been badly prepared it would have been impossible to reduce it in so short a time. The explanation that was given to us by Lord Beaverbrook was that Wellington House was to be done away with, and that by a combination of the two Departments they would save something between £400,000 and £500,000 per year. There were also to be other economies, chiefly with regard to cables. However that may be, it is very necessary, and I am very glad that the suggestion has been made to-day, that the Committee should visit the Department in three or four months' time with the object of seeing whether this reduction has really been carried out. There is one other point which I am afraid I must allude to before I sit down. It is not an agreeable thing to have to do, and I only do it because I believe it is my duty. I refer to the payment made to a Member of this House?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Who was it?
    Sir F. BANBURY: That does not matter.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Oh, yes it does.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not imputing any blame to the hon. Member.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Was it in the time of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson)?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The payments began in July, 1917, and terminated on 31st May last.
    Mr. HEALY: That is the time of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might have been there for about three months, but I would not be quite certain. I forget exactly whether he was there or not, but it is not the point. What I want to emphasise is this: I am not at all sure that it has not vacated the hon. Member's seat, because I have taken the trouble to look up the Bills creating the new Departments, and I find in all of them that there are express provisions to say that certain persons may hold seats in this House, and the hon. Gentleman in question is not included among them. The danger is this. If the Government—and it really is a very serious thing—are to say to a Member of Parliament, "We require to give you several hundreds per year," which way is that hon. Member to vote in the Lobby? [An HON. MEMBER: What is the payment for?] For attending and assisting one of the directors at an office in London. I wish to urge upon the Government that they will do nothing to encourage the system which undoubtedly existed for some 150 or 200 years of payments to Members of Parliament by which their votes in the Lobby were influenced.
    Major BOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is any reflection upon this hon. Member?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I stated that I did not in any kind of way wish to impute any blame to the hon. Member himself. My quarrel is with the Government for making such a proposal to a Member. I do not want to say anything more. I think that I have said enough. I only do it from a strong sense of duty, because I believe it is absolutely necessary if the purity of this House is to be maintained that nothing of the sort should occur again.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: The whole subject which we are discussing to-day is a very difficult one, and in regard to
    970
    which in the end we must largely trust the Government. Personally, I hold no brief for the Department, and some of the things brought to light in this Report seem to me, to put it mildly, not entirely satisfactory, but I think that a good deal that has been said by way of criticism of the Department, at any rate, as it is at present constituted, is hardly fair. I do not think anyone could find exception to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate (Mr. Leif Jones). He put the case very fairly and on broad lines, and in a humorous way which relieved what might otherwise have been a lengthy attack, but the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) was one of those incidents where we should have liked a little more fair treatment. He made a general accusation about spies and so on, but he gave us no evidence of it, and an accusation of that kind against a Government Department should not be made without evidence behind it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eushcliffe Division gave us the history of the Department. He traced very clearly—it was very desirable that it should be traced—how the Department had developed, and he gave us to understand that, at any rate during its early days, it met entirely with his approval.
    I have had the pleasure or honour of being allowed to do a certain amount of Government work in certain Allied and neutral countries during the War—in France, Italy, and America—and all I can say with regard to the propaganda in America in the early days—I think it met with the special approbation of the right hon. Gentleman—is that, while there was a good deal of effort put into it, it did not achieve a result in the least commensurate with that effort, partly because it was organised and arranged exactly through those printed books of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with a good deal of commendation. The fact is that each country has its own methods of approach. The right hon. Gentleman, for instance, complained that in approaching Russia the Government had not made use of those with a knowledge of the Russian language and Russian conditions, and he admitted that it was very difficult. That has been proved of almost every country, and it is the great difficulty. I have the pleasure of knowing America well. I have been going there for a good many years regularly, and I have been twice

    971
    during the War. If ever there was a country that required to have propaganda organised and arranged on terms which it will accept, America is that country. At that time, of course, America was neutral, and I remember, when I came home first, thinking how much the interviews which the Germans were affording to leading newspaper correspondents in Berlin were advancing the German cause in America, whereas the personal interview, with the personal touch, which is the great channel of information in America—anyone who knows America will agree with me—was not being utilised at all by our leading statesmen.
    Mr. JONES: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the German propaganda as it was carried on in America was effective for German purposes?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I think that as propaganda it was, but whenever Germany had made a good move in propaganda it was immediately destroyed by a brutal act of some kind. It was Germany's acts which destroyed the effect of what she was doing in her Press. Over and over again I have seen a quite successful coup in propaganda brought off by Count Bernstoff when he was at Washington and the effect of it destroyed at once by some particularly brutal act of Germany in Belgium or on the high seas. Therefore, if you ask me whether, as a matter of propaganda, it had any effect, I say at once that I think it had. But luckily for us the most effective propaganda for the Allied cause in America was the brutality of the Germans themselves. In this country we have to recognise frankly that we are very bad at publicity and at advertising. We are very bad at making our good deeds known. [Cheers.] I suppose those ironical cheers mean that we have no good deeds to make known.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Have you ever heard of the Pharisees?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Oh, yes; I have heard of lots of them in Ireland. I do not take that view, but, if anyone doubts the difficulties of the English people in using legitimate advertisement, I should like to commend to them a publication got together by the Board of Trade. It is rather out of date now, and I wish they would bring it out again. It is a publication giving excerpts from the reports of our commercial travellers, and it is a
    972
    long indictment, from the point of view of publicity, of the incapacity of the ordinary British trader. It speaks of his refusal to adopt the weights and measures, and the language and so on, of the country in which he seeks to trade. If that was true of our ordinary trade and of peace conditions, it is still more abundantly true in a time of war like the present, because in a war like this such publicity as is done has to be done as a matter of the State by organisation from headquarters, and that hitherto has never been done at all. Our responsible Ministers did not understand the necessity of it at the beginning of the War, but each Government has been more and more compelled by the facts of the case to develop and enlarge the publicity or advertising of our aims and of what we are doing. I have had it brought home to me in France, Italy, and America that the result of what England was doing, very often in the country itself, were not sufficiently known. I have seen difficulties arise in America because it was not understood what was happening with regard to the black list or the searching of the mails. When the case was put and it was explained that we were doing a great deal less than they did to us in the Civil War—when it was all put quite clearly, frankly, and calmly—I would undertake to carry any American audience with me. Unfortunately, there was nobody putting our case. It was just the same in Italy with regard to the supply of coal, though it may be better now. Some eighteen months ago, when I was there, the average Italian did not seem to understand at all what a great work this country was doing for Italy in the matter of the coal supply. Therefore, each country has been forced—and we certainly have not done as much as other countries have done—to take up this question of publicity, because, after all, in a time like this it is only the Government who can do it at all. If you once accept that we do not take to publicity at all naturally, and you accept the fact that it has to be done, then I think we are a long way towards accounting for any difficulties that may have arisen in this Department in the matter. When we are dealing with the Department itself we may bear in mind that the charges, so far as they are based on the Report just issued, are really ancient history. They do not, so far as I understand it, affect the Department as at present constituted.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: Why not?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Because they relate to facts before the present Ministry was set up, and, so far as the present system is concerned, I agree, although the chairman expressed surprise, that one result is that the responsible Minister hopes to reduce the estimate by £600,000, and that is all to his credit, and is not a matter for criticism. That is the only point I want to elaborate at any length. The attack, so far as it was what you might call a constitutional attack, made by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe on the Ministry related to the Treasury, and he went out of his way to say that he thought the Treasury was very much to blame. I should like to deal with that, because I think it is of great importance from the point of view of the War, and from the point of view of enlisting what I may call amateur energies in the War. You have to consider this question of Treasury control. The Report itself is a little contradictory, because it begins by blaming the Treasury in its relations with the Department, and then says the Treasury must have more control. Can you run a thing of this kind, where urgency is necessary at any rate in its early stages, on the ordinary lines of a Government Department? That is the whole question. The Minister did what I believe was the perfectly proper and right thing to do. He said, "I have not time to go to the Treasury to get a decision on each point. If I do it will be three, six, eight, ten months, or a year, before anything is done at all. I will do what an ordinary business man does—I will get a first-class; firm of accountants and let them lay down the broad lines of policy." What we want during a time like this is two things. We want prompt, efficient service and reasonable security. I do not say down to every cigar, but that there is no substantial waste of public money. The best way to secure these two things, prompt and efficient work and a reasonable safeguard, is to do what the ordinary business man would do, and to call in a first-class firm of accountants to lay down the broad lines on which expenditure can properly be made. If the House will forgive a personal reminiscence—because in this war work we have all our contributions to make from our own experience—I had an experience not at all unlike what has taken place at the Ministry of Information. In the early days of the War, when I was entrusted by Lord
    974
    Kitchener at the War Office with the responsibility of raising, equipping, clothing and housing what started as a battalion and grew into a whole brigade of five battalions, it was from one point of view a ridiculous position, because the War Office treated me as personally responsible. All the accounts were in my name, I paid all the cheques in connection with the building of the camp, the fitting out of the men, for their pay and equipment, and generally all out-goings—clothing and everything. That meant a very large expenditure for what eventually totalled up to 7,000 men for over a year. If I had had to go to the Treasury for every expenditure that was not quite normal—and, of course, we were bound to have a great many abnormal expenses—it would have been unworkable, because the men were coming in very fast. We very often took 300 a day; the thing had to be done at a great pace; the country was clamouring for men. I did get the first expenditure sanctioned by the Treasury, and it took me days to get it through. Eventually the only thing was to go to the War Office and say, "You must give me a maximum expenditure. I will take on the best firm of chartered accountants in Manchester, and let them lay down the lines on which it should be done, and if that is agreed I must go ahead, because otherwise we shall never go ahead at all. I am willing to guarantee that eventually the accounts will pass to the Treasury, but I must not be held up with daily, weekly, or monthly expenses for an uncertain time, because, if you do that, the thing will never be finished."
    Mr. JONES: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with the Treasury as to the form of the accounts?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I did not. That would have hung us up so long that we would never have had the men. I could not do it. I was hung for three weeks for a particular decision. The men were crowding in, and I could not get the food or clothing, and if I had taken my hon. Friend's advice at the time we might be held up now. At a time of crisis like this, if you want to get things through, you must allow a certain margin which you do not allow in ordinary times; otherwise you will not get the work done. I believe that is the real justification for the more or less irregular matters that may have happened in the past. Directly the new Minister came in he called in a

    975
    chartered accountant and laid down broad lines of principle. I understand there is no irregularity now, that proper arrangements have been made with the Treasury, that the thing is in order, and that it is only with regard to the past that there is any difficulty. The sum mentioned is £1,000,000—a large sum, I agree; but if there is any result that has Been achieved about which, like the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones), I am a little sceptical, the amount expended is a small one compared with the sums which have been expended like water in other directions. For instance, to-day there was a question asked about 6,000 lbs. of food which has been wasted, and in innumerable quarters there is a great waste of money. We are rather chopping small straws when we deal with the expenditure of the Ministry of Information, provided, as I think is the case, that the work is being efficiently done and good results achieved in foreign countries.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Will the hon. Member explain to us the nature of the propaganda now being carried on in foreign countries?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I am not at the Ministry of Information and I cannot tell. So far as I have been in communication recently with friends in Italy, France, and America—above all, in America—there is great evidence that during the last twelve months, since America came into the War and the changes took place at the Ministry of Information there has been not only, as would be natural, an awakening in America of interest in this country; but there has also been a much greater and more live willingness to give the kind of information, and to send the kind of lecturers, and so on than there was originally.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Is it a matter of lectures?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Very largely. For instance, to take only one lecturer, when I was in the United States he was holding wonderful audiences.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Who was that?
    Sir M. BARLOW: Captain Beith—Ian Hay—the author of "The First Hundred Thousand." The audiences he was drawing and the success he was having from the point of view of the real issues of this
    976
    War were admirable. I do not want, however, to be led into details of that kind; I only want to say that from the advices I get from these three countries there is more real live work done now than was done before, and in view of that the amount expended is rather a bagatelle and a good deal of the criticism is misdirected.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have listened with close attention and interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I, personally, hoped that he was going to give us the information which we should like to have, namely, what is the new work that is being done under the new regime?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I do not know.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I thought the hon. Member spoke with special knowledge.
    Sir M. BARLOW: I did not.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps we shall get the information from the representative of the Treasury, although I am not at all sure that we shall. That is precisely the weak point in the whole case. For my purpose I shall say nothing about finance. That has been very competently handled by my two hon. Friends on this bench. For the purposes of argument I grant the hon. Member his case, that we should not inquire very closely into expenditure, even on such a scale, if we are getting the results. What the House really wants to know is what results are being got and what means are being used to get results. I understood the hon. Member to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones) as to the value of what we may call literary propaganda. He spoke of printed books as if they did not amount to much.
    Sir M. BARLOW: So far as America is concerned, I do not think the printed pamphlet or book is worth what has been put into it. The proper methods there are the interview and the lecture.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I know something of America, and I think a great many Americans would resent the suggestion that they would be more influenced as to the particular part they would take on great questions of political action solely by the methods of the interview and the lecture. The people of America are as enlightened and educated as the people of

    977
    this country. If we are to be told that our methods of propaganda by literature and printed book are of small account compared with the interview and the lecture, I should say it is false. I would not for a moment discount the work of lecturing, having done a good deal of that sort of work in my life. I suggest to the House that precisely the best work done in our propaganda was done before the new regime began. All we have got to-day seems to me to be this, that under the new regime there is a great deal more attention paid to picture shows and the films. I do not know whether or not it is the case that an illustrated life of the Prime Minister is a feature of the present regime or was an earlier institution. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was earlier!"] It is only in regard to such matters as this that we have had any information to-day. The last speaker said he had reason to believe that in Italy things were being better done, but he also avowed that he did not want to go into details. It is earnestly to be hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury will go into details, because there is a feeling in the House that the honour of the country is being compromised in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe gave us an account of a certain picture film which, as he described it, seemed to be a matter of common knowledge. If the description was accurate, it was an ignoble and contemptible business, whatever the propaganda was. The idea that this nation should be making it its propaganda to the world to send out a picture of two brutal Germans who afterwards appear as German commercial travellers, raises the question, Has the Department any standard of dignity or of ability? In the next place does any sensible man believe that that kind of thing is going to influence the opinion of any people whose opinion is worth having on the subject? I do not doubt that in all countries there are people who are appealed to by films or by plays, but it is not those people who are going to determine the destinies of nations or the course this War is going to take. The kind of propaganda the hon. Member for South Salford (Sir M. Barlow) made light of and was a little sceptical about is precisely the propaganda that would appeal to the best minds. With regard to the United States, some of the very best propaganda was the spontaneously produced propaganda of Americans them-
    978
    selves, who, at the very beginning, were convinced of the justice of the cause. They paid for the printing of that literature, and it was circulated by the Propaganda Department in all directions. I believe it was translated into other languages. The testimony of these Americans was very good propaganda work. There is a fiction going about latterly that serious people—thinkers, writers, and propagandists—do not understand the art of advertising. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we, as a nation, do not understand it. I think he is mistaken. The arts of advertising have been very fully studied, and as regards the present Administration, it has as complete mastery of those arts as any other which has sat on that bench in my time. I demur to this assumption that great propaganda, the influencing of thought and opinion amongst civilised nations, is a thing to be carried on in the sprit of a successful commercial traveller, and that the kind of thing that constitutes good advertising for business is the kind of thing that constitutes good advertising in the case of a great nation and a great war. It is really an ignorant and a preposterous notion. That is not the way in which we have brought round opinion on our side in the Continental nations. It has been a battle of propaganda. In the neutral nations the Germans put their case and we put ours, and if, as I believe, in Europe as a whole the balance of that battle of propaganda has gone to the side of the Allies it is because they put forward the best literature, the best arguments, the most truthful and dispassionate statement, and not because they produced better films or more vulgar films, or did more useful advertising work.
    The question that is really emerging from the whole Debate, and the one on which I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will give us some information is this: What kind of propaganda is now being done in foreign countries that is considered to be better, more worthy of this country, or more efficient than the propaganda that went on before? To allude to lectures now being delivered in the United States is surely a little beside the case. The United States is in the War. We have no occasion to propagandise in the United States. Lectures were being given there before, though I can remember it being said by many people who knew America well that we should be well advised not to send lecturers to the United

    979
    States. We were constantly told, "Give the Germans rope enough, and they will, hang themselves. Their propaganda is injuring them. Your best policy is to hold your tongue." Our work was done for us in the finest possible way by those Americans who were on our side from the start. Is it a matter of lecturers? Are you sending lecturers to any of the neutral countries—Scandinavia or Holland—or is it a matter of films or plays or control of the Press? I will not quarrel over the amount of money. If such a Department exists, if we are to regard it as a Government Department, in spite of the fact that the Minister is not answerable to us and that his Secretary is not paid, if it is regarded as a Government Department at all, the honour of the country is concerned in our knowing what kind of work it is doing, and as we have had no real details on that subject I would specially appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give us what information he is in command of.
    Colonel Sir M. WILSON: I do not wish to speak as a politician, but only as a soldier. The information which you can get for the soldiers in the field you cannot pay too high a price for, and that information has undoubtedly been augmented and helped very much by the Ministry of which we are speaking to-day. I listened with very great interest to the able and humorous speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jones). There was one point he got hold of which was, perhaps, an unfortunate one, and that was the point about entertainment. I have spent many years of my life in foreign countries, and I am convinced that the reason why our countrymen have the name, and rightly so, of being the greatest colonists in the world is that when the Englishman goes to a foreign country he makes that country his home. When men of other nationalities go to foreign countries they go there with the intention of making as much money as they can, so as in their old age to spend it at home. The Englishman does not do that. He goes to a foreign country, makes it his home, and spends his money freely there.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In India?
    Sir M. WILSON: In India, and elsewhere. I have been for many years in, India, and I am convinced on that point, too. I have been for three years of this War in Egypt and Palestine, and the
    980
    prestige of the English name now in Egypt is higher than it has ever been. I put that down, to a very great extent, to the amount of money which has been spent in that country by the Australian soldiers. The Australian soldier has been there and has scattered his money about. That did great good to this country. It all helped. To my mind it is an unfortunate thing that anyone should tackle these entertainment allowances because it is by entertainment alone that not only can we gain a great amount of information, but we can also do a great amount of good in foreign countries. It is a very dangerous thing to try to censure a Department which started not very long ago—it had not started the last time I left England—because it is finding out information which is of the greatest value to our soldiers in the field. I did not know there was a Committee of Public Expenditure, when I returned to this country, which was looking into and ferretting out the money which has been spent in certain Departments. That is a very dangerous precedent. One thing we want to imbue our Ministers with is initiative. If they are going to have people trailing about behind them saying, "Look at what you have done here and look at what you have done there"; how is anyone going to have any initiative?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am sure the House has enjoyed the speech we have just listened to, as earlier in the day we enjoyed the equally humorous speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jones). There seems to be a little doubt and uncertainty in the minds of hon. Members generally with regard to two matters on both of which it would have been just as well if we had known something before we started the Debate. One is, what is propaganda? and the other is, What is the Ministry of Information doing? I really was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jones) say more than once that the time for propaganda had really passed. That was repeated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robertson), who said, "Now that America had entered the War there was, of course, no longer any need for propaganda in America." I do not think hon. Members realise the important part which propaganda has played in this War. Consider for a moment what Germany has done by means of propaganda. It was by propaganda and not by any military

    981
    success that she achieved the destruction of the mighty military Empire of the Czars.
    Mr. JONES: Was not the success of Germany in Russia due to penetration by German traders living in Russia and not at all by emissaries concerned with political propaganda?
    Mr. McCURDY: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for confirming the accuracy of my statement. It was by political propaganda carried out by German agents in Russia and not by any military feat of arms that the destruction of that great Empire was attained.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the hon. Member give us one shadow of evidence in support of that statement?
    Mr. McCURDY: I will deal with, that presently. If we turn to Italy, when Germany to all outward appearance came very near achieving a remarkable success some time ago it was due not to the number of troops or guns which she succeeded in bringing up at a critical moment, but to a pacifist propaganda which had been successfully carried on behind the Italian lines. If we turn from Europe to the East, no one can read the statement of Mr. Morgenthau, the late American Ambassador in Constantinople, without realising the immense importance which in the early stages of the War Germany attached to propaganda as a means of raising a holy war which, if it had been successful, would have been most embarrassing for the British Empire. There can be no doubt that the need for effective propaganda will continue so long as the War lasts, and if we had any doubt as to the necessity for propaganda in neutral countries it would be removed if we would look a little closer at home and ask ourselves whether there is no need for propaganda in Great Britain at present.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Great Britain and Ireland!
    Mr. McCURDY: I am not an expert on the subject of the sister island, and will not intrude in her domestic affairs. So far as this country is concerned I think this proposition will surely commend itself to hon. Members. We find ourselves involved in one of the greatest recorded events of history, in a war which for the magnitude and complexity of its issues has no parallel in our experience, and not all the propagandist efforts of the most
    982
    zealous Department will ever be able fully to enlighten the people of this country upon all those matters upon which they should he informed if they are to form a sound judgment on what the policy of the country should be. It is suggested that there is some great mystery with regard to the actual operations of the Ministry. I have not been in any way connected with the Ministry of Information. I have not been asked to say anything on behalf of the Ministry of Information. So far as I know, the War Aims Committee, of which I am not a member, is itself in no way connected with the Ministry of Information. On coming into the House to-day and learning that this somewhat interesting topic would come on for discussion, I made inquiries from such channels as are available to any Member as to what the Ministry was actually doing. Certainly the account I received of their activities, though by no means sensational, is not destitute of interest. One of the first things the Germans did at the commencement of the War was to publish a newspaper, consisting almost entirely of illustrations, translated into all the different languages of the East, in order to promote German views with regard to this country. The Ministry of Information undertook the humdrum, but not unuseful, task of countering these activities by publishing a British paper under what I am sure hon. Members will agree is a proper name, "Truth," translated into Persian, Turkish, Chinese, and all the Eastern languages. This has been circulated broadcast. There is some doubt as to whether that is a useful service for this country. I may tell hon. Members that, according to my information, our Minister in Pekin has attributed the action of China in making her decisions to come on the side of the Allies entirely to the good effect which was produced by that branch of our propaganda.
    Another branch of German propagandist activity with which we were familiar in the early days of the War was the German wireless. The German wireless reported German victories, sometimes before they had occurred, with very great promptitude, and the news so disseminated went to all the neutral countries. The Ministry of Information decided to set up a British system of wireless, and day to day our reports of the conduct of the great world battle are passing through the ether from this country across the Atlantic to America, Spain, Japan, Salonika, Aden,

    983
    and they would pass into Russia and Roumania if there were any stations in those two countries to receive them. These wireless communications are not only sent out by the British Government, but there is a mutual arrangement by which France, Italy, and Great Britain send out a joint communication every day of the year. The Report of the Committee contains some reference to what on the face of it appears to be a large sum of money, £126,000, paid to Reuter's Agency. I suppose we are all perfectly familiar with the part which Wolff's Agency has played as an instrument of German propaganda from the early days of the War? Reuter's Agency is, of course, a far more important agency, looked at from the journalistic, newspaper, and business point of view than Wolff's, and the British Government, acting through the Ministry of Information, decided to do what they intended to keep secret for very obvious reasons, but which, now that it has been disclosed, we might as well comment upon. They decided to counter the German use of Wolff's by employing Reuter's Agency for the disseminating of accurate news to all parts of the neutral world. Hon. Members are familiar with the method by which the business of a great news agency like Reuter's is conducted. Journals in all parts of the world pay their annual subscriptions to Reuter's for a complete service for telegraphic news of interest. What our Government arranged was not that the service supplied by Reuter's should be altered or interfered with, but that there should be gratuitously added and cabled at the expense of this Government such information as the British Government officially desired to be communicated and to be at the disposal of newspaper proprietors and editors in all parts of the world. The Committee find that the cost of that transmission, together with a contribution in respect of establishment charges, of Reuter's Agency—I understand there is no profit item in the transaction at all—has been £126,000. I suggest that any business man will agree that, regarded purely from the point of view of publicity or advertising, the value obtained by the British Government must have been at least tenfold in excess of the quite small sum referred to in the Committee's Report.
    Then there is also another item of the activity of the Department which has
    984
    fallen under adverse comment by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and that is the cinema work. With his inimitable vein of humour he entertained the House to a burlesque description of some film which he suggested was hardly calculated to have any persuasive effect upon the intellects of the people of this country. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be interested if I tell him the facts, as I am informed, in regard to the cinema activities. They may explain—I do not think they will explain—the somewhat elemental humour—
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Some of us are anxious for the hon. and learned Member to clear up a point. He said that he came here to-day without knowing anything about the subject under discussion. Would he tell us by what miraculous agency, information, or otherwise, he is now so well informed and so well briefed?
    Mr. McCURDY: I thought I had stated quite plainly. I said I came to this House not knowing what was the subject-matter of discussion, and I went to the ordinary channels, the representatives of the Ministry—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Who are they?
    Mr. MacNEILL: Who told you? Give us the names. There is no harm in it.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. McCURDY: I remember that on an occasion some time ago when in a similar way questions were put as to the name of the representative of a Ministry, and when his name was given what seemed to us a very unfair personal use was made of it. Therefore I feel a little diffident in giving names. The representatives of the Ministry are here. What their personal names may be is not of great importance to me. If hon. Members desire the names they have only to put down a question. May I continue to give what I understood the House desires to know? I am informed that the cinema activities of the Department were originally intended for Russia, but upon the unfortunate collapse of Russia the cinema activities were transferred to another country. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) delivered a speech in the course of which he made a number of remarkable allegations. He has alleged that the officials of the Ministry take advantage of their position in order to transmit to Colonial papers matter intended to have, so far as it is propagandist at all, only a

    985
    purely domestic propaganda value. It is stated that some persons in the Ministry utilise their position in order to insert paragraphs affecting the fortunes of political parties in this House, and having no reference to the conduct of the War. It is stated that members of the Ministry use their position to bring compulsion to bear upon London editors, to exercise their position in some way which the hon. Member did not explain and for some improper purpose which he did not define. It is stated that the Ministry employs persons destitute either of honour or morality whose functions are those of inciting to strikes, and to things which are worse than strikes, the leaders of labour in this country. I am sure I shall have the sympathy of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Swift MacNeill) when I say that charges of this kind ought not to be made on the floor of this House any more than they ought to be made outside this House without some shred of particulars being given which would lead us to suppose that there was a tittle of justification and a tittle of excuse for making allegations which are so vague as to leave no ripple of disturbance on the balanced intelligence of any person in this Chamber, but, nevertheless, are calculated to raise an atmosphere of grave suspicion among the public outside. I assure my hon. Friends opposite that, although my thirst for information may have been unusual on the part of a Member of this House, the circumstances which have led me to inform myself on this matter are as I have said. I have no knowledge whatever as to whether there is, or can be, any tissue or particle of justification for the grossly defamatory allegations which the hon. Member for North-West Lanark has thought right and proper to make. But for my own part I protest that even though the Government be the present Government, even though the Department be the Ministry of Information, even though the Minister be Lord Beaverbrook, there ought to be some sense of fairplay and some sense of decency before charges of this sort, without one tittle of evidence being adduced in support of them, are bandied so loosely across the floor of the House.
    Major PEEL: I should not have presumed to have intervened in this Debate had it not been that in days prior to the War I paid some considerable attention to
    986
    this issue in its broader aspects and also that since the outbreak of the War I have followed some of its developments on the scene of various operations. I was, therefore, naturally greatly interested in hearing the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir M. Wilson), who carried, I think, his admiration for all things in Egypt a little too far in suggesting that we should spread the system of Egyptian darkness even over the deliberations of this House. I thought perhaps that there was something more in his suggestion that the best form of propaganda in that region was the Australian soldier, and it certainly strikes me as an easy way out of the difficulty that we should identify leaflets with banknotes. Now we are face to face at the very threshold of this question with an issue which has not been mentioned by any Member up to the present, that is, whether this Ministry of Information is to be a permanent Department or not. On the one hand, it may be entirely ephemeral, and just as this struggle has evoked it so it may pass away at its termination, or else we may be standing this afternoon at the start of a long sequence, the initiation of an important institution that has come to stay, so that when the order comes "Unfix bayonets!" we shall not unfix them.
    Of these two opinions, I venture to hold the latter. If I may presume to do so I shall give one or two reasons for that opinion, which is founded on the permanent relationship between ourselves and Europe. If we look at the fifty years that elapsed between the Crimean War and the opening of this century, we shall see that during that period we adopted a policy of splendid isolation which was in fact no policy at all, and that we had adopted also an attitude somewhat of the superior person, of the lecturer to the countries of Europe. The consequence was that by the opening of this century we had incurred the hatred of the European Powers. I may recall the speech of Lord Rosebery in 1901 in which he said that there was no parallel to the hatred with which we were regarded. I may also recall the speech of Lord Salisbury in which he said that we had been the subject of hatred in every literature in Europe. The consequence was that we had to make an abrupt change in our policy. It was a change in three stages—the Japanese alliance, the French agreement, and the agreement with Russia. From that period

    987
    we have had close relations with Europe which I venture to think will be strengthened by the present War. It follows from that that it may well be that some permanent institution of this naure is needed in order to give expression to the new needs of our policy. If that be so, then no scrutiny can be too careful, no examination can be too anxious, for this Ministry may become a permanent institution of this country and, if so, it will become the permanent vehicle of the voice of England to the world.
    I pass over the early stages of the history of this Ministry. I should like to look for a few minutes at its machinery and the message it has to furnish to us during the present times and in the future. The period up to February, 1918, was certainly one of great confusion and chaos. The officials and officers overlapped and fought with each other in all quarters. But with the organisation of the office in February of this year a totally different scene presents itself. Now we all find very able and influential men at the head of affairs. This creates a new phase, a new situation with which we have to deal, and the situation is this—that according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House, and, as we all know, this Ministry is directly responsible to the War Cabinet. It is, therefore, independent so far, and the great risk now before us is that the very ability, influence, and energy of these eminent men may so far expand their forces that the Ministry of Information may speak with its own voice and then, perhaps, with the voice of the Foreign Office or the War Cabinet. I will not go so far as to suggest that there are three voices in these matters in the Government, but it is quite conceivable that there may be at least two. If that is so, I venture to say that we are up against a most serious position. Nothing can be more serious than a double voice in our foreign affairs. We have seen what disaster in the old days that caused to the Prince of the House of Bourbon. We have seen in our own hour what disaster it brought to the house of Romanoff, and what sinister results it has had upon the policy of the Hohenzollerns. Therefore, I would venture to ask whether we could not, in this matter, imitate somewhat our friends across the water, the United States.
    988
    When they were faced with a similar problem they organised their department of publicity on lines quite different from ourselves. At the head of the department is the Secretary of State, who corresponds with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under him are the heads of the Army and Navy of the United States. Then, in the fourth place, there are some eminent civilians with whom are associated a number of journalists. It seems to me that that organisation has very great advantages. In the first place, you have at the head of it the man responsible for the foreign affairs of the country. Therefore you avoid entirely the risk of talking with two voices on foreign affairs. In the second place, you have at the disposal of this bureau or Ministry the permanent persons at the head of the Army and Navy. In the third place, you have an eminent man, such as some of those who are there already, and associated with him you have the men who must be far more qualified than anybody else to conduct the executive part of this work—I mean the journalists of the country.
    There is another point which. I would like to mention to the House. It seems to me of the very greatest importance that we should go step by step in this matter of propaganda with the Allies of this country. I have not heard it mentioned this afternoon in the House, but I think that it is of the very first importance that we should take no action in the matter of propaganda without close relationship with the Allies of this country. Therefore there are two things which I would venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government. One is that we should amend our Constitution in this matter somewhat on the lines of America, and also that we should keep closer communications with the Allies of this country. I have said a few words as to the machinery of this Ministry. I should like to say, also, a few words as regards its message. It seems to me that there can be no possibility of this Ministry fulfilling its proper function in the world, at any rate, until a clear message as to foreign policy is presented to it by the Government. If we look at our foreign policy for the Near East we see what constant and what marked changes there have been in that respect. Last year all were in favour of turning out the Turk from Constantinople. This year we say that he shall stay there so far as we are concerned. In Austria we have had, since

    989
    1917, three changes of policy. One has been aimed, more or less, at the present organisation of the Austrian Government as a whole. Early this year we favoured to some extent the opposite policy when we announced that we would make no change in the organisation of Austria as it stands to-day. Only within the last few weeks we have announced a much more drastic policy as regards Austria. These very sharp and rapid alterations seem to me to have caused great obstacles in the way of full and effective propaganda. Therefore, what I desire to observe in this connection is in the first place that we should realise we are face to face with something which is to be a permanent institution in this country; in the second place, that in every step that is taken we speak with a single voice, and in the third place, that we should realise that no propaganda in the Near East or in any other part can be effective unless the message is clear, consistent, and beyond doubt.
    Colonel WEIGALL: As a member of the Committee responsible for the Report we are discussing this afternoon, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on its financial aspect. I have always wondered why my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bethnal Green was given the nickname by which he is known throughout the Army, I thought it was because he scatters the charm of an exceptional personality over all and indiscriminate, but I find that he carries his prodigality still further, because in his speech this afternoon he proposes that it should be even carried so far as the realm of national finance. He returns to us after three years' absence as, indeed, a prodigal son, and I am sure after the speech we have heard he is equally welcome. He did say, though in jest, what appears to me to be a real wholesome truth. I have never spoken before on any of the Reports which the Select Committee on national expenditure has presented to this House. I hope and believe that these Reports have done real good in drawing the attention of the House to the necessity of an adequate and careful supervision by the House of national expenditure. But I do feel that if it is carried too far by way of detailed examination we may really do more harm than good. There is undoubtedly blame, which I propose to deal with later on, but, so far as the Department itself is concerned, it
    990
    does appear to me to be a case where you must consider not only that you are dealing with human agencies, but that we are engaged in a world-wide war against an alert, intelligent, and unscrupulous Power. It is an extraordinary combination of the sublime and the ridiculous where you have got the highest ideals which you can only reach by means of the most murky material. You have got to descend to a low level in order to reach this highly imaginative ideal.
    What the House must realise, however, is that it is work which has got to be done, although it is work which some of us would not like to do. If you are going to have propaganda and a Ministry of Information, it seems to me that so long as you can secure that the expenditure is being controlled, and that you have a proper system of accounts, the actual details of administration of a Department of this kind one ought not to inquire too closely into. There is another aspect. Information gathered from civilian sources, if it is properly used, must be of enormous value to our Allies in particular. You cannot divorce the activities of a Ministry of Information from the activities of your armed forces in the field, and, therefore, my first and main point is, by all means let us examine as carefully and closely as possible the system of financial control, though, personally, I think the less we discuss it in this House the better, but do not inquire too closely into all the details of what is done by the Department. Now I would like to deal with the question of where the blame lies. If I may give in summary form a question and answer at the end of a long examination of the Treasury official who explained to us the story of the system and accounts and financial administration, it might help the House to understand exactly what happened. He was asked:
    "Is it the fact that on Colonel Buchan receiving his appointment he attended a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee and having heard their deliberations he asked Mr. Honeyman, a chartered accountant, to prescribe a form of accounts; that form of accounts was neither confirmed nor discredited by the Treasury, and was put into force, remaining in force for some months, until Lord Beaverbrook found it necessary to engage Messrs. Deloitte, Griffiths and Company, to go into the affairs, which they did, issuing a strong report which suggested that the previous system of accounts should be scrapped and another system instituted in its place, as has now been done?"
    The answer to the whole of that question was "Yes." I agree it was a long ques-
    991
    tion, but it was put in that way to save the time of the Members. It means that throughout the whole of these proceedings the Treasury did not prescribe the form of accounts or have any financial control of them, and this might have gone indefinitely, or at any rate up to the present day. The Treasury had no cognisance of it. The explanation, of course, is that they are understaffed. It is clear from the evidence before us that there were twenty-five systems of public accounts which they were in the habit of inspecting and reviewing. Only eighteen were examined, and one of the seven left over happened to be this brand new Department, starting out on a new field of finance with people who had no knowledge of Civil Service administration or of the form of accounts usually required by this House and its Committees. The lesson we have to draw is, that in this and every other new Department—and there are other Reports coming before the House to which my remarks apply—the House must see to it that a duly qualified accounting officer is appointed, that when he has been appointed he and and he alone should be responsible for seeing that the system of accounts is maintained and never altered without Treasury sanction, and for being the real watchdog for this House without being in the way of a Department's work or putting sand in the wheel. He should exercise a real control, and the Treasury should so arrange its work that no Government Department goes on for more than six months without some form of control being exercised by it. The only blame that can be attached in connection with this Report is to the Treasury. A former speaker said that surely it was chopping rather small, straws to suggest all this financial control. When you are spending the enormous sums which we are now doing, unless you have some form of financial control which ensures to this House and to the country that you are having 20s. worth for every sovereign you spend, I feel it is a rather big straw indeed.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I knew when I was made aware of the subject of this Debate this afternoon that we should have a very interesting Debate, and I think it has been interesting. I think it is shown that it is quite time not only that we had a discussion on the Ministry of Information
    992
    in this House, but that we had some information about the Ministry of Information. We ought to keep very clearly in mind when we talk about the Ministry of Information and about this Report on its expenditure, that the Report has hardly anything to do with the Ministry of Information which only came into existence on the 4th of March of this year. Not that it is not perfectly correct to bring up all the matters which are in this Report—I hope to deal with some of them—but I do wish to strike this note at the beginning of my remarks: That I hope the Ministry of Information, as constituted to-day and about which I hope to say something, is not going to be prejudiced in the minds of any Members of the House by incidents which occurred twelve months ago under a completely different state of things. I propose speaking first of all, quite briefly, on certain criticisms that have been made arising out of matters of fact. I do not wish to go in detail into all these very old stories, which although they make very good newspaper paragraphs and although they may be records of mental aberration, do not really affect the work of the Ministry, which is really the important thing at the present moment. That unfortunate visit to Dublin, the account of which has appeared in nearly all the papers of the Kingdom, was an entertainment of a party of journalists from overseas who were exceedingly anxious to get some first-hand information about the conditions in Ireland. It was not being run in the interests of any party in this country. They went to Ireland, they saw—[An. HON. MEMBER: "And conquered!"]—they saw well-known members of every party in that country, but the gentleman who was in charge of the party, though efficient at his ordinary work, had never before taken charge of a party or tried to look after one. [Laughter.] I know it is an exceedingly humorous thing, but I want to state the facts of what happened. He was not fitted for the task, and the moment he came back he was taken to book for it and removed from that kind of work by the Ministry. I know the thing is very funny in one way, but I would point out that while a mistake was made the mistake was taken up, and it is not likely to happen again. I do not wish to go into any details as to what happened about the dinner. No complaint was made to me personally, and it is not brought under notice in this

    993
    Paper, and I think, perhaps, there was an error of judgment. I do not think the case was a serious one, and I may say that the gentleman mainly responsible is no longer at the Ministry.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: What Government Department is he in now?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A case was alluded to in which reference was made to a Member of this House, but I think the House will be aware by this time that the hon. Member in question, just before this Report came out, assured me personally that he had no idea that there was anything irregular in paying this money. He expressed his readiness to refund, and I believe his request will be granted, and a refund will be made. I come to one or two matters of rather more importance. There is the employment of a firm of accountants, which has been touched upon by one or two Members. The real and obvious reason why the Ministry wished to employ a firm of accountants was that a man of business had been put into the post, to which he came for the first time, and where he was gathering up the threads that had hitherto been connected with the Department. He wanted to know exactly, and in as quick a time as possible, where the money was going, and he wanted to have that in a form that he could understand and in a way in which the knowledge could be obtained more quickly than through the medium hitherto employed. I must say For myself, as one with some knowledge of accounts, that it has taken me a very considerable time, in all the other work I have to do, to be able to follow them, and I have always much more time when I can get the accounts in the more familiar shape of a profit and loss account; then I know where I am. I do not think anyone who has any knowledge of business would criticise the action of the Minister in this matter. There is one point in the Report on which I believe there is some misapprehension in regard to the position of Sir Roderick Jones, who is both managing director of Reuter's and an official of the Ministry of Information. When the present Minister took up his office he appointed Sir Roderick Jones as chief of his Executive Committee, and Sir Roderick's connection with Reuter's has been severed. The Minister explained to me that Sir Roderick's services were invaluable to him, but that Sir Roderick had nothing to do with policy or finance; that the
    994
    question of policy lies with the Ministry, and that where it is a question of policy it is controlled by Colonel Buchan, the right hon. Member for Accrington (Major Baker) and Mr. MacMillan, a very well known Scottish counsel. I may say the House will feel that to a body of that kind we may leave the matter with perfect confidence.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that Sir Roderick Jones, as managing director of Reuter's, has severed his connection with that agency?
    Mr. BALDWIN: For the time being.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: For the time being!
    Mr. KING: Surely it was very recently.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I will anticipate what I was going to say later, that the existence of the Ministry of Information will be only for the duration of the War, and when the War comes to an end, the Ministry will also come to an end.
    Major BOWDEN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that Sir Roderick Jones is not pursuing his other business, and that he has severed his connection with it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly, and Sir Roderick Jones, like a great many more men, is working for the Government without pay. He is a man of sufficient means to work for nothing. I have seen articles in newspapers, and in one I respect as much as the "Westminster Gazette," one of the most fair-minded papers, on the position of this gentleman, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was concerned because a number of people occupied positions in this Ministry of Information who were also in business. It is a very difficult question. When you are founding a new Department, or a new Ministry, you are between the devil and the deep sea. If you fill in with people who are Civil servants the cry goes up that the Department is filled with bureaucrats, and if you do not do that but appoint business men, then along come critics who say, "Look at him; he is surrounding himself with blackguards." If you have an efficient man of business, he is a blackguard. It is very difficult, therefore, to know what to do. With regard to these business men I have had a conversation with my right hon. Friend about the work of these business men, and I find that

    995
    there is a great deal of misapprehension with regard to them. I rather think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) has visions of these men rushing from one capital of Europe to another, and trying to make contracts after the War for their own firms on more favourable terms. I am sure that nothing of that kind will happen The controllers, or whatever the name may be that they have, will have nothing whatever to do with the policy of the propaganda in the various countries. They are appointed solely for this reason, to control the finance of the country which is being dealt with. Say, for example, that it has been agreed to have propaganda expenditure in all the countries of Europe for, say, a million pounds. The Minister in charge will have to see how far he can go, and how he can cut his cloth according to the various countries in which the work of propaganda is to be conducted. He might perhaps put down a moderate amount, say, £50,000, or £100,000, or whatever the sum might be, that is allocated, for expenditure on propaganda work in a particular country. It is of the very greatest importance that there should be someone with an intimate knowledge of the country in which the propaganda is to be carried on, and to consider how the proposed amount could be laid out to the best advantage. That is all these gentlemen have to do. They put their expert knowledge at the service of the Department as to how the greatest amount of service can be done for the smallest amount of expenditure.
    Mr. JONES: Do the representatives in the different countries have any voice in the direction of how much will be spent in those countries?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No. I think I will be able later to say something of interest on that point. The fact that these gentlemen are connected with business I know does cause prejudice among some Members, but the matter should be looked at in this way. A number of men are prepared to give their services for this kind of work, and they believe that they can be of very great use, and I do not think it is reasonable to expect that they should be cut off entirely from their own businesses. When a man takes office that is an entirely different thing.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Why was not Sir Roderick Jones allowed to retain his
    996
    directorship when other directorships were retained? Why was he made a victim?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I pass to a further consideration of the facts. I must take exception on behalf of the Department which I represent to some of the criticism in this Report on their action. I do not think that in its very first clause, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, it is quite fair to say that the Treasury had no cognisance of the expenditure of these Departments. The Treasury had complete knowledge of the expenditure in connection with propaganda work, but hon. Members know quite well that in the earlier days, which are only referred to here, a good deal of the expenditure at that time came from sources over which we had no control, and which we were not in a position to discuss. By saying we had no cognisance it looks as if we shut our eyes to it and had not seen it. I resent that, because it is not my custom to shut my eyes and not see these things. In the same way, I think it is a little misleading when, again, it is stated, in paragraph 10, that in many matters of importance Treasury sanction was not required. I do not quite understand that, or who made that statement, but I think that sometimes more is expected of the Treasury than the Treasury has either done in the past, or does in any ordinary practice, or can do at present. I know, for instance, that we have to rely very often on the audit department calling our attention to any irregularity that may have occurred in the way accounts are kept or in the way things are charged. It is not possible for the Treasury, and the Treasury has never done it, to go round itself in every Department and look out for faults. We have to have notice of these things brought to us, and sometimes, and especially in the case of new Ministries, a good many of which have been created during the War, they are apt to run away sometimes and go too fast, and it may be some time afterwards that our attention is called, too late, to expenditure that ought not to have been made, but which we really had no means of stopping through not being in a position to ascertain that it was being made at the time it was being made. I only feel sometimes that when the House of Commons, or, I should rather say, the outside public, read these Reports and see these constant references to the Treasury, people are very apt to draw a false

    997
    conclusion and to feel that there is an implied censure on what I believe to be the most honourable and hard-working staff of public servants which we have in the whole service of this country.
    Sir C. HENRY: The hon. Gentleman made a rather important admission, and said he had no control over the expenditure of a Department until they were committed to that expenditure, but when a Ministry is formed, are not certain regulations laid down that they must get Treasury sanction to expenditure before they are committed to it? It is a very important point, because my hon. Friend conveyed the idea to me that until the expenditure was made, and the Treasury were thus cognisant of it, the Treasury had no weight or authority at all.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I was speaking rather of an exceptional case. What the hon. Baronet says is quite correct. We have control over salaries, with, of course, this limitation, with which hon. Members are perfectly familiar, that when a Department is created in a hurry, and you get a big business man put in to form a staff, it is a very difficult thing to get a man who is used to paying £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000 a year to think he can get the same services for £500 or £600 a year, and that is where a great deal of practical trouble has arisen, and I see no remedy for that at all. I wish to say one word only about criticisms that have been made on matters of fiction entirely, and I would touch on that as briefly as they deserve. There is no truth whatever in the report that the Ministry of Information is going to run a newspaper for soldiers, and there is no truth either in the statement that they are going to control the war correspondents.
    Mr. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say that they do not wish to do so?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am never able to say what may be in a man's mind. I can only deal with the facts. The last point which was made was by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), whom I do not now see in his place; but I wish to say that there is not a syllable of truth in what he said about the Ministry of Information employing spies, or doing any work of that kind, to foment disorder and distrust among the working classes of this country, that nothing of the kind has been done or is contemplated or will be done, that I regret exceedingly that he
    998
    made any insinuations of the kind, and that I cannot imagine any statement more calculated to cause unrest and trouble where unrest and trouble may be likely to arise. I regret very much that he allowed himself to make those statements. I must say a few words about what has been done with regard to the present Ministry and the controlling of its finances. I have been speaking mostly, so far, about the past, and I wish to speak now about the present. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe put very clearly before the House the various bodies that existed before the Ministry of Information was created and which were drawn up into the Ministry. The Ministry started on 4th March of this year, and we have succeeded in raising the financial basis of the Ministry on these lines. We are in process of formulating, and I may say we have practically agreed upon, a total figure for the Estimates for the year's working of the Ministry. Of course, that has been a lengthy and troublesome business. It is no easy matter for the Minister in a new Ministry, pulling together the various Departmental bodies, to decide how much he can get his expenditure down to. I think a figure will be agreed which for the purpose will not be extravagant. All specific proposals come to the Treasury for sanction, and there is an accounting officer there. One of our first-class clerks goes twice a week to the Ministry, spending two or three hours each time in the afternoon, and discussing matters connected with salaries and any other matters of interest concerning expenditure that they care to discuss with him, and this serves two purposes. It secures a very close control, and it expedites decisions, both of which things are to the good. We have some time ago made a request to the Ministry, which I expect will be agreed to, that they should submit to us a monthly statement of their accounts, in order that we may see how the money is going.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is all new, I understand?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Well, it is a matter, I should think, of the last three months. We have haggling over these details. The clerk has been going there for some time, and he has visited the Ministry, I think, since its formation, and used to go every week, I believe, last winter.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: Is the gentleman Mr. Thomas?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No, he is not employed at the Treasury.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I think it can only be for a very short time that an accounting officer has been going from the Treasury to the Ministry of Information.
    Mr. BALDWIN: He is not an accounting officer. He is one of our clerks, and he has been going for some time twice a week, and at less frequent intervals before that—about once a week. I am quite hopeful that with these financial arrangements we shall exercise a very substantial control over the Ministry of Information, and I wish to pass on from that to say a few words to the House about the Ministry itself. Propaganda is not a word that has a pleasant sound in English ears. We suffered undoubtedly in the earliest days of the War by leaving propaganda as largely as we did to our enemies. The Englishman dislikes talking about himself, and he dislikes advertising what he has done. If in England you say a man is a self-advertiser, it is looked upon as one of the unkindest things you can say about him. But the time had come when the world at large had not appreciated what these Islands had done in the War, and it was found in one country after another that the cause of the Allies was suffering owing to the ignorance that was displayed about what had been done in Great Britain, and owing to that ignorance it was an easy matter for the propaganda of our enemies to take hold. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe said he could not see the need now for propaganda, because everyone was in the War, but I think he forgets for the moment that the only chance the German has of winning this War is to split the Allies, and that he can only split them by propaganda. There is no more dangerous propaganda than that, and none that there is more immediate necessity to counter. It is quite impossible to say much on that subject in this House, but one or two things I think I may say, because I think they will be common knowledge to Members who have been on the other side of the water. For some time, and in no too distant a part, there was a strong belief in parts of France among our Allies that we were not doing our share in the War.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Lord Northcliffe told them that!
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALDWIN: The belief was found there, and the belief had to be countered. In Italy propaganda was making headway on such lines as would be most destructive to the union of the Allies in that country. There is another aspect of this question which I wish to put before the House. Public opinion to-day has far greater weight in the moulding of Governments and of policy in various countries than it ever had before, and unless people have faith in their Allies and have faith in their cause, it is impossible for them to hold together until the end. Nothing could be more important than that the Dominions should know what is being done by this country, and that they should also know in the United States what is being done here. Members who have seen that beautiful photographic collection now being exhibited at Prince's Gallery will recognise that propaganda, as done by an exhibition of that kind, will have nothing but an elevating effect, and could not fail to do, what the most fastidious propagandist in this House will desire that it should do. Then, again, another form of propaganda is to spread about in neutral countries and among our Allies the story that this country is being starved, and will be unable to carry on the fight on that account. One of our duties is to nail lies like that to the counter whenever they are circulated. We have proof that the work being done by the Ministry of Information is being well appreciated now, because, during the summer, there have been articles in some of the German papers to the effect that admirable work is being done now by English propaganda and suggesting that the Germans should organise themselves as efficiently. Let me remind the House that, although we have not exactly the figures as to what Germany has spent on propaganda, we do know what she has spent in some cases, and we can form a conjecture of what she has spent in other cases. We believe we are well within the mark in saying that the expenditure of our Ministry of Information has not been more than one-seventh or one-eighth per annum of the expenditure of Germany on this service in each year since the War began. I wish I could say something about the way in which propaganda work is divided up inside the Ministry.

    1001
    The right hon. Member for the Tyneside Division (Mr. J. M. Robertson), very naturally and very rightly, was curious to have some information on that point.
    I have felt great difficulty in discussing this subject on the floor of the House of Commons for this reason, that when I came to look into these matters, knowing that I should have to speak on this occasion, I discovered that, after all, this propaganda work is very like anti-submarine work: it is work which is necesssary, it is work as to which you cannot disclose to your adversaries how you are doing it, and it is work that can be and must be judged by results. I did ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information if it would not be possible for him to meet Members of this House in the way the Minister for Food and other Ministers have done and have a perfectly frank discussion, when things can be said which could not be said if there were any risk of their getting into the Press of our opponents. He at once, as I anticipated, expressed himself as very pleased at the idea, and if hon. Members desire such a meeting, I hope they will let me know, and possibly one can be arranged which would be of great interest and fruitful of good results. Before I sit down, I want to make one last statement. I know quite well there have been some very bitter attacks made on the Minister of Information, and I think it probable that many bitter attacks will be made in the future. I do not think it requires very much imagination to see along which lines those attacks will be made. But I think it only fair to say this: The Minister of Information is a man of very strong personality. Men with strong personalities have this in common, that the magnetism which comes with that personality either attracts or repels. I remember before the War there were Ministers in this House who had that kind of personality. I, myself, was conscious that in cases where the personality repelled the judgment was apt to be warped. I want to say this in all seriousness. Lord Beaverbrook has taken on a most difficult, delicate and thankless task. Do not let his pitch be queered. Give him a fair chance and judge him by results. Do let us, in time of war, pull together to this extent, that we do not allow the personality of an individual to warp our judgment as to the value of the work he is doing or the means he employs in doing it. I hope the House
    1002
    will not think I have said more than I ought to on that subject. I do feel this very strongly. Lord Beaverbrook is not an intimate friend of mine, and therefore I can speak with perfect freedom in this matter. Knowing well as I do, mixing as I do with Members in every quarter of this House, I am aware that there is some feeling of prejudice existing, and all I ask is that hon. Members should judge fairly by results, and by what is done, and not let that feeling of prejudice warp their judgment.
    Mr. S. MacNEILL: I desire to say a very few words on this matter. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, as I wish to put a few questions to him. I have always admired the Foreign Secretary for the adroit way in which he has got out of difficulties when conundrums have been addressed to him. Let me give the reasons why I object to this Ministry. First, because it has not been created by Statute; secondly, it is the twenty-fifth Ministry which has been started since the War began, and its personnel consists largely of people who are not Members of this House and not responsible to this House. I object to it likewise because, to use the words of Mr. Lecky in regard to another transaction, the trial of finance is permeating the whole institution. If anyone who did not know the facts were looking at this Ministry for the first time they would say, "What is this but a sty of guinea pigs." Let me now put my conundrum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman knows my opinion about Ministers holding directorships, and he himself has shown how desirous he is that everything should be above board in public life, because he resigned his directorships even when he was not in office. He knows very well the struggle we have had on this question, a struggle extending over fifteen years. Mr. Gladstone approved of the principle, but did not insist very strenuously. Still, we have since established the principle, and it is a rule that no Minister of the Crown shall be a company director; that the two positions are incompatible when united together. But how does that operate in this Ministry? Not only is he the head of the Ministry, but his immediate subordinates are either secretaries or directors of public companies. I put the question, are these gentlemen Ministers of the Crown? If

    1003
    they are, then there is a total rupture of the constitutional principle in any one of them holding a company directorate. Are they Civil servants? If they are, then there is a rule of the Civil Service prohibiting Civil servants or anyone in the Civil Service holding a company directorship of any kind. This afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), who appears to be an incarnate interrogator, managed to convey to the House information while asking a question. He inquired whether four members of this staff did not divide among themselves fifty-four company directorships. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny it. In the least glorious period of Lord Salisbury's administration forty-one directorships were divided among forty-four Ministers, whereas in this case four members of this unique in stitution, whether they are salaried or not I do not care, have fifteen more directorships among them than were possessed by Lord Salisbury's administration at the time when I began the agitation against ministerial guinea pigs on that bench. That is a very serious and not very pleasant reflection. The Secretary to the Treasury has made an extremely interesting, candid, and honest speech. He was perfectly candid. He admitted that one of these gentlemen was a director of Reuter's, and that it was a fact that since this Ministry was established £126,000 has been expended in telegrams, most of which were sent by Reuter's. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it by saying that Sir Roderick Jones is no longer a director of Reuter's. The relationship between himself and his company remains, and ought to remain. It is not in the slightest degree dishonest—it would be quite unnatural if it were otherwise—but he is as much interested in his company, at least, as he is in the public cause of this newly-instituted administration. Why should that which would not be permitted in a Minister of the Crown under ordinary circumstances be permitted under Lord Beaverbrook's administration? I know no answer to that. There is another conundrum which affects the Treasury very much. This is a most incriminating document which I have amused myself all the afternoon by reading. It is far more witty than "Punch," because it is unconsciously witty. Paragraph 15 says
    1004
    "The Accounting Officer of the Ministry, Mr. W. E. Stavert."
    In paragraph 9 it is stated that Mr. Stavert is late director of the Bank of Montreal. Of that bank Lord Beaverbrook was chairman.
    Mr. BALDWIN: It was not the Bank of Montreal.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Then another bank?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.
    Mr. MacNEILL: Then they are both banking men. They can sing together that ditty of Shakespeare, "I know a bank." Let us see his position. He is an outsider. It is ostentatiously said he takes no salary, but, according to this Report, he controls a permanent Civil servant. A Civil servant is controlled by Mr. Stavert, who is not controlled by anyone except Lord Beaverbrook, who is not controlled by anyone because Lord Beaverbrook has no salary, nor has Mr. Stavert. Referring to Mr. Gale Thomas, paragraph 9 of the Report says
    "He is a permanent Civil servant who was on the staff of the Charity Commission…He also acted virtually as secretary, there being no such official in the Department. Mr. Thomas is now responsible to Mr. Stavert."
    Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain to an ignorant man like myself—a "mere child of finance," as the Foreign Secretary once said of himself—how it is that a permanent official comes to be responsible to a gentleman who is not responsible to Parliament, but is only responsible to Lord Beaverbrook, who has no salary?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Who informed the hon. Gentleman that Lord Beaverbrook has no salary?
    Mr. MacNEILL: I am glad that he is not an honorary man, and that, although he has no portfolio, he has still a purse. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has a portfolio!"] Yes. I beg pardon; he has. I am delighted that he should have some share in the £210,000 which annually the Ministers themselves arrange for their valuable services in public life. So Lord Beaverbrook is responsible to someone! I am very glad of it. My hon. Friend opposite insinuated that some of this money, which is as secret as the Secret Service Fund, of which there are no details given to us, may be expended in secret service, and then there came a wonderful example of the outraged purity of English public life.

    1005
    One hon. Member was almost moved to tears. The idea of Secret Service is impossible—how could it be? Let us took at this incriminating document. The first paragraph says
    "There was also a Bureau managed by Mr. Mair—"
    who arranges cinemas for the impossible task of the League of Nations and Imperial Preference—
    "through the Home Office out of an Emergency Vote, which we were informed was drawn from the Secret Service Vote."
    Therefore this institution in its earlier stages has been supported out of the Secret Service Fund. What is to prevent a very large sum coming out of the Secret Service Vote? I must very strongly oppose it. I regard this institution as completely subversive of all the ordinary constitutional usages, and of the relations which can exist between a Minister of the Crown and the House of Commons, and as introducing, by the great number of unpaid Ministers, a principle which keeps Ministers out of the control of the House of Commons; above all, by making an inroad on the public purse without submitting the money which is to be expended or voted to the scrutiny of the House of Commons, and without any adequate knowledge of how it is to be dealt with. The Ministers have grown to an enormous extent. They now number 105. In Lord Salisbury's Administration, in what I may call its worst days, they only numbered forty-four. In Pitt's time there were only seven real Ministers. We have now 105, and we have for the first time since Walpole a regular brigade of salaried Members of the House of Commons—namely, 288. [An HON. MEMBER: "670!"] I would not go as far as that, because there are some righteous men here. But every third Member of this House of Commons is either a place-man or a pensioner. Look at the suffering going on abroad, and then see Gentlemen ladling out public money for their own advantage! When we read of £31 being spent in two days in drinks and £5 in cigars, how outrageous is this rationing system for the poor! We must stop this kind of thing. I believe this new administration is both useless and mischievous, and is a sign of the mammonised character of the times and of this administration.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I cannot help thinking my hon. Friend who has just sat down has allowed himself to fall into an
    1006
    unduly pessimistic frame of mind. It may be that we have been steadily rolling down hill from the time of Pitt and Walpole, but I do not think that those matters have any close bearing on the particular matters now under discussion. I want to turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to say I am very glad he made clear one particular point—that the House of Commons ought not to regard, as it is sometimes too apt to regard, the Report of a Select Committee, which has been supplied both to the Press and this House for criticism, as a sort of infallible exposition. After all, the Select Committee is just as much open to criticism as the Government, and it may be that the criticisms they make are well-founded or are ill-founded. This is the sixth Report this Select Committee has issued, and I do not know I have ever been in a position to speak with any personal knowledge of any of the matters they have discussed until this one. I do happen to have a certain amount of personal knowledge on one or two points dealt with in this Report as to which, in my judgment, the Report is wrong. I think, to begin with, it is very vague, and I think on one point, with which I will deal in a moment, it is wrong. The Financial Secretary has already called attention to a sentence in paragraph 10 of the Report, which says
    "It was stated, however, that in many matters of importance Treasury sanction is not required."
    It does not say in what matters, and we are not told whether the Committee did or did not accept that evidence. All we are told is that "It was stated." It is of no interest or importance to know whether that was stated or not. What is of interest and importance is to know whether the Committee came to the conclusion or not that it was well-founded. My hon. Friend has spoken about the expenditure, of which we have heard so much, of £31 on entertainment. After the explanation that has been given by the Government I must say I am very much surprised that the Select Committee should have thought it worth while to put in their Report a paltry matter of that sort; and, if they did think it necessary to put it in, I am very much surprised that they did not think it right to add, as we have now heard from the Government, that the person concerned has been relieved of his duties in connection with the Ministry. I come to the

    1007
    point in the Report which I say I believe is wrong. We are told that the criticism contained in this Report goes back before the existing condition of things—before the Ministry. In paragraph 3 we are told of an investigation that was made by Mr. Donald, and the impression has been conveyed, I think, by the Report, and certainly by the comments in the Press, that the investigation made by Mr. Donald resulted in a very damaging criticism of Colonel Buchan, who at that time was directing this branch of the Ministry. It happened that I was in a position at the time to see Mr. Donald's Report, and to see the reply that was made to it by Colonel Buchan, and I had some knowledge of what was going on. I think myself that it is most unfair to put in here that
    "Mr. Donald further stated that his inquiry into the publishing and book buying system—"
    and so forth, and that
    "The method of circulating information by the Press or otherwise was also criticised, many of the articles having little interest and less value as propaganda."
    There again the whole importance lies in whether or not this is good or bad criticism. We are merely told by the Select Committee that this was the result of Mr. Donald's Report. I do not know whether or not it is correct that this was the result of his Report; but certainly, so far as I am able to form a judgment upon the matter, I think that Mr. Donald's Report was an extremely superficial one, that it was far too hastily arrived at, and most unjust in the criticism which was levelled upon the work that had been done by Colonel Buchan. The Select Committee ought either to have said nothing whatever about Mr. Donald's Report or ought to have gone a good deal further and made themselves responsible for deciding between these two experts—because they were both experts—and say which of the two were right.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is something in the Report!
    Mr. McNEILL: It says that the Committee "are of opinion that there was considerable foundation for their criticisms, especially in regard to the lack of financial control and wasteful expenditure." I am not expressing any opinion about the financial control. Of that I know nothing. What I am concerned about is the value of the propaganda
    1008
    work, and I think that the work done at that time by Colonel Buchan was extremely valuable. I do not believe it is true that the method of circulating information was really open to serious criticism, and I entirely disagree with the statement that many articles had little interest and less value as propaganda. I should like to know whether the members of the Select Committee ever took the trouble to go into the matter for themselves, or whether they were content with the ipsi dixit of Mr. Donald? I do not know whether the judgment of the members of the Select Committee would have been of much value if they had gone into the matter; perhaps it would not have been of very great value.
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman must know that many of these leaflets were destroyed by the Ministry, and that they were discovered in great quantities.
    Mr. McNEILL: That may be, but the right hon. Gentleman does not suppose that because they may have destroyed many or most of the leaflets that copies could not have been found, and that he could not have had the opportunity of reading every leaflet that ever was printed if he had had the industry to do so? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would claim that his opinion in this matter would be of great value? I do not know. But I do know, from my own knowledge, that there were people at this time when this criticism was made who, I will not say specially examined every leaflet and every pamphlet that was written, but who did make a very fair examination of the literature really issued by the Department, and they certainly would not have endorsed the criticism made by Mr. Donald that Colonel Buchan was turning out stuff which was practically valueless for the purposes of propaganda.
    Before I finish I want to say a word or two about propaganda itself. I was most astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. L. Jones) say in the course of his speech that the German propaganda throughout the War had not scored. I strongly disagree from that. What undoubtedly is true is that the ideas and psychology of the Germans told against them with all decent people all over the world. That is undoubtedly true. If their ideas, their ideals, and their methods had been cleaner and nobler than they were, no doubt their propaganda would

    1009
    have had infinitely greater effect. The wonderful thing is that it had so much effect when the subject-matter with which it had to deal was in itself so bad. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member earlier in the Debate, that it was propaganda probably more than any other single fact or factor which brought about the disaster in Russia. However that may be, I do not know anyone who has examined the facts of the disaster on the Isonzo earlier in the year but can doubt that that overthrow of the Italian Army was almost entirely due to the extraordinarily successful propaganda which had been at that time pursued by the Germans and the Austrians. I go further—and I point this with my own knowledge—though I have some facts which I should not like to disclose—but I can certainly say this, that the opposite is also true, that the great failure which the Austrians have more recently experienced when they had to recross the Piave was almost, or very largely, due to propaganda on our part. Whether it was due to the propaganda for which this Ministry was responsible or not I am not in a position to say—I rather think it was not. I rather think that propaganda was the work of an independent committee. As to the effect I have no manner of doubt. My hon. Friend was very sceptical. I think I could give him some facts bearing on that point which would convince him. I have, therefore, no doubt whatever as to the value of propaganda—if it is well carried out. Whether we get value for the money we have expended is, of course, an entirely different matter. I have not got the knowledge of the financial element of this Ministry, nor would I be competent to express an opinion of any value upon that point; therefore, I will not attempt to do so. Provided, however, that the finance is moderately well managed, I have not the slightest doubt that the money is well expended and the result very well worth having.
    I was surprised to hear objection from the right hon. Gentleman because the cinema was used for propaganda purposes. It seemed to him entirely beneath the dignity of this country. He appeared to resent the idea that such a beggarly thing as a film should become "betwixt the wind and his nobility." In these days you have to take advantage of all the various forms of disseminating information which are known to the public and are
    1010
    valued by them. Recently we have had articles written, speeches made, and sermons delivered as to how the best use can be made of the picture palace for increasing its value for educational purposes, lecture-room purposes, and in other directions. It seems desirable to take every means we can, new or old, to put our views in this world war before the nations, and in the vivid form of the cinema we can not only tell our views, but what deeds have been done. That being so, I think it is extraordinary that this modern up-to-date educational engine, the cinema, should be so spoken scornfully of. The cinema should be used by us as far as we possibly can use it. My Noble Friend (Lord Beaverbrook) is endeavouring to use the cinema as much as he can in, I believe, all parts of the world, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is a very valuable means of propaganda. I believe that the money expended is one of the most valuable expenditures that has been undertaken.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I desire to address the House on a different subject to that which has preceded, and to ask the Government who is responsible for the anti-Irish propaganda? The Select Committee has inquired into the propaganda conducted by the Minister of Information, but no inquiry has been conducted into the Department of the Irish Office, which is responsible for spreading lies about our country and about a number of Members of this House. It is very significant that the Government should set down this subject as the one that alone was to be discussed upon the Consolidated Fund Bill. It was a very clever method, no doubt, to prevent the discussion of more burning topics, especially when there is only £1,500,000 involved in this Vote, while the Budget, during the War, is for something like thousands of millions. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a very spirited defence of the Department that the Member for Trinity College conducted for so many months up to his resignation in January last.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College was never director of this Department at all. What happened was that my right hon. and learned Friend at that time was a member of the War Cabinet, and was asked by the War Cabinet to look

    1011
    into the various Departments and see what they were doing with a view to co-ordination. He himself never was in control.
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College was placed in charge of the Department by the War Cabinet, which was definitely assigned him because he was a man of comparative leisure in the War Cabinet, and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: One interruption leads to another, as in this case, and we get carried out of the course of the Debate.
    Mr. HEALY: It is very difficult to know what to believe, but this Report suggests, I think, quite clearly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College was responsible for this Department. The result is that this Department, I believe, is staffed and stuffed with the friends of the Member for Trinity College. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. McNeill) boasts that he is in possession of information which he cannot give to the House. It is something to be able to make that statement. Others are not in that fortunate position. That is why I wish to recall the House to the fact that the first person to call attention to the existence of the extraordinary descent of an ex-British soldier on a distant part of the coast in Ireland was either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College or the hon. Gentleman, and to assert—which was asserted thereupon—and this is what I want to ask about—that this man, who has just been convicted, had documents upon him which implicated Mr. De Valera and which justified the arrest and deportation of over 100 Irish gentlemen, five or six of whom are Members of this House, and the whole of whom, if the Irish constituencies have their wish, will be Members of the House in three or four months' time. This raises a very serious question, the question of propaganda, because there was immediately issued by Reuter this statement—I do not believe for a moment that this was issued by Lord Beaverbrook's Department: in fact, I have taken the trouble to ascertain that it was not. It says,
    "An important feature in every plan—"
    that is the plan which was supposed to be captured on this suspected man—
    "was the establishment of a submarine base in Ireland to menace the shipping of all nations."
    1012
    It was said that this man was in possession of documents which warranted the arrest which took place soon after he was captured. All this information has been sent out to America. I want to know from the Government which of their officials in the Irish Office is responsible for these-untruths, because it was proved at the trial of this man the other day that not a single document was captured upon him, not even a single scrap of paper, and yet upon the face of that story over ninety persons occupying important positions in Ireland have been arrested and are still detained in custody. As we are within a few months of the General Election I want to put to the Government a plain and simple question. Will it be to the credit of British honour or British fame or the British good name that the result of the General Election in Ireland, whenever it comes, should be to sweep away the old constitutional party which existed for the last half century, and the election as a protest against their conduct of these interned persons whom you are keeping confined in various gaols up and down the country?
    I want to know if the Government realise in advance, when conducting such a propaganda, the effect it will have on neutral countries and in America—do they realise the effect in those countries when some severity or eighty seats in this House will be filled by men from British gaols. To my mind the effect of their policy on the country that started a war in defence of small nations will be shocking. The Government must be well aware that it is the policy which they are pursuing which is leading and which will lead to this state of things. I have long been opposed to many of the hon. Gentlemen behind me, but that does not make me rejoice at the destruction of the constitutional party and the constitutional movement. I affirm that it is this system which you started, which I have proved is unjustified, that is responsible. Who started that falsehood? What likelihood was there that the man from a German submarine who had been interned in Germany as a prisoner and who had been in the British Army for ten years would have documents upon him implicating the men who have been arrested?
    I did not rise for the purpose of any recrimination at the present time, because my feelings are too serious and sad and sore upon this question. You have stated again and again that you have

    1013
    documents proving and warranting the justification of the arrest of these men. Up to the time this prisoner in the Tower was tried, I understand that there was some dark mystery which had to be probed and fathomed. The first sign of light which I saw as to the possession of documents by the Government was that I read that the Chief Secretary had produced as proof of their guilt a certain document, which was treated as being something fresh, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was a document which existed in the time of his predecessors, and, in fact, existed before the rebellion of Easter week, 1916. I believe all the other documents which have been referred to stand upon a similar basis. You have had a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Ministry of Information, and why not have a Select Committee to inquire into the work of the Ministry of Information in Ireland? For my part, I should be willing that that Select Committee should consist of the rankest Tories in this House, and I should be willing that it should consist solely of English or Scottish Members, and a Committee from which all Irish Members should be excluded. Surely you can trust your own Committee? They could hold their meetings in secret, they could sit upstairs, and let the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Attorney-General for Ireland appear before them and say: "These are the proofs of the treasonable guilt of these eighty or ninety men." What is to stop them?
    What is the alternative? That the Irish people will, as a protest, undoubtedly eject the constitutional representatives who now sit on these benches, and return prisoners as representatives of Ireland. Is this any wonder when proved falsehoods are detailed to the Irish people, and are telegraphed to America as proof warranting these arrests? When this mysterious stranger, Dowling, was about to be tried, I read that a question was put to the Chief Secretary in this House and he was asked if the trial would be in public or in private, and he replied that part of it would be in private. As a matter of fact, it was all held in public, and there was not a tittle of evidence given against this man to connect him with any Irish propaganda or Irish politicians, however extreme, and yet it is upon the case of what is called "the man in the Tower," the Blue Beard
    1014
    of British politics, that the arrest of these eighty or ninety men has taken place. Of course, English Members are so full of the War that it seems to them a matter of small moment that some eighty or ninety men, some of whom are their own colleagues, should be arrested and detained in prison without trial. That was not the olden spirit of this House, and when this House can occupy its time for four hours this afternoon on the expenditure upon cinemas and an expenditure of £31 on drinks for American journalists, and £5 for cigars, I hope it is not too much to ask that the fate of some eighty or ninety men whom you have detained without trial since the 17th May last, together with their families, may be called attention to.
    You are getting up a recruiting campaign in Ireland. How are you facilitating it? What is the great military case which has occupied the thought and attention of the Irish people? It is the case of Captain Coulthurst. You object to crime and outrage, but at the same time you put a murderer on half pay and yet you expect the Irish people and juries to convict for murder when they see that military murderers are put on half pay. What do you do to the wife of one of these murdered men? Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington comes from America and she is detained at Liverpool, and she is not to be allowed to go back to her own country. She is the wife of the man you have murdered as ascertained by a Royal Commission. You have put the murderer on half pay and released him from Broadmoor. You have only got to state these things, and compare their gravity with frivolous talk about propaganda and the £31 for drinks and the £5 for cigars, yet you take up an afternoon debating it, do you suppose that the other facts I have stated do not make a very terrible propaganda against you? What is your answer today? If you had said these men were a danger to the State it might have been different, but that is not the case you made. The Irish Secretary was only five days in Ireland when he found the plot out which Mr. Duke, a lawyer as able as he, had been eighteen months in the country and had never discovered, and even Lord Wimborne, the Lord Lieutenant, says there is not a word of truth in the story. When cases of this kind arise, surely we are entitled to ask, when the question of the Ministry of Information is

    1015
    being debated, what is the position there before we go to a General Election in Ireland?
    8.0 P.M.
    Lastly, a document has been universally circulated dealing with the case of prison treatment; and I never read such a document. It is the most appalling statement on oath as an indictment of prison treatment that I ever read. I remember in 1870, when O'Donovan Rossa was in gaol, the "Spectator" published an article protesting against this man being manacled with his hands behind him for twenty-four hours, "exposed to the meanest insect that crawls." What is the case of these Belfast prisoners? Mind you, loyalty is expected and demanded as a right when statements like this are allowed to go uncontradicted. Your only reply to them is to arrest a little boy of twelve who distributed the affidavit! What is the case? First, you removed the prisoners from Dublin so that they should not have the consolation of visits from their friends. You took them to Belfast, where there was an English governor, and the suggestion is that this was done because an English governor would be more harsh than the governor of one of the Southern prisons. The affidavit which the Government have allowed to be circulated, or at least which they cannot prevent from being circulated, has reached countries where it is calculated to do endless mischief, because it deals with a matter affecting the administration of religion, which, if true, will leave an indelible stain upon British rule in Ireland. I do not know if the chaplain of the prison in Belfast corroborates this statement. What is the story? According to the affidavit—I only give a summary of it as sworn—you had ninety men there, and, as I understand, they were not at that time receiving very harsh treatment. There was some question of ventilation. According to the affidavit, the prisoners insisted on opening their windows, and, when they were shut against them, they broke the windows, whereupon the governor said that if they would desist from this irregularity there would be no further closing down of the windows. The affidavit then proceeds to say that that night, although the governor's orders were obeyed, the prisoners were set upon by the police, forcibly manacled with their hands behind their backs, and while
    1016
    they had their hands behind their hacks they were beaten and batoned about the head. The governor, not satisfied with that indignity, ordered the hose-pipe to be turned on them. Then, in their wet and miserable plight, they were dragged down to basement cellars, and, manacled as they were, left there for the night.
    That is bad enough. The Saturday was the Catholic holiday, and they had to go to mass. Saturday is the day that the prisoners go to confession to prepare for communion the next day. According to the affidavit, no chance had been given to these men by the release of their hands for any of the purposes of nature. In this terrible condition of filth and stench ninety Catholic prisoners had to go to God's altar. That will go to Rome against you. You talk about propaganda. The Catholic chaplain at Belfast has not contradicted that statement. The idea that ninety prisoners, after being manacled for days, having to approach God's table in a terrible state of filth calls up to the Catholic as dreadful a picture as any that can be presented to the human eye. That is all in the affidavit. There is mention in the affidavit that one of these prisoners was caught by the heels, and, while manacled, dragged by his heels down to the cells. The prisoner is no less a person than the chairman of the Kerry County Council, Mr. McKenna, and I may mention that one of the prisoners is my own nephew. His brother, a captain in the Leinsters, was killed in France last year. Another brother is serving in the Navy, and the only treatment that the Government has for the third brother is to drag him to gaol. I think the question whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) spent £31 on drinks and £5 on cigars at a party of American journalists is a small matter as compared with the terrible story told in that affidavit.
    I have not the smallest doubt that those who were capable of that misconduct are capable of attempting a false defence of it, and I am going to make the same suggestion on this subject as I made upon the other. Is this a matter worthy of British inquiry? Is this a matter worthy of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission? It is many years now—I think it was in 1892—since we had a Royal Commission on Prison Treatment in Ireland. I remember that the present Lord Midle-

    1017
    ton was chairman of it, and, as the result of the Report of that Commission, a very great change was brought about. This matter should not rest between the Catholic chaplain, the maker of the affidavit, and the right hon. Gentleman. It should be a matter in which the prison officials should appear before a Commission of honest Englishmen, who would fairly pass judgment on the circumstances. It is not a matter to be tossed on one side by a reply in this House saying that these things are exaggerated. There are ninety men, a crowd of witnesses, to speak on the subject as well as the Catholic chaplain of Belfast Prison, and I respectfully suggest that if you have any hope whatever of reconciling the Irish people to your administration these matters are far more worthy of inquiry than whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College spent £5 on cigars at a party of American journalists.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I was not aware that my hon. and learned Friend was raising any question of Ireland until some time after he had commenced his speech, and I must therefore apologise to him for not having heard the whole of what he has said but I think I have heard sufficient to show me that he has attacked the Irish Government on three grounds—first, that they have interned from eighty to ninety Irish subjects without trial; secondly, that they have refused to allow Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington to return to Ireland, and have put upon half-pay the soldier who was responsible for her husband's death; and his third charge, apparently, is the treatment of the prisoners in Belfast. If my hon. and learned Friend has raised any other point, I must apologise for not having heard it, but, as I have said, I did not know until some time after he had commenced his speech that he was raising any Irish subject at all.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not have been well if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had heard the whole of the statement made by other Irish Members before he had replied, because he complained about this very Government procedure the other day?
    Mr. SHORTT: The other day, when I waited for Irish Members to get up and supplement what had been said by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon),
    1018
    I was met with jeering laughter from those benches because of my delay. I gathered then that their preference was that I should get up at once, and why I should be rebuked to-day for having done that which apparently they desired the other day I do not know.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Because we expected, the Prime Minister to speak, and he did not.
    Mr. SHORTT: I will take, first of all, the third charge made by my hon. Friend. I had seen the affidavit sworn by Mr. Kenny. It is an affidavit which contains the very gravest accusations against the governor, doctor, and everyone connected with the government of Belfast Prison. It is an affidavit which it was impossible for me to allow to go without careful investigation. I made such inquiries as I could. I made inquiries of the governor and of the doctor. My hon. and learned Friend has not informed the House that among other things which were said in the course of this affidavit was that while 200 police were batoning these prisoners the doctor and the governor were looking on. The affidavit further says that a very large number of the prisoners had to have very serious baton wounds attended to. I am assured by the doctor and by the governor, and by everyone concerned, that not a baton was drawn, and the doctor did not attend to one single baton wound of any prisoner. I am told that the suggestions made about the sending of men to Mass still manacled, and without being allowed to relieve the ordinary wants of nature, are absolutely untrue. Now there is a distinct conflict between those two statements. My hon. and learned Friend has proposed that the matter should be inquired into. I had already made up my mind that it should be inquired into, and my intention had been to ask some Irish judge whom I thought would command the confidence of all Irishmen to inquire into the question carefully. If my hon. and learned Friend would prefer an English judge, it is immaterial to me. I am prepared to have either.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the judge from Ireland be a member of the Provisional Government?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is a very unworthy interruption. I am trying to deal fairly with this matter. I am trying to meet my hon. and learned Friend's charges as fairly as I can. I said a judge—an Irish

    1019
    judge. I will go further, and, if my hon. and learned Friend chooses, I will consult with him as to whom he would suggest as a good judge who would command confidence. I do not care whether it is an English or an Irish judge. I am determined that this matter shall be tested, because this affidavit is being spread broadcast throughout Ireland from some place or other. I am assured that it is a tissue of such gross exaggerations as to amount to gross falsehood. If that is correct, then let us know it. If the affidavit is correct, then those in charge of the prison and who behaved in the way suggested must be dealt with. That is what I propose.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power [Lords],
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND No. (3) BILL.

    MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. SHORTT (resuming): The other point suggested was that in some way the Government of Ireland were responsible for putting the murderer of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington on half-pay. That may have some connection with the Ministry of Propaganda. I do not know.
    Mr. DEVLINI can prove it has.
    Mr. SHORTT: So far as Captain Bowen-Coulthurst was concerned, the Irish Government had nothing whatever to do with it. They did nothing at all. He was found—it may have been right or wrong—that he was a lunatic when he performed his atrocious deed. No one is going to attempt to suggest that the shooting of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington and his companions was not a terrible crime, and the man was found to be a lunatic. What
    1020
    have the Irish Government got to do with that? Why point at me the finger of scorn, as I sit here, because somebody, over whom I have no control, allows Captain Bowen-Coulthurst, over whom I have no control, to be put on half-pay? I never had anything to do with it. The Irish Government had nothing to do with it, and I think my hon. and learned Friend has not attacked the right people. I could not help it any more than he could. But, if it comes to the question of dealing with Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, we must take into account of what she has been doing and saying in America; having regard to the position in Ireland, and the dangers we have seen there, we must have regard to what she has said and done in America when we come to the conclusion, a conclusion we had to form, as to whether we should advise the English Home Office that she was not a person whom it was desirable to have in Ireland. I am not going to be afraid of it. I have advised the Home Office that, as far as I am concerned, I would rather she were not in Ireland; I am not afraid to admit it. That was my view, and that is my view still. So far as the release of Captain Bowen-Coulthurst is concerned, it is not a fair argument to say that the Irish Government treat one person in one way and another in another way, and to point to Captain Bowen-Coulthurst, because people who do that know, as well as I do, that the Irish Government had nothing to do with him, or with his release, or with his being placed on half-pay in any shape or form.
    The third point, as I understand it, was that we had imprisoned a certain number of people without trial, and the suggestion was apparently made that the only ground upon which these people were imprisoned was that they were the individuals who were concerned actively in the German plot; that we had relied, when they were arrested, upon evidence which was coming from Dowling, the person who landed in a collapsible boat, and that we had pledged ourselves that there were documents on Dowling which would prove the association. I never made any such pledge; I never had anything to do with his trial; I had no control over the evidence that was called; I had no control over what those who were prosecuting would think it was in the public interest should be told or not. I had no more to do with that—I did not know until I read in the papers what

    1021
    evidence was going to be given—than the hon. and learned Member himself. Sufficient evidence was given for the man to be convicted and to be sentenced to death; the man knew sufficient himself to take precious good care that he did not go into the witness box; and I have no doubt whatever, when certain individuals learnt that he had not gone into the witness box and had not been cross-examined and made to explain certain things, that a sigh of relief went up. I have no doubt whatever about that, but I never pledged myself that I was going to depend for the proof of this plot upon Dowling. It was not necessary. Everybody knows perfectly well, who has any connection with Ireland, that the Germans have always looked upon Ireland as fair ground, ripe ground, both before and since the War, for the embarrassment of England.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You have helped them.
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that my predecessor, Lord Justice Duke, had no information of this plot, and that Lord Wimborne had denied its existence. Neither of those statements has a word of truth in it. Lord Justice Duke not only knew of the plot, but he was responsible for having the Regulation so altered that we were able to secure these people. The necessary steps for these arrests were taken by Lord Justice Duke himself, and, as far as Lord Wimborne was concerned, he did not say there was no such plot. All he did say was that he had never heard of it. That may be true, but he has taken precious good care that he has never said a plot did not exist.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Surely the Lord Lieutenant of the country would know of a German plot if there was one. Surely you do not mean to say that we had a Lord Lieutenant of the country who did not know if there was a German plot.
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Gentleman may have a brief for the late Lord Lieutenant.
    Mr. DEVLIN: That is thoroughly characteristic of your insolence.
    Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member never rises to interrupt for any useful purpose at all when I am speaking. I really think I have given way to him and shown him a great deal more courtesy than he has shown to me.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Because you insult me.
    Mr. SHORTT: I have listened without interruption to the hon. Gentleman's abuse of me. I do not mind it. He has abused me on all sorts and descriptions of things, but I really do not think I will waste the time of the House by giving way to matters which have no useful purpose. He may hold a brief for Lord Wimborne. Lord Wimborne has never denied the existence of a plot. The fact remains that it was known, and Lord Justice Duke was the person who took the first necessary steps, namely, the alteration of the wording of the Regulation to enable these arrests to be made. The arrests were made on the ground that these people were suspected of acting to the danger of this country in time of war, and when you are dealing with these arrests I do ask the House to recollect that we are at war and that it is not an ordinary peace time when we can run risks with safety. We cannot run risks of this character which are calculated to be, and would certainly be, of assistance to the enemy. We cannot run these risks and, so far as the Irish Government is concerned, we do not intend to run these risks. What did we do? These men were all arrested under this Regulation, the Defence of the Realm Regulation. Every single man and woman amongst them who was arrested was told definitely that he or she had an absolute right to appeal to an Advisory Committee, the chairman of which was to be a judge of the High Court. They were told that they might give notice and appeal to that Committee to show ground why the suspicion was unreasonable. Two out of the whole lot—no, one alone out of those arrested—has taken advantage of that. There has boon a second man, one of the Cotters, who was arrested in a boat at Dublin, who has done the same.
    I have made arrangements that instead of having an ordinary lay tribunal, two judges of the High Court, Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger, should hear these appeals. I have made further arrangements that any man who appeals should have notice given to him of the description of evidence that he would have to meet in time for him to call anybody he chose. I have done my best to make it as fair to them as possible. Those two have appealed. I have not yet had a report from the learned judges as to what the result of that appeal is, but only two have taken advantage of that appeal. The others are there under suspicion. They know that they may

    1023
    appeal, but they have not done so. Now I am asked why is there not a Royal Commission appointed to inquire whether they are the persons who were actively engaged in treasonable correspondence with the Germans? What is the object of that? We knew perfectly well that messages were going out in some way from Ireland to Germany. It is not so easy to find out who is the individual. If you had found out and tried them, there would be only one result, but it is not so easy. Supposing you had made up your mind and said that A, B, C, or D of these prisoners was the actual individual who was sending out wireless messages, or the actual individual who had been prepared through American and other sources to receive this man and other men besides Dowling, and supposing they were found innocent of that, do you imagine for an instant that would let them out? Do you imagine for an instant in these cases that the fact that they were not the individual would let them out? Of course, it would not. They may not be the individuals, but they may be equally dangerous to the State. The position is this: The one thing Germany wants is trouble in Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: You have created it!
    Mr. SHORTT: The one thing Germany wants is trouble in Ireland.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Who created trouble in Ireland to begin with?
    Mr. SHORTT: I appear to have annoyed the hon. Member the other night. I am sorry. I am not going to repeat what I said. You will not annoy me. The Germans want trouble in Ireland. They want that species of trouble which will keep our troops in Ireland instead of our sending them to the front. The very thing that would suit Germany to-day would be an outbreak of physical force, another rising in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would suit you, too!"] Any man—I do not care what his views are, who would lend himself to a rising and to the use of physical force is playing the German game, is doing that which Germany wants and is in consequence a danger to this country. I do not care if a man says to me, "I do not love Germany, I do not condone Belgium, I do not condone the horrors of Serbia, but I hate England, and am going to do anything I can to destroy England"—that man is just as dangerous as the man who says,
    1024
    "I love Germany and I am going to work for Germany." So far as danger is concerned there is not one iota of difference between them. The man who in Ireland to-day is prepared to stir up physical force and physical strife is playing the German game, is a danger to this country, and as long as I am in control he is not going to be at large if I can help it-That is the position so far as I am concerned. I do not propose to give way at all in regard to any Commission of Inquiry to inquire into these arrests. Every one of the individuals has an opportunity of testing the matter. They have refused to do so, and I cannot help thinking have refused on very good ground. I am perfectly content, indeed, I had already intended to have a proper judicial inquiry into the allegation made by Mr. Kenny in regard to the Belfast prisoners, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend—
    Mr. KING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether on Thursday last he did not reply to me that he would not inquire, and has his changed attitude towards this affidavit of Mr. Kenny taken place since last Thursday when he told me he would not have any inquiry?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think I went quite so far as to say that I would not have any inquiry.
    Mr. KING: Yes, you did.
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think so. If my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. King), who is always as reasonable and courteous as any man could be, thinks I treated him at all unfairly, I very much regret it. On Thursday I had not made up my mind one way or the other. I wanted to see what the answers were, and who exactly had given the answers. I found there was such a grave difference between the two that I felt the only proper thing to do was to have a really proper inquiry to decide which of the two was right. Of course, whichever side is right and whichever side is wrong, the natural consequences of what is grave perjury on one side or the other must follow. That is the position. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, with his great knowledge of both the Irish and the English Bars, will assist me in deciding whom I should ask to conduct the inquiry, in order that the tribunal, whatever it is, may command the widest possible respect both in Ireland and in England.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I shall be very glad to afford any assistance I can. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the prisoners who are in England are to be deprived of the advice of counsel, or, if application is made by counsel to visit them, will that application be granted; and will he take steps, provided the counsel be a man who is considered not unworthy of the trust, to see that the interview be allowed to take place without the presence of a warder I understand that the solicitor for one of the prisoners visited him the other day, and that no interview except in the presence of a warder was allowed.
    Mr. SHORTT: I did not know of those facts. If my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the Belfast prisoners who are now in England, they, of course, would only be required as witnesses, I understand. We will try to do what is fairest and best for those concerned. I understand that, so far as these matters have been raised in this Debate, it is because it is suggested that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin (Sir E. Carson), is in some way connected with propaganda and the Government of Ireland. Let me say here, once for all, that he has absolutely no concern with the Government of Ireland—absolutely none whatever. He is not consulted. He has never volunteered his advice. If he volunteered his advice, it would be considered just as the advice of an ordinary Irish Member would be considered, neither more nor less. He has no more to do with the Government of Ireland than my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite, who look so cross with me. I can assure them that he is not dictating the policy or in any way attempting to interfere with the policy of the Irish Government.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down conceives that the only duty which he, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, has is to insult the Members; from Ireland who represent that country on these benches. He has made a statement thoroughly characteristic of him. He said that I stand here with a brief for Lord Wimborne. I never held a brief for anyone. If I happened to be a lawyer, I hope I would be more successful than the right hon. Gentleman, but I have never held a brief either as a lawyer or as a layman for anybody in this House. All I know about Lord Wimborne's statement is what
    1026
    appears in the public Press. He stated that he knew no German plot. It is not for me to say, though I believe that this German plot is largely the outcome of the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman—partly that and partly an excuse to camouflage Home Rule. I believe that the Government wanted an excuse to get rid of Home Rule, therefore they invented a German plot. The German plot was supposed to have taken place before Lord Wimborne resigned and the right hon. Gentleman tells us that Lord Wimborne knew nothing about it—Lord Wimborne, who was for four years in Ireland, who was the Lord Lieutenant of the country, who, as far as I know, governed the country, though I do not know whether he did or not—I do not know who governs the country. I do not know who governed it in Lord Wimborne's time, and I do not know who governs it now.
    The right hon. Gentleman says the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has nothing to do with the Irish Government, but what about the legal adviser to the Provisional Government? Does he deny that he has nothing to do with it? He remains silent. I hope it is not discourteous if I, an Irish representative, ask him that question. Though the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) does not go over to Dublin Castle and turn the Castle machine, he is represented there by the legal adviser to the Provisional Government, a rebel Government, which was set up in Ireland four years ago to break the law of the land, and the first official function it had to discharge there was to offer its hospitality to the Emperor of Germany. The right hon. Gentleman declares that there was a German plot during the time he was not in Ireland, during the time he was a Liberal Home Ruler here in England, and Lord Wimborne says he never heard of a German plot, although he was the chief representative of His Majesty's Government in Ireland. I ask impartial men to put these two things together. I am an untutored layman, and he is a distinguished lawyer, and he asks a body of intelligent men—for I take it the House, though it has lost its liberty, still remains intelligent—to believe that this German plot which existed and was being carried on when he was in England and the Chief Governor of Ireland knew nothing about it during the time that he was there. I mark that throughout his speech to-night there ran constantly this expression—"the

    1027
    suspected men." Through it all he never said, "These German plotters." What are the fundamental principles of British justice that he lays down? That if these suspected men have a grievance because they were thrown into prison, it is to be met not by those who indicted them, not by trying them before a tribunal of their own countrymen, but he says if they have any grievance they can appeal to a Commission of judges in England. Then whether they are guilty of being in a German plot or not they will not be allowed out of prison. That may be the modern idea of justice and liberty as spoken by a British Liberal, who runs a Tory Coalition Government, but certainly it is not our conception of liberty, and it would not be the conception of British liberty if we were living under normal conditions. If they were really suspected men he should have said they were suspected, and were put in because they were suspected.
    Mr. SHORTT: That is exactly what was done.
    Mr. DEVLIN: No, I will tell you what you did. You invented a German plot in order that you might justify yourselves in America for dropping Home Rule. At that very bench the Prime Minister of England gave his solemn pledge and word of honour that he would introduce a Home Rule Bill, not because it was the just claim of a people who had laboured by constitutional efforts for forty years to secure the constitutional rights of self-government, but because he wanted to satisfy Labour in England and public opinion in America, and public opinion in America demanded, and I have no doubt Labour opinion in England demands, that he will carry out his promise; and when the critical stage arrives in the House at which he has to carry out that promise and make it a performance, there is trotted out the German plot which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland never heard of, and which was given us with such embellishments by the Chief Secretary. I think the longer we live the less we shall hear about the German plot. I notice the right hon. Gentleman did not deliver the story with the same bellicose spasm that he did when he first announced it. Then it was men who were deliberately endangering the State, men whose hands were potentially red with the blood of Britons—the agents of Germany. Now it is merely that they are suspected persons,
    1028
    that there might have been a German plot, that there was a possibility that there was German propaganda. Of course there was German propaganda in every country in the world. There was no German plot in America, though there was German money. There was, of course, the influence of Germany everywhere, and now he makes it appear that because the Germans were in every country in Europe and even in America, a number of Irishmen were engaged in an attempt to join Germans in a plot against this country. People can form their own opinions as to that.
    I had no intention of entering into any of the subjects which the hon. Gentleman has raised to-night, though I quite agree it was vitally important that they ought to be raised here, and for the hon. Gentleman to take advantage of the opportunity. This is a Debate on propaganda, and the right hon. Gentleman asks us, What have the Irish Office to do with propaganda? The right hon. Gentleman imagined the other night that because he was six weeks in office he had a free rein to come here and insult the men who were better friends of this Empire during the earlier stages of the War, until English impudence, officialdom, and bureaucracy largely destroyed our influence in Ireland. He sneers at us and complains that we are not courteous to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) spoke very contemptuously of the paragraph in this Report which deals with the visit of the twelve gentlemen to Dublin, who spent £31 on drink and £5 on cigars. I agree that the thing is too contemptible to discuss, but it was only when the answer was drawn from the representative of the Treasury that the whole incident came vividly before my mind. They were a number of journalists who were brought over to Ireland and at the receptions and banquets given to them out of the funds provided by the Ministry of Propaganda, strong anti-Home Rule speeches were made. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shortt) need not listen to this, because he was not there at the time, but I have no doubt he will defend it with his characteristic agility. These men came over to Ireland, shepherded by a Tory propagandist from this country. So long as they were in Belfast they only drank lemonade, and only smoked Woodbine cigarettes. There was no necessity to warm them up there. The oratory was sufficiently hearty and flamboyant there.

    1029
    Unionist speeches were made to these representatives of the Press from Canada. They they were brought to Dublin by the same shepherd, and here he said, "I think we must spend £31 in drinks and £5 in cigars, for they will probably hear the truth in Dublin." Therefore, the Ministry of Propaganda supplied them in two days with £31 worth of drink and £5 worth of cigars in order to enable them to form a judicial, cold, clear and lucid view of the Irish question during the two days they were being shepherded by this Unionist gentleman who had charge of them in the interests of the Ministry of Information.
    The right hon. Gentleman asks us what had the Irish Office to do with the question of the murder of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington, and how that subject could come within the purview of discussion on the expenditure of money for propaganda in foreign countries. One of the books which has been published by the Ministry of Propaganda is called "The Oppressed English," written by Mr. Ian Hay. This is a book paid for by the Ministry of Information. This book published by the Ministry of Information goes to America and is scattered broadcast over America, where it has been the greatest success of British propaganda since the right hon. Gentleman invented the German plot. Although it has been sent all round America it has not been allowed in this country. The reason it is not allowed in this country is because it is a book that is nothing more nor less than a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. Here is what it says about Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington. The writer talks about the wild imagination of the Irish, and suggests that people should not believe anything they say, and he gives this particular case as an instance of how wildly we allow our imagination to run away with us—
    "One ease in particular has gained unnecessary notoriety in the United States. An unfortunate man named Skeffington, a harmless visionary—"
    Mr. Skeffington was one of the most brilliantly intelligent men in these Islands. He was a great scholar and a great journalist—
    "instead of following the counsels of common sense—"
    that is, the counsels of Dublin Castle—
    "and staying at home, wandered forth into the streets of Dublin during the height of the rioting. He was here arrested by an English officer."
    What is the fact? He was arrested in the streets of Dublin when he was out trying
    1030
    to prevent looting by a mob, and he was arrested by an English officer who with a party of troops was engaged in clearing the streets.
    "This officer had recently returned from the Western Front on sick leave, and, utterly unstrung by the appalling sights which confronted him, he appears to have lost his mental balance. At the end of the day he visited the barracks where his prisoners were confined, and selected Skeffington and two others, and ordered their execution. The sentence was carried out. In due course the matter was reported to the authorities, an inquiry was held, and the afflicted officer was confined in a lunatic asylum."
    The right hon. Gentleman would not justify a single line of that description of the Sheehy-Skeffington incident, and yet that is sent out to the United States of America in a book published by the Ministry of Information, which has never been permitted to come to this country or to Ireland because people would contradict it. I will give some other quotations from this book—
    "Ireland is a country that enjoys splendid freedom."
    Judging by his name, this man is a Scotsman.
    Mr. HOGGE: He is a Scotsman, but we apologise for him.
    Mr. DEVLIN: If you have a Scotsman you want to apologise for, send him to do the work of Dublin Castle. He goes on to say:
    "In the dim and distant days before the War, Mr. Lloyd George was engaged in a campaign of what his friends called 'social reform—'"
    Let the Radical party and Scottish Members listen to this—
    "but his victims called rank piracy. One of his most unpopular efforts at legislation was the Land Valuation Act, and at other was the insurance scheme. Neither of these Acts has been ever visited upon Ireland, for the simple reason that the Irish people refused to entertain them at any price. So the oppressed English, as usual, gave way and paid the piper alone."
    Is this the propaganda of truth or the propaganda of mendacity. I have heard the Ministry of Information assailed here to-night. I have heard it said that the gentlemen who constitute the controlling powers in the Ministry of Propaganda are using their position for their own business ends. I do not know whether it is true or not, but here is a Scottish Tory, who charges the Irish with having no imagination, and who, after denouncing the Insurance Act and the Land Valuation Act, in order to get at Ireland, says that neither of these Acts apply to Ireland,

    1031
    while, as a matter of fact, both of these Acts apply to Ireland. He not only suffers from being the agent of Dublin Castle, but he is a public liar. That is the sort of stuff that the English Government is paying for. A sum of £1,800,000 is the Vote that is given by the Ministry of Propaganda for the purpose of carrying truth throughout the world, for the purpose of elevating the pure white banner of noble causes, and in raising it to the citadel of the darkened intelligence of other nations in the world. And they circulate this book by Mr. Ian Hay. I can very well understand why Englishmen take so much trouble in discussing a book of this character, if their complaints are based on the same data on which we base our complaints. This book is teeming with things of the character I have quoted. For instance, he says
    "The Irish character, ever prone to dream and brood, prevents Ireland forgetting her ancient wrongs."
    If he had finished up by saying that she forgets her ancient wrongs very often because she is so often compelled to remember her modern wrongs, he would have been nearer the mark. This book has been circulated in America, and these sentiments are expressed as the official views of the Propaganda Department at the very time when you are appealing to the American race to come to your assistance in this great world war, and when 33 per cent. of their soldiers belong to that race of dreamers, these people with long memories of an ancient past, these men who remember the appalling persecution which drove them or their fathers from their native land, which is being insulted by a hired writer who belittles the potential soldiers of the American Republic, the men you want to fight your battles in Flanders and in France. You hold down your heads with shame, you express yourselves shocked at the terrible blunders and mistakes that were made in the earlier years of the War in treating Ireland as you did, and you say, "We are wiser now; we know the result of our iniquities and blunders. We now pursue a different policy, and we get another Chief Secretary, a sweet-voiced, gentle-tongued Chief Secretary, to trumpet forth the glories of the British Empire," and at the very time when you are making this boast you send over a paid hireling called an agent of propaganda to America to write lies, historical lies, and
    1032
    to hold up to the scorn and ridicule of the Americans, of other races, the Irish race, not the Irish party.
    9.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman can attack them. They can be attacked by everybody, but the race itself, the race that broods over past wrongs, is maligned before the people of America, a country which owes so much to the civic virtue, the personal virtues, and the love of freedom and of noble causes which have always distinguished the Irish people and which have contributed so much to the greatness of that country. The right hon. Gentleman insults us and asks for courtesy in return. He robs us of our freedom and gives us Ian Hay. He tells us that we are not practical, that we know nothing about economies, that we will have nothing to do with progressive legislation in Ireland, that these measures are not in operation in Ireland, and then Mr. Ian Hay is sent over to America to say that because these things do not operate in Ireland we are a nation of free men. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is courteous to me or I am courteous to him is a matter of no consequence whatever. He wants to appear here as the strong man, representing the firm hand and the resolute Government. It is very little matter whether we are courteous to one another, but what does matter is whether he, as the representative of the British Empire, is going to lend a hand in destroying the work of forty years of peace and reconciliation. What matters to me is not how you insult the men on these benches. There are men on these benches who for forty years were the unpaid and unpurchased public servants of their people, and who have exalted their country, if not to liberty, at least to some measure of happiness, during all the trials and vicissitudes of these forty years. The hon. and learned Gentleman below me (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that none of us would perhaps survive after the next General Election. Is that why the right hon. Gentleman wants to sneer at us and to attack us The hon. and learned Member below me may be wrong, but I may tell the right hon. Gentleman this, that you do not get rid of the Irish question when you get rid of the Irish party. I know that you do not like straight speech, but you might get something more than a speech when you get rid of the present representatives of Ireland and have their seats occupied by others. Far greater and far bigger than

    1033
    any question concerning him or us are the vital and all-absorbing interests involved in this great question. I say to him that it is his duty, as the representative of the Government, to withdraw at once the almost countless Orders which he has given for the suppression of liberties in Ireland at the present time, and to make easy the path on which this question will have to be settled some day, not the path of men like those who sit on these benches, or even myself, perhaps, but to make easier the path that men will have to tread when this question comes to be settled.
    You have endeavoured, by your propagandists, to besmirch the fair fame of our country. You have endeavoured to dub us pro-Germans—we who contributed twenty times more to the fight for civilisation and justice in France and Flanders than our assailants have done! They have not called us pro-Germans across these benches, but they have endeavoured to make it appear that the Irish people are pro-Germans when they are nothing of the sort. Why, when you English were all pro-Germans, we were against the Germans. Germanism was a word of contempt in Ireland at a time when it was glorified in this country. When you gave Heligoland to Germany you were promoting the cause of civilisation and advancing the interests of small nationalities. We resent the charge. It is all carefully wrapped up in this propaganda which has been carried on not only in America but here. To go back to what I said before. Ireland is just as deeply interested in the success of the Allies as anyone, but if I were to go throughout Ireland with a trumpet of gold to call them up I could not get there. Before you killed the influence of the Nationalist Parliamentary party in Ireland you could have got the recruits. If I were to join your recruiting campaign and became one of the hierarchy that now conducts it in Ireland, I should merely be a hypocrite. I should merely be playing you false, and I should be making a promise I could not keep. The reason that you cannot recruit is that the men will not respond. It is not because they do not want to fight in a just cause; it is because you have so soured them; you have so unnerved them by your continuous disappointment of their hopes. You have so proved to them that your policy of fighting for small nationalities—for Serbia, Montenegro, and Belgium—is a policy which would bring no good to
    1034
    Ireland that the people of Ireland want to know what are your real war aims. Are Irishmen to go out, and die on the battlefields of France, as many have died already, and to come back to their country, and hear it said, at some banquet or elsewhere, that there are "difficulties in the way of giving Home Rule to Ireland. We would defend the right hon. Member for Trinity College; the old Tory party in this country are too long committed against Home Rule, and it would not be possible to grant it, because they might become enemies of the Government"? That is the sort of thing the Irish people expect if they were to come out and join you again in fighting for small nationalities.
    If you want men in Ireland you can get them still. I made you an offer on the night of the Conscription Debate—that if you gave Ireland a wide, broad, and generous measure of Home Rule, I would be one of the first to join the Army; that I would consider myself an advocate of your cause, and preach everywhere that Ireland should respond to your call, when you have proved the reality of your claims that yours is a fight for the rights of small nations. When I made that offer the war sky was not so bright as it is to-day. That offer was made at a time of great gloom, when it was whispered that you might be defeated, when it was supposed to be the greatest struggle in which you had yet been engaged, and when, be it remarked, it was not a safe offer to make, because it meant gambling one's life, and perhaps losing it. Then you question our bona fides and insult us in this House. If we were made of different stuff from other human nature elsewhere, perhaps you would be right, but human nature is just the same in Ireland as anywhere. Do not base yourselves on large expectations of getting something in Ireland that you could not obtain under similar circumstances in any other country. I submit that this Debate on propaganda, if it has no other effect, will, I trust, succeed in impressing on the right hon. Gentleman and upon absentee members of the Government that there is time still to do something before it is too late. Even if you are victorious to-morrow, you can only be vindicated if you permanently establish peace in the world, but you cannot establish peace permanently in the world unless you settle this Irish question, which not only affects Dublin Castle and Government administration in England,

    1035
    but in fact every branch of civilised humanity throughout the world. This Irish question affects Australia; it affects the Australian soldiers, who think of the condition of their little homeland, to which they have such passionate devotion, of the little people persecuted and hunted as they have been, and these Australian soldiers cannot go into battle with the moral of efficient fighters when they remember the position in which their own country of Ireland occupies before the world. Unless this question of Ireland is settled on the only lines on which it can be settled, the Imperial House of Parliament will be haunted with these memories, and will have to listen to discussions like this when it ought to be employed in the consideration of other large and vital interests which confront it.

    MUNITIONS—CELLULOSE ACETATE.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I want to call the attention of the House to the subject of the fifth Report of the Sub-committee on the Ministry of Munitions, in regard to the arrangements of the Ministry for obtaining cellulose acetate. The bulk of the Report is devoted to certain allegations against the British Cellulose Company, and they are felt very deeply. I have decided to ask the House to listen to me for a brief time in regard to this matter. Immediately the Report was issued the company wrote to the Ministry of Munitions asking for a full investigation into the charges it contained; it was asked that evidence should be given, and that the papers should be unreservedly submitted for investigation. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Munitions promised investigation. A letter was sent to the Press asking the public to suspend judgment, and a majority of the papers freely inserted it; but the "Daily Chronicle" did not do so, and it published this morning a long article dealing with the affairs of the British Cellulose Company. The company feel that they have not been treated fairly in this matter. In the first place, the hon. Member for Greenock, the Chairman of the Sub-committee, took upon himself a rather unusual course. The Report was dated the 23rd, and on Friday, the 26th, copies were placed in the Vote Office; yet on the following morning the whole of the Report, or the greater part of it, appeared in the Glasgow papers, and on further inquiries
    1036
    being made by the company it was discovered that the Chairman had taken the unusual course of sending a typewritten letter, signed by his own hand, to various newspapers, underlining in blue pencil certain passages dealing with the affairs of the British Cellulose Company. That company is composed of men of high positions who hold important posts in various large concerns. I will give the names of two or three who are members of that board. There is Sir Harry Macgowan, managing director of Nobel's; Sir Lionel Phillips, so well known in connection with South Africa; Sir M. Mitchell-Thomson, who is also very well known in Scotland, being a railway director, bank director; and others.
    All these people are connected with this company, and apparently on the chairman's ipse dixit, certain statements were made in the fifth Report. The allegations against them are unreasonable delay—they say they have a complete answer to that—that they had an extravagant capital expenditure, poor quality of product, and excessive profits. All they ask is that an independent tribunal should try their case and that the evidence should be taken upon oath. They were never aware, when the Committee was sitting, that they were on trial at all, but they understand now that some thirty-four witnesses were called. When they were asked whether they would give evidence they said they would be only too pleased to do so and to help the Committee in any way possible. Questions were put, and Colonel Grant Morden asked, "Are we on our trial?" The chairman of the Committee, so I understand, said, "Certainly not. We are merely considering the Ministry of Munitions." Colonel Grant Morden said, "If I am on my trial, I should like to be represented by solicitors or counsel," and the chairman said, "Not at all; we are only asking certain questions with a view to testing the efficiency of the Ministry of Munitions." The gentlemen forming this company thought they were doing an extremely patriotic work indeed in getting this acetate of cellulose into this country. It is an extraordinary invention, first invented by an Englishman named Cross about forty years ago, but it was only a laboratory triumph, and it was not until a few years ago that some Swiss chemists named Dreyfus succeeded in turning it into a valuable commodity, which will become more and more valuable as the years go

    1037
    on. This is one of the constituents of dope, and dope is the material which is necessary to coat aeroplanes with. Dope has to have certain extraordinary qualities. It has to be heat-proof, water-proof, frost-proof, it has to be transparent, it has to be to a certain extent elastic, and it also has to be damp-proof and wet-proof. All these things are necessary for the purpose of coating the wings of aeroplanes, and no aeroplane can fly unless it has got this kind of material for covering its wings.
    It was due to Colonel Grant Morden, who discovered that the Dreyfuses were able to make this peculiar material which was necessary, that it was brought over to this country. I understand that when first put before the War Office they pooh-poohed the idea of any large supply of dope being required in this country. They thought a quarter of a ton per day of acetate of cellulose would be ample for the purpose, but I understand that ever since that they have been pressing more and more, until they are now pressing this company for something like 60 or 80 tons a week. Therefore, what was first a small company, in which £120,000 was put up by debentures, with £4,000 of capital in sixpenny shares, has naturally grown, and the public are interested in seeing that these 6d. shares are now worth £14 10s. Nothing of the kind. They are exactly worth what they were when they were 6d., and no more. I understand from inquiries I have made that the £4,000 of shares were made 6d. shares for division amongst those persons who put up the £120,000 worth of money in debentures. It was an easy way of dividing them into small sums, and there was no expectation that any profit would be made. No profit has been made, but from that report you would hardly think that possible. No excess profit has been made, and no profit at all. I understand from the accountant, who in a very short time will be able to get out the balance-sheet, that there is a considerable loss at present, and has been ever since the company was established, in making this material. These gentlemen, out of their own money, found over a million and a half with which to set up works at the earnest request of the Minister of Munitions to turn out this valuable product. Their works near Derby are a mile in length and half a mile broad, and they have been put up at a cost of approximately three millions of money. That has been done absolutely at the urgent request of the Government and the particular
    1038
    Department, who have again and again begged that they should turn out more and more of this peculiar composition.
    That is the whole story. At first it was quite a small thing, and £120,000 in debentures and £4,000 in sixpenny shares seemed to be a right kind of size for the company. All the men connected with it were men connected with large concerns, and they did not trouble about increasing it in any way. No shares have been sold on the Stock Exchange whatever. They have kept them amongst themselves, and when they wanted money, money was advanced. One of the chief banks in London. I believe, advanced £900,000, and also one of the firms connected with the concern put in £500,000. Therefore, these shares might just as well have been £50 shares. It makes no difference. It was only to show what the company was worth, and for the purpose of paying back the debts to the bank and the other firm the alteration in the company took place whereby an arbitrary figure of £14 10s. was chosen as the amount at which the shares should stand. I think the Report of the Committee, which has been criticised in many respects like the Sixth Report of the Committee, does not fairly represent the case of the Cellulose Company. There are a great many things in the company's favour that have never been mentioned. They had not the slightest idea that their rivals in trade were being examined behind their backs and giving evidence which was totally irreconcilable with the facts, which can be disclosed from their books. They know the House of Commons is the fairest inquest in the world, and all they ask the House of Commons to do is to suspend judgment, and they ask the Press also not to make comments upon the matter, until this Committee of investigation has thoroughly examined it on oath.
    I am asked to say that every help that the company can give, by means of their books, or their officials, or their records, they will give to such an investigation, but they do complain that the chairman of the Committee should have taken upon himself rather more than he ought to have done in absolutely writing to the Press a letter, and under-marking in blue all the way through the Report everything that affected the British Cellulose Company, and asking, I believe, the editors of those papers to comment upon it. That may or may not have been a judicial act, but all the company ask is that judgment

    1039
    should be suspended until their side of the case has been heard. They have put in a detailed answer to the Report of the Committee to-night to the Minister in charge—namely, the Minister of Munitions—and they are willing to back up that reply in every way that this investigation thinks fit. I think I have said enough to the House to show that there is another side to the question. These men have honourable careers behind them. They are men of large positions, who have done everything they can to supply the Government with what was absolutely necessary, and they feel that they have been unjustly attacked in this Report. I should like to say something about cellulose. I am no chemist, but it is an extraordinary invention, this acetate of cellulose. The base of it apparently is cotton or paper. It is then torn to pieces, ground up, and mixed with this chemical until it practically becomes a flour. It is then turned back from being something of a floury nature until it is in the form of a jelly and transparent. They have practically solved the difficulty which Mr. H. G. Wells put in one of his books as one of the first and most desirable things that ought to be invented after the War, namely, glass that will bend, and they have practically turned out glass that will bend in any direction. In addition, it will make a synthetic silk of the finest quality, and I have got some in my pocket now. Further, it makes unbreakable films, and Messrs. Pathé Frères use nothing else than cellulose, and, as I have said, it is absolutely necessary for the purposes of dope. This company feels very strongly the remarks which have been made in this Report, and they ask for justice at the hands of the House of Commons.
    Colonel COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to suspend judgment on the Report issued by the sub-committee on the Ministry of Munitions. I have the honour to be the chairman of that Committee, and I am sure that the request of the right hon. Gentleman will be appreciated and accepted by my Committee. In view of his request, and of the statement made at Question Time this afternoon, that the Government proposes to set up a Committee of Inquiry into this case, I have no intention of now speaking to justify the Report, but I can say that, at the proper time, my colleagues and I will
    1040
    attempt to justify every statement therein made. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Member referred to my action when the Report was issued, and rather inferred that I had issued a copy of the Report to the Press before it was made public. That I desire to contradict emphatically. On the day the Report was issued I sent to the Vote Office for several copies of the Report. I have heard that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested to Mr. Speaker that the substance of the Report was published in the "Glasgow Herald" on the day that the Report was issued in London.
    Sir W. BULL: No; the Report was issued in London at two o'clock. It was then in the Vote Office, and it appeared almost in full in Glasgow on the next morning.
    Colonel COLLINS: The Report was issued in London at two p.m., and appeared in a Glasgow paper the following morning; that is only natural, because it would be sent along the wires in the afternoon. I desire to deal with that point, because it had been stated to Mr. Speaker that I infringed the privileges of the House by sending a copy of this Report to the Press before it was issued to Members of this House. I did not take any such action, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to withdraw any suggestion which he conveyed to Mr. Speaker in the earlier part of the afternoon. The second reference to myself consisted in the fact that, as chairman of the Committee, I sent a copy of the Report to the Press with certain sentences specially marked. I admit at once that I did do so. It was a long Report, and I conceived it my duty, as I shall conceive it my duty in future, to see that the substance of the Report is referred to in the Press. The Report, as I say, was a long one, and unless someone had taken the trouble to mark the salient factors it might not have been dealt with satisfactorily by the Press at short notice. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I was animated by some bias against the company. But I marked the Report carefully myself and I purposely omitted marking any reference to two gentlemen, one an officer and the other Sir Trevor Dawson, to whom reference has been made here. If the right hon. Gentleman had gone through the marked copy he would have seen that I did not mark

    1041
    those names at all. I might further mention there is a reference to myself in page 2 of the Report in a complimentary sense, and I did not mark that reference. The reference in question was in the Report presented to the House by a Subcommittee of the War Office. My sole object in issuing this Report and marking the paragraphs was to draw public attention to these matters. My Committee had spent a good deal of time on this question, and I considered it advisable to take the action I did under the circumstances. It might be said that I have exceeded my duty in so doing, but I think in view of the action of the Government, and in view of the general practice of hon. Members when sending a copy to the Press to mark it for their convenience and in order to draw attention to the salient facts—in so doing I was not doing anything unusual nor was I attempting to cast blame or otherwise on the persons mentioned in the paragraphs. I only desire to make that personal explanation. I hope the House will accept my assurance that I was only influenced, in issuing the Report and marking it, by the public interest and by a desire to draw the attention of the public to the work which the members of the Sub-committee had been doing for many months—a thankless and difficult task. We have endeavoured in our Report to hold the balance fairly between all the parties, and when the Committee appointed by the Ministry of Munitions comes to investigate the Report I feel confident myself it will be found that we have in this Report dealt justly with all the interests concerned.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): It is not necessary for me to enter into the controversy which has arisen between my two hon. Friends who have addressed the House, but I think it desirable that I should state at slightly fuller length than I was able to do at Question Time the course which the Ministry of Munitions intends to adopt on this matter. This contract, the centre of so much criticism, was entered into early in the War by the War Office. The country then found itself in this position, that it was dependent for its output of aeroplanes on a particular ingredient, small in bulk, but absolutely essential to the carrying out of our aeroplane programme. It found that this product was not being made in this country and that we were
    1042
    entirely dependent on imported supplies of cellulose acetate. The War Office at that time decided that if it was at all possible the necessary arrangements should be made for producing cellulose acetate in this country. It was obviously undesirable that for an essential material of this kind this country should be dependent on foreign sources. The War Office then got into touch with Dr. Dreyfus and his company, who were one of the two firms on the Continent amongst neutral and Allied nations who were able to produce cellulose acetate, and, as a result of the long negotiations that took place, a contract was entered into between the War Office and Dr. Dreyfus as representing this neutral company. They made a contract under which Dr. Dreyfus was to erect works in this country which would be capable of manufacturing cellulose acetates.
    It is not for me to defend, and I have no intention of doing so, the action taken by the War Office at that time. The essential thing was that the stuff should be produced in this country. It might have been possible, with all the information we now have, to have adopted some better course. It might have been possible to have had two or three alternative sources of supply, but these happened to be the only people, so the War Office were advised, who were capable of producing cellulose acetate of the necessary quantity, and this contract they made with them. Whether it was the most ideal contract that could have been made or no, I am not concerned to state, but that contract was entered into with that motive, and the motive was a good one. It was not until February, 1917, that the Ministry of Munitions had any concern at all in this business. In February, 1917, the Ministry of Munitions took over the Aircraft Production Department, and it was then that the Ministry had to take over the contract then made, and the responsibilities attaching to that contract. Negotiations went on for some time. The demand for cellulose acetate went up by leaps and bounds. The programme of aircraft production multiplied twenty times compared with what it was at the time when the War Office first entered on these negotiations, and it was inevitable in those circumstances that the expenditure should multiply to a degree which was not anticipated when the original estimates were made. The

    1043
    question of whether the Ministry were right in following up that contract, and in adhering to the process, which was first adopted by the War Office, is one about which there might be some controversy. But about this there is no controversy, that the particular process which was adopted for this country—that is what I may call the Dreyfus process—has since been adopted by America, France, and Italy, and in America there is the Kodak Company in existence which the Government have been told might have been an alternative source of supply, and in France the Usines du Rhone Company. Therefore, these other countries have adopted the same process that has been adopted in this country, namely, the Dreyfus process, and, whatever may be the defence in regard to this contract, this at any rate is certain, that at no time has the great aeroplane programme of this country—twenty times what it was at the beginning of the War—been held up for lack of this essential material.
    Those, I admit, are only large considerations which do not touch, to any great extent, the particular criticisms made by the Select Committee over which my hon. and gallant Friend presided. But they are criticisms which should be in the mind of Parliament and in the mind of the country in view of the sweeping criticism—something amounting to denunciation—which has been indulged in in certain quarters. I devoted my weekend to the study of the Report, and of such documents as I was able to read during the time, and, as a result of that study, I came to the conclusion that, whilst these large considerations might be held fairly to justify the broad lines which the Government have pursued, still, in view of the conclusions of the Committee and certain statements made in that Report, we could not allow the matter to rest where it then was, and, as a result of a conversation I had this morning with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, we agreed that we would immediately set up in the Ministry a strong competent body to examine the three recommendations which the Select Committee has made, and to report at the earliest possible moment in regard to those recommendations. I make no criticism whatever of the Report of this Select Committee. On the contrary, I think the Ministry of Munitions is under
    1044
    a debt of obligation, as indeed is Parliament, to the Select Committee for the manner in which it examined every detail of this contract. I am not concerned with what may be the attitude of the company towards the Select Committee, but it was impossible, in my view, that the Ministry of Munitions, in view of a report of that kind, should let the matter rest. That Committee will be set up in the course of the next two or three days. It will be given terms of reference to confine it to the recommendations which the Select Committee has made, and, as soon as we have received the Report, we shall not hesitate to take such action as may be called for.
    Mr. ROCH: Will the Departmental Committee's Report be available to the public?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: As it will be a Departmental Committee Report, I should not care to say at the moment whether it will be made public. But I should say that all conclusions and the action taken thereon will be made public. I thought it necessary to make these observations, and especially those in the first part of my remarks, because I should not like the House or the country to suppose that this contract has been of such a nature as could not be defended on broad lines. The broad considerations are those which I have put. But I also recognise, as I have shown, that there may be other considerations which should be taken into account, which, so far, have not been taken into account. I am most anxious that the Ministry, and especially the financial side, should give Parliament the assurance that in regard to all these contracts involving great expenditure the most scrupulous care should be taken to see that the country gets really value for its expenditure, and, so far as my hon. and gallant Friend's Committee is concerned, I personally feel that Parliament and the Ministry are under an obligation to him and his fellow members for the spirit and the thoroughness with which they have made this examination.
    Mr. HOLT: I am exceedingly pleased to know the Ministry of Munitions means to have a thorough investigation. I trust that the terms of reference will be wide enough to investigate the whole matter. There are several aspects of the case. There is, first of all, the technical question. If you follow the Report of the Select Committee, assuming that Report

    1045
    to be correct, there can be no question that this company failed lamentably and scandalously in their promises and assurances to the Government.
    Sir W. BULL: That they absolutely deny.
    Mr. HOLT: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt, on behalf of the company, deny that, but that is one of the questions that ought to be investigated.
    Sir W. BULL: Exactly.
    Mr. HOLT: Promises were made which were entirely unfulfilled. Negotiations began in July, 1915, and were apparently concluded in September, 1915, but according to this Report it was July, 1917, before anything substantial was produced, and it was April, 1918, before the goods were coming in in quantities. If there is an investigation we ought to know why, assuming it to be, as I have no doubt it was, an article of very great importance to the conduct of the War, such a very long period of time elapsed between the time when the contract was set in hand and the time when any goods whatever were delivered. We certainly ought to have much more information than we have got as to how it was that various reputable concerns which, primâ facie, were more reputable were not encouraged to take up production in this matter. We ought to have got more information about that. I do think, also, we want more information about the constitution of this company. There is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that the financial story of this company is an exceedingly uncomfortable one. I know nothing whatever, I frankly admit, about the Stock Exchange and the floating of companies, but when I discover that shares which were valued at 6d. have come to be worth £14 10s. I think everybody who knows anything at all about it would like an explanation, though it is explained to me that there is no particular signification attached to the change.
    Sir W. BULL: Anybody can discover what it represents.
    Mr. HOLT: I understand that if one day the share is called a sixpenny share and the next day a £14 10s. share, that it is simply for the convenience of it.
    Sir W. BULL: I do not want to bore the House with these details, but the £120,000 is now £3,000,000. As I explained, the shares are merely for the purpose of showing how the matter stands.
    Mr. HOLT: I want to try to understand the explanation and how the hon. Gentleman opposite puts it. I understand that what has happened is this: that every person who originally put in 6d. has since contributed £14 9s. 6d. to that sixpence?
    Sir W. BULL: The money has gone into the company and has been spent, not the money of the Government, but the money of these people.
    Mr. HOLT: If the person who put in sixpence now finds his share is worth £14 10s., all I can say is that the explanation is not adequate, is not satisfactory. If that is not what the Gentleman opposite means I fail to understand what is exactly his explanation. If somebody has found the money it may be that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman who spoke the other evening is the right one and that, after all, whether or not some peculiar bargains were made does not matter so very much so long as the directors of the company did not take the taxpayers' money. But the taxpayers ought to know something about it. Are we to understand that the whole of this bargain about not paying the Excess Profits Tax amounts to nothing, and that there was never any profits? We should look for a very full, and a very close and clear investigation. There is another matter about which I should like to know. I want to know what is the connection between this company and the Ministry of Information? I think that the gentleman who is a great light in this company, Mr. C. G. Bryan, of the Prudential Trust Company of Canada, and who produced the £120,000, is one of the managers of a Department in the Ministry of Propaganda. I find also that another, an officer of the Ministry of Propaganda, was lately a director of the bank with which the Prudential Trust of Canada kept their account. This is what I have discovered in my own investigation into books of reference and so on that can be had in the Library of the House. I should like to have all these matters thoroughly investigated. It is not altogether a pleasant transaction. We have had a list of shareholders published by the "Daily Chronicle." There are some very reputable gentlemen in this list, and some persons not altogether so. It is not altogether pleasant to the man in the street to see some of these names, and about this matter we should like to know a good

    1047
    deal more. All this explanation of Colonel Grant Morden is very unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman referred to him as a gentleman who introduced this process into England. We have had other very reputable people in touch with these matters which were not carried on next door to Germany. We ought to have a very full and complete investigation of the whole matter.
    Is everyone satisfied that these Swiss manufacturers are entirely above suspicion? We have been told that every person who is not a natural-born British subject has got to have a special investigation made into his character; yet we make no special investigation into the character of any of these people who are concerned in the matters we are discussing. After all, I should like to remind the House that if you are going to have dangerous spying, and dangerous communications with the enemy, these things are not going to be done by some wretched barber or butcher of German origin living in a miserable suburb of London or Liverpool. These are not the people. The thing is more likely to happen in connection with some international syndicate which has got the opportunity to do it. Where are you going to find these things done than by those who have access to all sorts of confidential information? These are the people for whom you really want to be on the look out. On the other hand, here are people whose financial methods are very queer and peculiar, who have every opportunity, if they desire, to get information through to the enemy. It is these great international syndicates who have the opportunity of doing harm—the people you would not suspect, the people above suspicion! That is the direction in which you should look. When you find people who have in this way carried on business by peculiar methods, failing to deliver the goods, and at the same time carrying on financial transactions of a very dubious character, surely the time has come that there should be a most thorough, complete, and searching investigation into the whole operation! I hope such investigation will take place. I hope it will prove that these people are in all respects absolutely above suspicion. But I must say that if they do, or have come under severe animadversion, that they have only themselves to thank for it The transactions right through are
    1048
    not of the character which ordinary business men are accustomed to be associated with. It is not the usual thing to have great syndicates set up mainly by people who have got nothing whatever to do with the business. Surely there were plenty of respectable chemical manufacturers in every direction, and yet we have this Swiss-Canadian Syndicate, with its peculiar and extraordinary relations with the War Office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to give the names that will be appointed on the Committee?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not know whether I can. It was only this morning that we came to a decision to appoint the Committee.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can we have the names before the Adjournment?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is a Departmental Committee, but I will see what can be done.
    Mr. HOLT: I trust it will be a very strong Committee. It ought, I think, to be more than a Departmental Committee. This Committee is to investigate allegations made by a Committee of this House, and we ought to have the power to compel witnesses to attend and produce papers and to have an examination on oath. Nothing less than that will satisfy us.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The recommendations of the Select Committee are our recommendations, and we think the Ministry of Munitions should consider them. That is exactly what we propose to do. We propose to act on the recommendation of the Committee and to consider those recommendations, and we intend that there should be a searching examination.
    Mr. HOLT: We do not want a Departmental Committee simply to consider the recommendations of the Committee, because I understand the facts are disputed. You want a Committee which is capable of making a proper judicial investigation of what is going on and what has been going on, and which can really get to the bottom of matters, for this subject has a most unsavoury smell. It may be capable of explanation in a thoroughly satisfactory way, but it does not look nice at present, and the bad impression which has undoubtedly been given to the public will not be got rid of

    1049
    by any hole-and-corner investigation. It must be a thoroughly drastic inquiry, and unless that is done there may remain something which may possibly be very unfair to the company and an impression that something very improper and scandalous has taken place.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I do not desire to go into the merits of the question under discussion, but I think we should have it stated a little more clearly what is the action which the Government really intend to take. There are two points in question, one comparatively narrow and the other much wider. The narrower point is what the Ministry of Munitions is going to do with regard to obtaining the supply of acetate. That is a single question to be decided on the merits of the particular case. The other point upon which the House has expressed anxiety is whether there is to be a free investigation into the history of the events which have taken place, the constitution of this company and the financial methods adopted and all the other aspects of the case. I understand that, so far, the Ministry of Munitions have decided to hold an inquiry only into the narrower point. Clearly that will not satisfy the company in fact, the company would not have any locus standi to explain any of these transactions, if the point is simply whether the particular factory existing is to be taken over by the Ministry or not. I doubt whether that would satisfy the House. If there is to be a further inquiry, which one might describe as an appeal by the company from the decision of the Report of the Select Committee, I hardly think it ought to be an appeal from the Select Committee to a certain number of officials of the Department.
    10.0 P.M.
    With regard to the Select Committee itself and its work, we were obliged, owing to the magnitude of the task, which has been placed upon our shoulders by this House, to devolve some of our work on to Sub-Committees, and by no other means would it have been possible for twenty-six Members to examine so many Departments of State. The Sub-Committee which has dealt recently with the Ministry of Munitions and this contract has been described in one quarter as consisting entirely of lawyers. As a matter of fact, it consisted of two business men, one other Member who is a chartered accountant, one who is a stockbroker, and one who is a lawyer.
    1050
    They gave an infinity of pains to this contract, and held a large number of meetings, and they were unanimous in regard to the Report presented to the Select Committee. The Select Committee heard the members of the Sub-Committee, examined their Report, and endorsed it and presented it to this House. In these circumstances until some other competent tribunal has examined this question more thoroughly—I do not know whether it is intended that counsel should be heard—I think the House and the public will be disposed to accept as accurate the statements in the recommendations of the Report.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have been waiting to hear some further expression of opinion on this question. I do not think a Departmental Committee can satisfactorily deal with this controversy. It would hardly be possible to make a close examination into the whole of these transactions without examining the whole of the period in which the Ministry was involved. This is one of the subjects in regard to which a full and searching investigation ought to be made, and if it is undertaken by a Departmental Committee the facts might never reach the knowledge of this House, and their Report would always be open to suspicion. I suggest that in the interests of everyone concerned there should be a certain judicial inquiry before which witnesses could be examined on oath. I have no bias in this matter, but I have read the Report, and I am convinced that it is a very serious matter which should be gone into further. I have only risen to add my small voice to the request that the Government should abandon the proposal for a Departmental Committee, and should set up instead a Committee which will make a thorough investigation.
    Mr. DILLON: I wish to draw attention to the treatment of this question by the representative of the Ministry and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull). I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Hammersmith should have come here with a brief on behalf of this company and constitute himself the impassioned champion of the company.
    Sir W. BULL: I can answer that question. The two gentlemen concerned are friends of mine; the papers were attacking them, and I appealed to the House, before deciding the point, to wait until some action can be taken before a more satis-

    1051
    factory tribunal. If this cannot be done, then they must appeal to the Law Courts, unless a satisfactory tribunal is set up which can take evidence on oath. As far as I am concerned I have not a share in this company; I have no interest whatever in it—in fact, I have nothing to do with it.
    Mr. DILLON: That is a very strong argument in favour of a tribunal very different from a Departmental Committee. I have listened to this Debate very carefully. The representative of the Ministry of Munitions said that he would confine his defence to the broader considerations and the broader considerations had nothing whatever to do with the financing of this company or with another question of vital importance to which I shall draw attention. He pointed out the importance at a critical moment of getting this cellulose acetate, and he said that the only available method was the Dreyfus method. What had that to do with the conduct of the company which was to operate the Dreyfus method? I understand there were other candidates, well-established British chemical companies of the highest repute, who were in the field for this contract, and what is really at issue is not the value of the Dreyfus method as against any other method, but the character of the company which has got this extremely valuable monopoly conferred upon it by this contract. It is this that appears to those who have read the Report as extremely sinister. There are undoubtedly among the sharer-holders, and I think even the directors, of the company men who might reasonably be supposed to have a strong pull upon the Government. That is really at the bottom of the uneasiness of the House of Commons. I maintain that if the Government considered it desirable to set up a totally new company and to enter into an immense Government contract with that company, conferring upon it a valuable monopoly which might be the source of great profit, they ought to have been scrupulously careful that there was no shareholder and, still more, no director who had any connection whatsoever with the Government in any kind of way. I have been talking to people who have examined the list of shareholders and they tell me that there are several who answer that description, men who either by family connection or otherwise would be supposed by the public to have a pull on the Government. That is a very sinister
    1052
    and objectionable state of affairs. If it be true, as I am told, that this company got this contract as against other companies who were prepared to make this cellulose acetate on at least equally good terms and that there are concerned in this company men who have connections with the Government, then I say that is a most sinister state of affairs.
    The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Colonel Sir W. Bull) is himself connected with the Government. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Colonial Secretary, and it does not give one confidence to see a man who is Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister coming down and engaging in this passionate defence of this extraordinary transaction. I say "passionate defence" because I noticed that the representative of the Ministry of Munitions carefully avoided saying one word in defence of the contract. He said that the War Office made the contract and handed it over to the Ministry of Munitions. All he said was that the contract was made under circumstances of great stress, that the particular method had to be adopted, and that it was a good method. I know nothing about that matter. I dare say it is a good method, but he carefully avoided saying one word in defence of the constitution of the company or of the giving of the contract to it. The hon. Member for Hammersmith not only defends the company passionately, but he defends the transaction. He knows something about the Stock Exchange. Does he really say, when it comes to a question of paying dividends, that it does not matter whether you get your dividends on a 6d. share or on £14 10s.? He utterly failed to make himself clear. The man in the street will not understand this extraordinary system of inflated capital or be able to follow his explanation. He will take it that if he has a 6d. share and it is suddenly turned into £14 10s. that he has done a good stroke of business. I venture to say that the hon. Member will not be able to remove that impression, and if, in addition, you have published in the newspapers of this country, as you have, the names of men connected with the Government as interested in these transactions, you will create a very ugly impression indeed. There is a good deal of scandal going round, and the Government ought to be extremely careful to avoid giving the public the impression that there is anything wrong. I must say,

    1053
    after listening to this Debate and especially to the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, that I am convinced that it will be the impression of the public that there is something very unpleasant in this whole transaction, and, if the hon. Member who represents the Ministry of Munitions thinks that he can remove that impression by a Departmental Inquiry, he is labouring under the greatest mistake.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The two speeches to which I have listened—that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Herbert Samuel), and that of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—raise an issue the importance of which no one can feel more strongly than I do. I am not going to deal with that aspect of the question to which my hon. Friend has mainly directed himself. The House understands the history of this transaction. I am not defending what took place, but I am explaining it. It is very easy long after the event to look upon transactions of this kind and regard them as entirely foolish, but put yourself in the position of those who knew that they must get this particular commodity and must make certain of getting it whatever the price. That is the justification which would be made by those at the War Office who were responsible for the course then taken. I do not need to tell the House that when this transaction came to the Treasury—it came, of course, as an accomplished fact, because in the early days of the War we could not interfere in matters of this kind; we had to let the Departments take what steps they thought necessary to get these things—we felt, as the Select Committee felt, that it was a contract very difficult to justify. What the Government, therefore, had to do was to make the best arrangement which was possible in view of what happened before, and I think my right horn Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division will admit, so far as the recommendations of the Select Committee are concerned, that what the Ministry of Munitions have proposed to do from that point of view is sufficient and all that can be done.
    But the other issue is a very different one. It raises the suspicion, not of improper finance, for I do not think it is the business of the Government to take up every case of improper finance, and I should not suggest that we should take any action on account of that unless,
    1054
    indeed, it was so bad that the Public Prosecutor took action, but it raises a suspicion of an entirely different kind. But to speak of the people being connected with the Government, it is very far-fetched to bring that in at all, that men of great business firms have indulged in a kind of finance in order to do business with the Government, which is, in the highest degree, improper. That is the charge. My hon. Friend has a right, it seems to me, to press that this aspect of the case should be sifted in such a way that the real facts should be brought to light. I do think that the House of Commons has a right to ask that the Government should take the steps necessary to secure that result. I think so too. I do not know exactly what sort of tribunal would be best for this purpose; it is rather difficult to decide right away on that point. It is obvious that it must be a tribunal where evidence can be sifted in the best possible way, and what I would say to the House is, for this is really far more than a Departmental question, that I undertake that an inquiry of that kind will be held, and I hope to be able to announce before the Adjournment the form which I shall recommend for that inquiry.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a third time this day three months."
    I am quite conscious of the fact that, in taking this drastic method of drawing attention to one class of the community whose rights are continually neglected, I lay myself open to the charge of voting against supplies for the Army. But I venture to point out that there is no opportunity offered to Members of this House of putting these conclusions to a test by means of a division of this House which does not technically involve that charge. I am not prepared to deny to the men of the Navy and the Army sufficient and ample supplies for them to carry out the great purpose in which they are engaged, but I am concerned to get something like justice out of the Government for the dependants of these men. We were occupied on Friday in the House of Commons, in a very attenuated House, owing to the week-end holiday, in discussing these proposals. Some nine or ten members from all parts of the House, and from all parties in the House, brought criticisms against the proposals of the

    1055
    Government, and we then listened to a speech by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in which he defended the proposals of the Government and indicated that, as far as the Government were concerned, they were not prepared to accede to the very modest demands that some of us put up to the House. That made it, therefore, clear that as in discussion either on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Vote of Credit new subjects come on after a Minister has replied, we could not raise this question in any other form than that in which I am attempting to raise it now. We have the benefit of the presence at this discussion of the Leader of the House. I should like to remind him briefly—I will not repeat the speech I made on Friday.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I read it!
    Mr. HOGGE: I should like to put a few extra points which have caused me very much concern over the week end. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly what I think about the matter. I feel, quite honestly, that this House cannot disperse for the holidays and leave one class of dependants, whom I will specify presently, in the state in which they are now. I will tell him why, and give good reasons for it before I sit down. It is because of that concern that I am speaking to-night. There are three classes concerned—first, the childless wives; secondly, the wives with children; and, thirdly, mothers of apprentices. In dealing with the arguments put up in favour of increasing the 12s. 6d. that was allowed to the childless wife of a sailor or soldier, the Financial Secretary to the War Office said he did not see why those women should not work. He pointed out that a great many of the wives of our serving soldiers had married during the months in which the War had been in operation. I would like to remind both my right hon. Friend and the House that there are a great many childless wives who have not been married during the War. I have one letter, among a great many others which I have received to-day, which puts the point more briefly than I can, and I should like to read it. This man, writing to me, says:
    "It is time that an increase was given to the wife. Mr. Forster, Financial Secretary to the War Office, sought shelter under the wing of the young married woman who is able to work, but this is a mean way out of the difficulty. Take the case of my wife, who is fifty-four, and
    1056
    who was married to me when I had only four years' service in 1889. She served seventeen years with me in the corps of the Royal Marines, and during the two years and nine months war service that I have put in received no advance in her allowance, although increases have been given to the children of soldiers and sailors serving their country. If the Government cannot recognise the claims of these able-bodied young women, they might, with all decency and respect, recognise the claims of all the wives of soldiers who were serving on the outbreak of war, also, of those who are married and recalled for service with the Colours. Wartime marriages, if desired, could be treated separately."
    That man puts the point quite frankly and joins issue with my right hon. Friend, who sought to shelter himself behind the argument that the bulk of these women who had been married during the War should be got back immediately to work. It was suggested that the amount they should receive should be 12s. 6d. This man draws a distinction between the two classes of women. If the Government do not agree and are not prepared to deal with the increased allowance for the wife of the war marriage, it is fair to ask them to deal with the case of the childless wife of the man who married prior to the War breaking out. Take the particular case which I have quoted. Surely it is inhuman to ask a woman of fifty-four to go out and work because the State compulsorily takes her husband. I pointed out on Friday that you had no right, at the time you were Conscripting the man for the Army or Navy, also to Conscript the wife for industrial work. I am making this fresh suggestion on that first point, that if my right hon. Friend will not consider the case of the wife married during the War, is he prepared to consider the case of the childless wife who was married before the outbreak of War?
    The second class of case is that of wives with children. I do not think the Leader of the House can have looked into this question of wives and children. The proposal is to give 2s. 6d. to a woman and one child and 4s. 6d. to wives who have more than one child, no matter how many there are. I will give an example of what that means. A wife and one child will now get 22s. a week instead of 19s. 6d., but the wife with six children, who previously got 37s., will now get 41s. 6d. The real meaning of that is that the woman who gets 22s. gets 12s. 6d. for herself and 9s. 6d. for the child, but the wife who has five children gets, after you have

    1057
    deducted the 12s. 6d. for herself, 4s. 10d. for the six children. Because she has six children the amount she gets is exactly a half per week what a wife with one child gets. I do not see how the Government can defend a position in which a woman suffers because she has a large family. It practically puts an embargo upon an increase of the birth-rate. I believe the reason for this is that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the Pension Warrant. If he will take the same woman I have described and look at it from the point of view of the pension, you get this extraordinarily curious result. A woman with one child, who gets 22s. when she is a wife, gets when she is a widow 20s. 6d. for herself and her child. She gets less as a widow than she will get as a wife with this increase. A wife with six children, who gets 41s. 6d. with this increase, will get 42s. 1d. when she is a widow, which really means that the value of her husband to the State works out at a penny a day—7d. difference between separation allowance and the pension—and the husband in both cases has gone.
    But it is the third case which has forced me to put down this Motion. It is the question of the dependants of apprentices. The proposal of the Government is, first of all, to cost £9,000,000. Second, it is proposed to grant the mother of apprentices a flat rate of 5s. when the lad concerned has reached the age of twenty-one and is not over the age of twenty-three. That is £13 a year. If the total increase is £9,000,000 obviously there must be no fewer than 700,000 mothers of apprentices in the Army whose ages will be twenty-one on the 1st of October. Then there are all the lads between twenty-one and eighteen who are still in the Army. Owing to the pressure on the Western Front those lads have been taken at the age of eighteen and a half and put into the firing line, and many of them have already been killed and others have been wounded. There are mothers who are not in receipt of a single penny, and because there are mothers who are not in receipt of a single penny they find it extraordinarily difficult if not impossible, when the son has been killed to establish pre-war dependence enabling them to have a pension. I ask whether the House is satisfied that the Army are putting the apprentice boys of mothers into the trenches to fight to save this country, and are refusing to give
    1058
    those mothers enough to keep body and soul together. I do not think that can be defended. I do not feel in the least easy in going away for our autumn Recess with the knowledge that there are at least 1,000,000 mothers of apprentices to-day who are not in receipt of a single halfpenny from the Government, although the Government is making use of these men's services. The fourth and last point is that the allowances, as we said on Friday, are still prospective and are not retrospective. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is going to make any concession. I would not like to divide the House on this matter. It has not divided on a War Vote since the War began, and I should regret very much if one were pushed to the position of dividing the House. I would rather settle this matter amicably if I can. I do not know whether I might offer the right hon. Gentleman a bridge between the two opposing opinions in this House; whether, for instance, he could not make a further concession in regard to apprentices by reducing the age at which the 5s. flat rate would become payable to nineteen instead of twenty-one. We are putting these boys in the fighting line at nineteen, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might make a concession by paying the flat rate from the time they are put into the fighting line. He would be supported by the House in doing that. If he would make that one concession I should be prepared not to go to a Division. I should be content in the meantime—I do not promise to be content for ever—if he would agree to reduce the age at which the flat rate comes into operation to nineteen.
    Mr. KING: I shall not follow the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) in the very clear and cogent speech he has made, but I take this opportunity of returning to a matter mentioned earlier in the evening, and in regard to which I gave notice last Thursday that I should raise a question. I refer to a matter which is leading to a serious amount of excitement and feeling in Ireland—namely, the Belfast Gaol rumours. I am not going to deal at length with the matter, but I have been asking questions about it for over six weeks. Last Thursday the Chief Secretary refused to make any inquiry or give any answer whatever, but to-night he has offered an inquiry. He has entirely changed his policy, and I think it is only right that some further remarks should be made on this subject. The real story

    1059
    ought to be told. I believe that unless it is told and understood, the Irish question, in its present phase, and certainly the feeling in Ireland at the present time, cannot be understood. After the death of Thomas Ashe there was immense feeling in Ireland with regard to political prisoners, or persons in prison without trial under the Defence of the Realm Act charged with some political offence. The Government gave an undertaking that prisoners of this character should have definite privileges with regard to being with one another, being free from prison rules, having visits, letters, and newspapers, and also with regard to food. That arrangement had the very best possible effect. Unfortunately, it was put an end to suddenly, and without notice to the prisoners, by order of the Food Controller. The prisoners—and there was a great number of them in different prisons—suddenly found their food altogether changed, and they were put down to a diet which they declared was no better than that which was given to the lowest criminals. No explanation, apparently, was given of the change, with the result that there were strikes, outbreaks, mutinies, and revolts in several of the prisons, and in Belfast Gaol they were undoubtedly of a very serious character. There were ninety prisoners in Belfast, and they caused a great deal of anxiety. It is said that they were subdued only by having the hose turned upon them for hours, and that then they were handcuffed with their hands tied behind them. The story has been told by one of the prisoners in an affidavit, who says that they were in that condition for days and that they were taken handcuffed to receive the Holy Sacrament on Sunday.
    The excitement over this story in Ireland is indicated by a number of leaflets describing the sufferings of these prisoners, which have been circulated all over the country. I have had at least two dozen copies of these leaflets sent me by different people. The Chief Secretary himself admitted just now that the circumstances of this agitation were so serious that he was obliged at last, after six weeks, to grant an inquiry. I congratulate him, and thank him for the promise which he has made to the hon. Member for Cork, but I feel it my duty, as one who has followed this matter for six weeks, to point out how miserably foolish and inefficient the Government of Ireland is. If he had offered this inquiry at the beginning he would
    1060
    have saved the Government any amount of trouble and would have saved great agitation and unrest everywhere, and, most of all, he would have saved giving gratuitous assistance to the Sinn Fein movement. The best friend which the Sinn Feiners have, as I have always said, both in this House and out of it, are Dublin Castle and the present Irish Government. Everything seems calculated indirectly to serve the Sinn Fein movement. In so doing they discredit and weaken their true friends, the Irish Members. I have worked at this subject by putting questions on Thursday for six weeks past, and I feel I am only doing my duty to myself in bringing the matter before the House.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the hon. Member does not expect me to reply to his observations. He has not told us anything new. He told us that, in his opinion, the Irish Government was foolish and inefficient. I understand that the Chief Secretary has actually promised an inquiry into the subject, and it is not necessary to say anything more about it at present. In reply to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I am sorry that it is not possible to make the concession he desires. I listened to most of his speech and I quite admit, whatever is done, that there will be cases of hardship. I go further and say that when we compare the conditions of those who are kept working at home with the conditions of those who are fighting the whole House sympathises with any demand for anything more being given to the fighting forces. The hon. Member is perfectly right when he says that if the Government granted the concession they would have the support of the House. I am sure that is true, but every Member of the House will recognise that it is the duty of the Government to weigh the cost of concessions, to know what the national credit is, and what national sums are available. I am sure the House will agree to that. Every one of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member have not only been considered by a Committee appointed for the purpose, but, after the Committee reported, the matter was brought before the Cabinet, who, after consideration, required further investigation to be made. I am bound to say that the Government have gone as far as they felt themselves justified in going. In view of that fact, I am sorry to say that we cannot make further

    1061
    concessions of that kind now. I appeal to the House to now come to a decision. It is not a question of discussion, because this matter was fully debated on Friday, and I think it is the wish of the House to adjourn on Thursday. The subject has been very fully discussed, and I think the House of Commons might now come to a decision on the point.
    Mr. PRICE: The right hon. Gentleman says the matter was fully discussed on Friday. It was discussed for two or three hours, but a great many hon. Members who wished to take part in the Debate then were precluded from doing so. I sent on Friday a letter I received from a mother of a family in my own division, for whom I have a very great personal regard, and I am quite satisfied, from the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered, that he did not fully realise how strongly many of these people feel regarding this increase which has been announced. I only want to say that if the Government imagine that this question is going to rest where it is just now they are under an entire delusion, because it will be raised constantly. I wish also to refer to the question of apprentices. Everybody knows that the length of apprenticeship now is not what it was years ago, and that men earn good money at a much younger age than formerly. Accordingly, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that you should reduce the ago to nineteen in the case of these apprentices is only fair. At this time of day it is not creditable to say that we should use these men to fight in the trenches and to take their part in discharging their duty as men and yet that their mothers shall have nothing. It is not fair to say that the country has got to consider its credit. It has first to discharge its obligations, and I am talking like this to show the right hon. Gentleman that he has not realised that this question will not rest where it is.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I very much regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he could make no concession, particularly on this question of students and apprentices. It is the subject which is felt most deeply, and, I think, with most justice. Whether the ordinary allowance should be 1s. or less is a nice calculation in regard to the cost of living and so on, but this case is particularly strong, and clear, and hard. You are penalising the very best of the parents in the working
    1062
    classes. The parents who care little about their children may put them to work early, and by the time they are nineteen they are contributing largely to the upkeep of the family, and your separation allowance and your allotment comes to a comparatively handsome sum in respect to those children, but the parents who were most careful of their children's interests, who apprenticed them and made them school teachers or students, are being penalised. They have sacrificed all these years and got nothing from their children when the other children were drawing considerable money. You now take these young lads into the Army, and you have refused to give anything unless something like destitution on the part of the parents is shown. You now propose to give 5s. when they become twenty-one. I think it is wholly inadequate and anything but a generous proposition, and I am certain that the Government will have very good reason to be very sorry for the day when they came to such a stingy conclusion.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to express my dissatisfaction with the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh. I can assure him that while the Cabinet may think that in the increase they have recently announced they have gone as far as the circumstances justify, that is not the feeling throughout the length and breadth of the country. I do not know of any question at the present moment regarding which there is more dissatisfaction than this question of the separation allowances and pensions to the dependants of our soldiers and our sailors. If we have one duty more incumbent on us than another it is that we should deal justly and generously with the dependants of the men who have left their homes and risked their lives in defence of the country. Last week after we had discussed this question I had a call from a soldier home on leave after a year or two's service in France. He had found one of his children seriously ill, and his medical attendant had told him that the illness was due to the lack of proper nourishment and attention. That was a very unpleasant home-coming for him. These cases should receive further attention at the hands of the Government at the earliest possible moment.
    As a matter of fact, I go further than the hon. Member for East Edinburgh

    1063
    (Mr. Hogge). I suggest the mere lowering of the age at which dependants of apprentices will secure the 5s. allowance will not remove the cause of dissatisfaction. That cause lies much deeper than the mere question of the dependants of unmarried men. Much dissatisfaction is caused by the great variations in the amount of the allowance. It ranges from 30s. weekly down, and you may have three mothers in one street, one getting 30s., another 12s. 6d., and the third nothing. If the Government expect satisfaction to prevail under such circumstances, they will be greatly disappointed. Then, with regard to the cases of wives, I do not think the increase granted is at all adequate to meet the circumstances of the case. A wife with no children gets nothing with which to meet the increased cost of living. There is an increase of 2s. 6d. for the first child and 2s. for the second, but if there be more children—four or five under fourteen, say, there is no increase in respect of them. I believe the dissatisfaction is of such a character that unless the Government can see their way—and I am sorry to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to promise further consideration, that dissatisfaction will go on increasing, and it may force the hands of the Government to do much more than has already been done. They would be well advised to promise this further consideration, in that they would have the House and the country at their back in seeing that the dependants of those who are fighting for us are treated justly and generously. I conclude by making a further appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further consideration to this matter.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The last two hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate will no doubt give expression to their dissatisfaction with the reply of the Leader of the House by joining us in the Division Lobby shortly. I expressed my views on Friday afternoon on this question, and I do not propose to repeat them now. The Leader of the House said that whatever scheme of separation and dependants' allowances was given, there would still be cases of hardship. That may be true, but that is no reason why the Government should be satisfied with a scheme which leaves genuine hardship unredressed. The Government have no
    1064
    right to be satisfied with a scheme which leaves vast numbers of people in a condition of very severe poverty. Under the amended scale it will be quite impossible for a woman with a number of children to provide a sufficiency of the necessaries of life. I had a letter from a constituent of mine this morning which, if I were permitted to read it, would appeal far more eloquently than any words I could utter. I will not read all the letter. She begins by asking about the extra allowances for her children
    "I, for one, have had my husband away since 1915. He left me with four children, the youngest being nine weeks. I had to eat nothing but bread and margarine to rear the child."
    I am quite sure that the Leader of the House does not desire that the wife of a soldier should deny herself the bare necessities of life in order that her own child shall have more or less of a sufficiency. She goes on to relate that in 1916 she had another child, and it cost her 8s. 6d. a week for food and milk for the child alone, and, as a consequence of the deprivation of necessaries that she had to endure she has been in the hands of the doctor ever since and he tells her she will never pick up unless she is able to get more to eat. I repeat, it cannot be the desire of the Government that cases of severe hardship like that should be tolerated. The Leader of the House said they had to take into consideration the cost of these separation allowances. It is very refreshing to hear from the Government Benches any excuse grounded on economy. We have been spending the greater part of this afternoon discussing the expenditure of a Propaganda Department, which is spending more than a million pounds for what useful purpose I certainly do not know, and the only construction that can be put on the reply of the Leader of the House is that the weight of that expense must be placed on these poor people. I am very glad the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is prepared to divide on this question, and I hope he will receive such a measure of support as will convince the Government that they have made a very grave mistake in not acceding to the very modest and moderate demands.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There can be no more important domestic aspect of the War than this question of separation allowances. It is vital to staying power in a war which depends upon endurance. No one in this House, I am sure, can accuse

    1065
    the Leader of the House of a lack of sympathy on this subject. But no one also, I think, can accuse him of a lack of understanding. Since the War commenced there have been numerous increases in separation allowances. Perhaps hon. Members who are responsible for guarding the Treasury may think that there is no end to the demands that are constantly being made for increases. The right hon. Gentleman, however, placed his finger upon the real difficulty and the real source of dissatisfaction of the unrest in this matter when he showed the disparity existing between the, I will not say the reward, but the comfort and maintenance which is accorded to the soldier and his dependants, and the reward which accrues to those that remain at home, and are working on munitions and in other spheres of work. There can be no doubt but that the soldier is rendering the major service, and one entailing the greatest sacrifice. He gives everything. He endures everything. He makes the supreme sacrifice. His dependants receive a reward of 12s. 6d. or £1, or 30s., whilst those who are bearing a somewhat similar part at home earn £3, £4, up to £10 per week. That burns itself into the others. The irony enters into the soul of the people whose dear ones pay the supreme sacrifice at the front. They are on the border line of starvation; these others are in comparative luxury. No doubt to a large extent it is incidental. If this War could be looked upon as ending in six months or a year, no doubt we could look upon this as a temporary emergency. Sacrifices could be borne as a temporary emergency. But who is to guarantee that the War will be over in six months, or a year, or two years, or five years? We are in a war of endurance, a war in which staying power is essential. We have by some means or other to get rid of the deep-ingrained sense of injustice which is sapping that staying power. I will not now suggest how it is to be done. There are various ways in which it can be done. But in the past the highest honours have been paid to those who paid the great sacrifice—such are those in the struggle in which we are now engaged. Something more must be done for these people in the way of cheapening the cost of living. Whether it is to be done by further controlling the essential articles of food and the necessities of life or by an increase in the allowances paid to these
    1066
    persons I do not know, but something more must be done in the way of securing for the men who are fighting at the front the knowledge that when they return they will have some reward and some share in the national wealth commensurate with their sacrifices, and there should also be some share for the dependants of those who have perished in the course of that task. This question has been faced up to the present as a hand-to-mouth and an emergency problem, but we have to recognise that it is no longer a mere temporary war emergency, but so far as this generation can see a permanent element in the social life of this country. I think my hon. Friend said he intended to take a Division, but I regard this measure as a Vote for carrying on the War and I do not think it would be a proper course to take a Division. Nevertheless, I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the feeling which many hon Members have expressed that this subject has not been adequately dealt with, and has been treated too much as an emergency measure instead of upon a permanent basis.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I would like to endorse what the last speaker has just said. I know of young men who joined the Army at the age of eighteen or eighteen-and-a-half who made an allotment of 6d. per day from their pay, and now after serving eighteen months or two years they will not be included in the contribution of the State. They claim, and their parents claim, that if they had served a year or eighteen months or more in the Army, and they had been contributing 6d. per day and the State had been making no contribution at all, that the State ought to take over the responsibility for the 3s. 6d. per week. It seems to me, if a boy has served twelve or eighteen months, and the only contribution that the parents have received has been the 6d. per day out of his pay, that the State ought to take over the responsibility as well as make the flat rate contribution of 5s. per week. The Finanical Secretary to the War Office, in reply to a question last Thursday, said that the State could not take over the responsibility. In my opinion, they ought to do so. They will pay the flat rate of 5s. to the dependants of men who have never been to the front at all, but they refuse to contribute the 3s. 6d. which the soldier has allowed from his pay to his parents for men who have been fighting in the trenches for eighteen months. It is not

    1067
    fair. There is another point Mothers who have married between the date of their son's enlistment and the date on which their sons have been killed are not recognised as persons to whom pensions should be granted. I cannot see why. I will give a case which came to my knowledge yesterday. A soldier had made his mother an allowance of 3s. 6d. per week from his pay, and the State had allowed 9s. After the soldier enlisted, the mother got married again. Subsequently, the soldier was killed. The Government said that the only compensation to which she was entitled was £16 5s. At the time the soldier was killed, the mother was receiving 12s. 6d. per week allowance. Afterwards, the State repudiated all responsibility so far as the mother's pension was concerned. Personally, I cannot see the logic of it at all. I think the State ought to recognise that this woman is entitled to a pension. I would like to say that I am afraid that the various Government Departments cannot, or will not, recognise that their action in cases of this kind has something to do with industrial unrest. The civil workman has cases of this kind brought to his notice, and he sees that the Government are not treating equitably the parents of men who have been killed. These cases are brought to the notice of men at mass meetings.
    They have undoubtedly a certain influence on the minds and the votes of men who are interested in industrial questions. If the Government would simply recognise that, and deal with the cases I have mentioned in a just and equitable manner, it would very probably avoid industrial disputes. I would press on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of recognising the fact that men who joined the Army eighteen months ago, and who, because they were apprentices when they joined, only contributed 12s. or 14s. a week to the household expenses, and therefore on account of that their mothers or sisters or fathers were not allowed more than the allotment of the soldier, would now Be contributing probably 25s. or 30s. a week to the upkeep of the home. I urge the necessity of the Government recognising that by taking over the responsibility of paying the soldiers' allotment of 6d. a day. If they would do that they would do a great deal to allay industrial unrest, and would simply be doing justice and equity to the boys or men who, under circumstances over which they had no con-
    1068
    trol when they enlisted, were not contributing the same amount to the upkeep of the home as men engaged in unskilled operations. Therefore I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to the points I have mentioned. If he does that he will simply be doing an act of justice—I will not say generosity—to the parents of those boys who were unable, at the time of their enlistment, to contribute more than a small amount to the home expenses.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I do not want to delay the House for long, but I think, as the subject is a very important one, none of my hon. Friends on the Benches opposite will feel impatient if I venture to address a few words to the House. I feel certain that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen upon the Treasury Bench recognise the importance of this subject and the degree to which it interests everyone who is anxious to secure fair and just treatment for those serving and those at home who are dependent on them. There is one branch of the subject which interests me very much, and that is the position of apprentices, and the way in which they are at present treated. I agree with everything which the hon. Gentleman who last spoke said on this subject. He has stated the position so clearly that I certainly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions, if he is replying, will see fit to make a declaration on behalf of the Government that it is their intention to give fairer recognition to the position of apprentices whose pay, it is true, was small when they joined the Army, but who, if it had not been for the circumstances of their fighting, would be receiving wages to a very considerable amount at the present time. I wish to point out something which, in my own experience of the Pensions Ministry, deserves consideration, and I think I may ask the representative of the Pensions Ministry to pay attention to this point. I believe a great improvement in the position has been made since the Pensions Ministry was set up, but abuses are as liable to creep into the Pensions Ministry as into any other Department of the State, and I should be surprised if the Pensions Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary felt themselves immune from legitimate criticism in this House. I have known various cases in which a request is made to the Ministry of Pensions for the consideration of a case, for consideration of the claim, say, of a

    1069
    mother, a widow, a sister, or of some other dependant, as the case may be. The first thing that happens is something like this: A Member writing to the Ministry receives a printed acknowledgement saying that the letter will receive immediate consideration. No consideration, as a matter of fact, is given to it for, say, three months. It may be six months, because I have known cases to be so long delayed. At the end of that time the Ministry of Pensions say "We now recognise this case, and we realise that the claimant is entitled to a pension." The rate is fixed at 3s. 6d. or 5s. per week. That is not made retrospective to the date when the claim for a pension or gratuity arose. That is a flagrant injustice. We should have a declaration from the representative of the Ministry of Pensions that when such cases arise the pension or gratuity will be made retrospective. I have known several cases where a man, who was obviously of a low medical category, was taken into the Army and, after a few months, was found to be unfit for further service and discharged. When an application has been made by him for a pension he has been told that his disability was in no way due to his service with the Forces. It ought to be acknowledged as a principle by the Government and the Ministry of Pensions that once a man is accepted for service and has served a certain time—he being ex hypothesi and by their decision a fit man—the fact that he has become unfit after a short period of service should entitle him to a pension or gratuity, and the War Office or the Ministry of Pensions should not be able to say "Your condition was bad when you joined. Your service with the Colours has had nothing to do with your present illness or incapacity." I trust that we shall have an assurance that these considerations will receive attention.
    Major TRYON: I feel with regard to the question of allowances, particularly to the families of men serving overseas
    and also in respect to the question of apprentices, that this fact ought to be taken into account by the House. There is undoubtedly industrial unrest in the country at the time. A great deal of that unrest is caused not so much by the actual amount of the payment received, as by the very great contrast there is between what one man is receiving and what is received by another. That has been responsible for some of the strikes. But the contrast with industry is nothing compared with the contrast on a broader basis which exists between the payment given to those who are fighting for their country and those who are in munition works. Those men who are fighting will go on doing their duty whatever their pay, but it is not desirable in the interests of the country and of justice that their families should be so much worse off than the families of men who are doing work which is not so important for the country and is very much safer. A larger increase was made recently in miners' wages, which falls on the whole community in the form of a tax through the increased price of coal. I would urge that if any future increases are to fall on the country they should not go to people at home but to the families of the men who are fighting overseas.
    Mr. CARADOC REES: Under the Workmen's Compensation Act if an apprentice gets injured and his compensation is fixed at the rate of wages he is earning at the time he is injured, when he becomes twenty-one the compensation is raised and the Court takes into consideration the amount of wages he would have been earning at the age of twenty-one. I should think the same principle might well apply to apprentices who are in the Army.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 79.]

    AYES.

    [11.29 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Bryce, John Annan

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Cator, John

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. Richard Beale

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Cotton, H. E. A.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Barnett, Capt. Richard W.

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Gretton, John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Currie, G. W.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Walker, Col. W. H.

    Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince.)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pulley, C. T.

    Weston, John W.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell

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

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Green)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A.

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

    Worthington-Evans, Major Sir L.

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

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Shortt, Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Somervell, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    Marshall, Sir Arthur Harold

    Stewart, Gershom

    NOES.

    Boland, John Pius

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Cullinan, John

    King, Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris, William

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Snowden, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Hackett, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    Molloy, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. Jowett.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. CURRIE: I understand that certain legal doubts have arisen as to property rights, and that these questions are all postponed. I think that is a very convenient course. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to repeat an assurance given to the House some time ago, and that bears upon the proposal made earlier to introduce a system of royalties. The House turned down the proposal, and an assurance was given that no such royalties should be introduced except with the authority of the House. The Bill contained no reference to royalties but it does give power to the Ministry to issue licences. I wish for an assurance from the Government that these licences will not be capable of being used in such a way as to introduce, without definite discussion in this House, any system of royalties whatsoever. I take it that the Minister in charge of the Bill can give such an assurance without any difficulty.
  Mr. PRICE: I think that it is not very creditable to the Government that an important Bill like this should be brought forward to-night. Some time ago we had a discussion on a similar Bill for three nights in this House and that Bill was rejected. Now we have this Bill introduced, and we as asked to pass it. I do not think that that is a creditable thing. In business we should consider it dishonourable. The principle of this Bill was rejected by this House on a Division which was challenged by the Government, who issued a three-line Whip asking Members to support it, and yet now at this late hour of the night we have this Bill put into our hands and the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended in order to have it passed. I understand that some arrangement has been come to, but so far as I am concerned I wish to enter the strongest possible protest against the way in which the Government is treating the House.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I desire to reinforce the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh. I wish that the Government had seen their way to bring in this Bill at an earlier stage of the Session, instead of the last moment, because it is a Bill which does need very careful consideration. I join also my hon. Friend the Member for Leith in his request that there should be a definite undertaking that certain provisions in this Bill are not to bring in royalties in any way by a side wind. This House has

  1073
  decided against them, and until the matter comes up for the free decision of Parliament it should not be prejudiced one way or the other, and as royalties have been rejected by the House they should not be brought in directly or indirectly by any Departmental Act. At the beginning of Clause 1 of the last Bill there was a declaration in very simple words that His Majesty's Government should have the exclusive right of searching for and boring for and getting petroleum within the United Kingdom, That is a plain statement, not of the right of the Grown to petroleum, but of the exclusive right of the Crown to bore for petroleum. There is a very considerable distinction between the two. I am not saying that that position may not be involved in the first Clause of the new Bill, but I regret that it was not continued, because if it had been continued any doubts on the subject would have been removed. There are various other matters which I might mention, but they are rather Committee points, and I would join in the appeal which my hon. Friend the Member for Leith has made, that; we should not have in this Bill petroleum royalties brought in by a Departmental act, directly or indirectly.
  Captain BARNETT: My hon. Friend the Minister of Blockade, in introducing this Bill, expressed the hope that he had avoided all controversial questions. He has certainly, in drafting this Bill, removed many causes of controversy. He has postponed until after the War the question whether there is property in oil, or if there is, whether it belongs to the owners of the land on which the bore happens to have gone down, or whether the adjoining owners have any claim, or whether the discoverer of the oil is the person entitled to it. These matters have been relegated to the happier times when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Reconstruction will be deciding whether questions of meum et tuum are to be governed by the Ten Commandments, or by some more modem code. While all of these questions have been left for consideration after the War, I feel bound to say that those of us in this House who are interested in petroleum feel a great unrest and disquiet at the slow progress that is being made in developing the home supplies of petroleum. Here we are, at the beginning of the fifth year of the War, and practically nothing has been done to de-
  1074
  velop the supplies of oil which are known to exist in this country. This is a Bill for drilling for petroleum. That is one method of getting it, but whether it is the best method of utilising the labour and the material which are available now is a problem which gravely exercises the minds of those who are most interested in petroleum. There are quantities of substances which will yield petroleum by distillation. One of the difficulties which we have in Bills of this sort is to know exactly where they emanate from and on whose advice the Government is acting. There is a mysterious Petroleum Executive which is supposed to look after these things, and when the Petroleum Bill was introduced last October it was promoted by the Petroleum Executive, the Colonial Minister's name was on the back of it, and the Board of Trade was the Government Department which was to grant the licences for boring for petroleum. Now, there is a change in the kaleidoscope, and we find that the Bill is backed by the Ministry of Munitions, and if anything were to happen to this measure and a third incarnation of the Petroleum Bill were to materialise, we should not be surprised to find that the Stationery Office or the Shipping Controller was the competent authority. The Petroleum Executive works in a mysterious way. We do not know what the present position of affairs is; only at intervals we have measures of this kind brought forward, which do not seem to have been fully thought out. We ask ourselves what has happened to the Petroleum Research Department in this country, which, under a geologist of European reputation, was engaged in inquiring into these matters of petroleum research. That Department seems, to judge from a reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) the other day, to have disappeared into thin air, but instead of it we have another Department, called the Mineral Oil Production Department, which seems to produce anything but mineral oil. It has taken the supplies of cannel coal which are intended for the production of petroleum; it has sent them to the gasworks, and it is producing there something that certainly is not mineral oil. The petroleum is destroyed by the high temperature distillation, and the petrol, the motor spirit, is absolutely lost, while the product of this gasworks distillation is something that might be

  1075
  very useful with which to make roads, but which will certainly not have much value as fuel for the Navy.
  What are we told about it? We have had a report last week from the Committee presided over by the Marquess of Crewe, and we are told that the material produced at the gasworks has been subjected to tests at the naval depot at Haslar, and that it is proved that with a certain admixture of petroleum it is useful as a fuel. That is equally true of mud. If you do not use too much mud, and if you use enough petroleum, you will get a compound which can be used as a fuel. But my submission is that we are neglecting the means of getting the petroleum that are to our hand in the distillation of these substances which exist in large quantities in this country, and we are going in for a policy of drilling for oil. Petroleum mining is a very speculative form of mining, and to look for petroleum with a drill in this country is what is called wild-catting. I have done some wild-catting by drilling myself in various parts of the world, not without success, but it is one thing to drill for oil in a country where petroleum is found already in large quantities and it is another thing to drill for oil'in this country. You may open up a new district in a petroliferous country, and you may find oil in large quantities, or you may not, and the odds are that you may not. It is quite another thing to put down your bore in a country where the existence of petroleum in commercial quantities is a matter of the gravest possible doubt and to hope for the results which seem to be hoped for by the promoters of this Bill. You cannot dogmatise on these matters. I remember a case in which an undertaking with which I was associated decided to put down a well at a place where the greatest geologist in Europe said there was no oil. Indeed, he went so far as to Bay he would drink all the oil to be got there. He was a German, and his capacity for drinking was probably large, but the first well we put down produced a thousand tons a day, which would have been rather too much for his consumption. But that was a case of wild-catting in a country where every few miles you have an oilfield, and when you propose to drill in this country and to expend labour and material which are more valuable now than money, you have got really to ask your-
  1076
  selves this question: Can we use that labour, or can we use that material, to better effect?
  While I should be sorry to see this Bill refused a Second Reading to-night, I hope that before it goes through its final stages the Minister in charge will give us his assurance that there is to be no diversion or labour from the work of distilling oil from cannel coal and that there is to be no diversion of material either Do not let us grasp at the shadow and lose the substance. In introducing this Bill, my hon. Friend said that the main object of the measure was to protect oil pools by preventing indiscriminate and wasteful boring. I do not believe that that is the real motive. I think the real motive of this Bill is to give security of tenure to certain people with whom the hon. Gentleman's Department have been negotiating. We want to know what this firm, which is going to spend over £400,000 in "wild-catting" in this country, is going to get for it. They are not philanthropists, and we want to know the conditions of the bargain that is being made with these people, because there is nothing whatever that can be done under this Bill that could not be done under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The only thing that we get here is security of tenure after the War. [Mr. MACVEAGH: "Where do we get it?"] We want to know, and I think the House is entitled to know, what the position is, and what bargain is being struck with this firm if they are to have a monopoly. I wish them well of their monopoly, and I hope they will succeed in finding petroleum. I myself should not be too hopeful of it, but I put this point most strongly to my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill, that he will give an assurance to the House that if this Bill is passed into law there will not be a single ton of material taken away that could be utilised for the purposes of the distillation of oil from cannel coal, and that there will not be any outlay diverted from that necessary purpose to this more speculative purpose. Having said that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will get the Second Reading of the Bill to-night, but that the Government will not ask now for the other stages of the Bill.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: We have already lost nine months in dealing with this subject. We are told that the object of the Bill is to prevent waste in the development of the industry in this country. The

  1077
  last Bill was rejected because of one Clause which it contained—a Clause which set up the system of royalties. We are told by the hon. and gallant Member in charge of this Bill that it reserves all these questions of ownership in the oil, and that it is not intended to create any new vested interests pending the settlement of this question. That I take to be a pledge that the Bill will prevent negotiations or agreements of any kind between the owners of the land and the discoverers of the oil, involving any payment of royalties which in their turn would impose a permanent burden on the industry and a permanent addition to the cost of the oil. We are all agreed as to the desirability of getting petroleum wherever it can be found, and even the last hon. Member who spoke—hostile as he seemed to be to this measure—agreed that we should try to make ourselves independent in this country of foreign supplies of this important article. I think this Bill should be allowed to go through on the understanding that no new interests are created, and all these disputed questions are postponed for settlement until after the War. On these lines I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I regret that the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has been brought on at this late hour. The subject is worthy of being discussed at much greater length than is possible now. Before we agree to the Second Heading there are several questions I would like to put to the Minister in charge. As already stated, we rejected the Petroleum Bill in October last because it maintained the principle of royalties, and I am confident that if this Bill had embodied a similar provision it would have shared the fate of its predecessor. Indeed, it is just possible it may meet the same fate unless the right hon. Gentleman in charge is prepared to make perfectly clear the intentions of the Government on this subject. I want first to ask as to Clause 2, which lays it down that the Minister of Munitions, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, may grant licences to search and bore for oil, etc., to such persons and on such terms as he may think fit. I want to be told clearly what are the powers which this Clause confers on the Minister of Munitions. Is the power to grant royalties included? That is a point on which the House desires an assurance. In the next place, I should like to know if it will
  1078
  be possible, in the event of this Bill becoming law, for the landlord to apply for damages under the Defence of the Realm Act in consequence of having lost his right to mining royalties? These are points which. I think, require to be cleared up before we grant the Bill a Second Beading. I am at one with the Government that we ought to do everything in our power to test the oil-bearing possibilities of the country. As a matter of fact, they ought long ago to have been tested, and doubtless would have been if the question of royalties had not been there. The hon. Member who spoke a while ago seemed to think that here was very little chance of petroleum being got in this country. It is just possible that though there may not be much to be obtained in the form that he had in mind, I am certain of this that a considerable quantity of oil could have been secured had the right steps been taken long before now. That would have been a very useful thing for the country. It would not only have kept money in the country, but it would have saved shipping transport. The House, I think, would have been quite willing to give a Second Reading to this Bill if they can be assured that the question of royalties is entirely eliminated, and that the powers of the Bill to be vested in the Minister of Munitions are of such a character that he cannot grant royalties to anyone whose land may be tapped for petroleum purposes. I should like also for him to assure the House that the landlord, under the Defence of the Realm Act, is not able, by a side-wind, to get any until the question comes before the House, and, as he pointed out on his First Reading speech, before the House decides whether or not the royalties are to be paid.
  12.0 M.
  Mr. WRIGHT: I should like to join in the protest that is being made at taking a Bill as important as this at this late hour and in so thin a House. I approach the question from a different standpoint to that of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and which other hon. Members have also taken. I approach this question from the point of view of the landowner. Just as the hon. Gentleman who has resumed his seat says that it is not fair to commit the Labour party to royalties to the landowner during the War, I say, from the point of the landowner, it is not fair to commit him during the War to any Act of Parliament which will permanently

  1079
  deprive him of any chance oil showing in the Law Courts that he has a right to a royalty on mineral oil just as he has a right to a royalty on minerals. I do not believe for one moment that hon. Members below the Gangway wish to steal a march upon any interests of the country during the War, and especially on a class, which, one can say without fear of challenge has, during the War, given everything and taken nothing. In the same way landowners are quite willing that this question should be left in abeyance.
  Clause 1 of the Bill provides that
  "No person other than a person acting on behalf of His Majesty, or holding a licence under this Act for the purpose, shall search or bore for or get petroleum within the United Kingdom."
  This permanently takes away from the owner of the land the right to develop his own land, and whatever may be under the surface, without a licence from the Minister of Munitions. If such a provision applied to coal, clay, ironstone, or any other substance which lies beneath the surface, there would be a great outcry against the deprivation, of that which up till now has been considered the right of the owner of the land, according to the laws of the country. It has been said that this Bill, which was urgent in October, 1917, is now still more urgent. In his First Reading speech the hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill himself, admitted that the Government have power under the Defence of the Realm Act, both to search and bore for oil, and also to enter upon and secure the land. Thus there is no necessity for this Bill. The only reason for it that I can see is, as the hon. Gentleman (Captain Barnett) said, there has been a claim that a certain firm which has made offers to the Government should be given security of tenure after the War. For that reason Clause 1 has been introduced. Most mining and geological experts think that this scheme of boring for oil in the United Kingdom is one likely to be productive of little. But there are experts on the other side who think that there is a chance of finding oil. If then there is that chance, why did not the Government some three or four years ago, in view of the situation, take upon themselves under the Defence of the Realm Act, to search and bore for oil at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer, and find out how the matter stood? Now, after three or four
  1080
  years, they are bringing in this Bill and so raising this controversial matter. I hope the Government will not press the Bill beyond the Second Reading. I for my part wish to put down Amendments, one of which in Clause 2 is that the matter shall not be left to the Minister of Munitions, but should be left to a greater authority, to the War Cabinet, or the Cabinet. Another Amendment would be in paragraph 2 of Clause 2, which provides:
  "Where a licence is granted under this Section a copy thereof shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after the grant thereof."
  The Amendment I suggest is this, "where it is intended to grant a licence a copy shall be laid before Parliament before such licence is granted," so that this House shall have an opportunity of considering it before it is granted. Under this Bill there may be a chance of giving royalties to the landowner, and there is an equal chance of this Bill conferring an absolute monopoly upon one firm to work whatever oil there may be in Great Britain. I do not like monopolies any more than the hon. Member below the Gangway likes royalties, and from a different point of view I join with him in the distrust with which he regards this Bill. I hope that we shall hear from the hon. Member, when he rises to give an explanation of Clause 2 in connection with the proviso. It is quite clear that it means that the owner must not bore for oil without a licence. It is not clear whether it means that under this Bill the licensee may not enter upon somebody else's land and search and bore for oil. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain that and tell us the exact position. I quite agree that every effort should be made to develop home resources and home supplies. Up till now nothing has been done by the Government, and in raising Amendments on the Committee stage I do not wish to stop the Government developing home supplies and home resources. On the other hand, I think that this should have been done two or three years ago. The Government have had complete powers under the Defence of the Realm Acts.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman has raised the whole question of whether petroleum, if it exists under the soil, belongs morally to the nation or to the owner of the surface. I am not going

  1081
  to pursue that question. I take it that the object of this Bill is to hold the question in suspense until we have leisure to discuss it after the War, and, meanwhile, if possible, to make some effort to develope the petroleum in the national interest. We wish to be assured that the Bill in working will do what it purports to do, and for that purpose I want to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he will not only tell us what the form of the licence is going to be, but if he will actually read the words of the proposed form of licence, so that we may be able to judge whether the Bill in practice will really carry out the intention which I have no doubt it honestly has and which we so strongly desire to see carried out.
  The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I think that the comments of hon. Gentlemen to-night show that on the whole we have succeeded in avoiding the really controversial points which were raised on the last occasion. There have been five points raised, and I propose to deal with each one in order. First, I am asked to give an assurance that Clause 2, Sub-section (1), does not include royalties to be brought in indirectly. If hon. Members will consider the Clause, they will see that the terms and conditions referred to are the terms and conditions which may be made between the Government and the licensees or those who bore. They are not terms and conditions to be made with the owner. They refer to something quite different, and I can safely say that there is no intention whatever under the Clause, or, indeed, at all, of introducing the royalty question as was suggested indirectly. Then the question was asked as to whether a landlord can apply for compensation under the Defence of the Realm Act, because he does not get royalties. The position is this: There is no power under the Bill for the licensee or the Government Department to enter on or to compulsorily acquire land. The power exists to-day under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and that is the power that will be used for the purpose of entry in order to enable the licensee to bore. The landlord will have whatever claim he has under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and no other. He will be treated in that respect exactly as he is treated now in other matters which come under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
  Mr. ADAMSON: It means that he can apply to the Commission and get damages?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He can apply to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission and receive payment for losses. That is an entirely different thing.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is a very important point. It is not suggested that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission should decide the extremely difficult and very controversial point whether or not a landlord should receive payment in respect of oil which has not previously been discovered.
  Sir. L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say that no landlord would put in such a claim before the Commission, but I do say that the powers of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission to give compensation for loss are limited in a way which my right hon. Friend knows quite well. It must be remembered that it is only for the War. All claims or legal rights, if there be any, in respect of the petroleum obtained will be dealt with after the War and not by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.
  Mr. WRIGHT: If a claim for loss is brought by a landowner before the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission will not the Commission, in determining the claim, have to settle the question of title?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not in a position to say whether the Losses Commission will go into the question. If a landlord makes a claim he will have to prove a loss, because, so far as I know, that is the limit of the power of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. It concerns the period of the War, and the period of the War only. If after the War a landowner sets up a claim to a royalty it will not have been prejudiced under this Bill. Under this Bill the claim is postponed for settlement after the War. We have not attempted to deal with it. I give the undertaking that we do not and will not indirectly pay royalties under this Bill.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Have not the Commission held that compensation should be given unless the Act of Parliament expressly says that compensation should not be given?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a legal question which I cannot answer in general, but so far as this Bill is concerned the landlord, in claiming under the Defence of the Realm Act for any loss sustained—there no doubt will be loss, damage to surface rights, for example—will have to prove his loss before he receives compensation. So far as I know, that is the extent of the claim that he can put forward.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: He could not lose what he had never had.
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should have thought not. My hon. Friend behind me suggests that the case is prejudiced by after the War. That is precisely what I deny. No legal question of that sort can be raised. We are bound to come back to Parliament for further legislation, and Parliament will then have the opportunity, and will be bound to consider all legal claims that can be put forward.
  Mr. WRIGHT: If a property owner applies for a licence to bore under this Bill, is it likely that he will obtain a licence?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was just going to deal with that point, because the hon. Member for St. Pancras suggested that a monopoly was going to be created under this Bill; and I rather think the hon. Member for Hereford himself suggested that some sort of monopoly was being created under it. That is not the intention. It is perfectly well known that a very well-known firm, one of the expert firms dealing with oil, has made a very generous offer to the Government. They have offered to put at the disposal of the Government their experience, their knowledge, their plant, and their experts. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras wanted to know what they were going to get out of it. They are going to get nothing out of it; nothing at all during the War.
  An HON. MEMBER: After the War?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As to after the War nothing has been done. We are not prejudging the position in any way after the War. But they have offered their services, the services of their experts, and their expert knowledge to the Government for the purposes of seeking for oil, if they can get oil, during the War. That they have offered to do with-
  1084
  out remuneration at all, and it seems to me an extremely generous offer which the Government will do well to accept. There is no intention whatever of creating a monopoly. Other firms have asked for licences. One licence has actually been granted; one or two others are under consideration; and any would-be licensee's application shall be considered. But it is only fair to say that the whole object of the Bill is to protect the oil pools, if there can be found oil pools in the country, and therefore you cannot have a multiplicity of licences without one damaging the other. I was asked to say why Clause 1 was inserted at all, because it takes away the right to bore. It is inserted for the very purpose of protecting the industry itself. If everyone has a right to bore you will reproduce the conditions which exist to-day in America, and a large amount of oil, if there is oil in Great Britain at all, will be wasted by unnecessary bore-holes going down.
  The hon. Member for Hereford indicated two Amendments that he would wish to propose, and perhaps the House would allow me, as I am going to ask them to give me the Bill to-night, just to say what I would do with regard to these Amendments. My hon. Friend suggests that the Ministry of Munitions should not have charge of the administration of the Bill, but that the War Cabinet should. Neither the War Cabinet nor the Cabinet have the administrative officers or the Department to enable them to carry on the charge of the Bill, so that Amendment cannot possibly be accepted. Then, my hon. Friend suggests that the licence should be laid on the Table of the House before it is granted. Supposing this Bill is passed this Session, before the Adjournment, what that would mean would be that we should have immediately two months' delay before we could go on with any of these licences, because the House would not be sitting. So, unfortunately, we are not able to accept these two Amendments. I have indicated to him, however, one or two other Amendments to the Bill as proposed which I am able to accept. They are Amendments which, if the House will give me the Committee stage, I will undertake will not take more than a very few minutes in getting through. Now, I would ask the House to give me the Second Reading and, if possible, the Committee stage.
  Sir JOHN AINSWORTH: I will only detain the House a moment, but I should just like to say that I think the Government, if they are anxious to proceed at once with the search for oil, will proceed much more easily and safely under the Defence of the Realm Act. Under that Act they can put holes down for oil or anything else wherever they decide to do so, and therefore they will have no expense in the meantime in compensating the owners of the surface for any damage they do. That is all they do when searching for oil. But when they begin to work for oil—I do not mean to say that I can explain how that can be done—they will have to take the trouble to find out to whom the oil belongs, if it belongs to anybody at all. The House probably knows the meaning of royalties on minerals, and everything of that kind, simply that the ownership of the mineral goes with the owership of the surface, and if the tenant has not the right of searching for and of mining any minerals, he then pays as he may agree to the owner of the mineral for the working. The whole question divides itself into two matters. First you have to find the oil; that you can do now by making an arrangement with the owner of the surface under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, and by compensating him. When you go on to work the oil you must go into the whole question of ownership and the royalty, which is a very large question, and probably one which, having regard to the development of the country, ought to be put in a broader position than it stands at present. At the same time, I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill one thing, namely, that the question whether a fluid is a mineral is a point of law. If the Government act wisely they will proceed at once under the Defence of the Realm Act and search for the oil they need. There will be plenty of opportunity to consider and deal with all these other things as time goes on. If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to have his Bill at once he ought to proceed under the Defence of the Realm Act.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately forthwith resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. Hope.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 (Prohibition of Persons other than the Crown Getting, Etc., Petroleum) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Minister of Munitions).
    (1) The Minister of Munitions on behalf of His Majesty may grant licences to search and bore for and get petroleum to such persona and upon such terms and conditions as the Minister of Munitions may think fit:
    Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring on any person any right to enter on or interfere with land for the purpose of searching or boring for or getting petroleum which he does not enjoy apart from this Act,
    (2) Where a licence is granted under this Section a copy thereof shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after the grant thereof.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "licences," to insert the words "conferring authority."
    The first Clause of the Bill says that no person shall bore for petroleum without a licence. If it is a mere licence it might seem to be like making an exception to the prohibition. I desire to make it clear that the licence, in fact, confers authority, and therefore move this Amendment.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "a" ["Where a licence is granted"], and to insert instead thereof the words "any such."
    The reason for the distinction is this: The Minister in charge of the Bill remarked on a previous occasion that some licences had already been granted. I want to make it clear that the terms of the licence are to be laid before the House, whether it had been granted before this Bill were passed or afterwards. That is the object of my Amendment.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I accept that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "under this Section" ["When licence is granted under this Section"].—[Mr. White.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. CURRIE: I wish to ask my hon. Friend to clear up a small point. I think he intended in his answer to me about royalties to cover the whole ground but he put his explanation in this way: "We will not pay royalties." I wish to ask him, in the event of a licensee coming to terms with a landlord, the one being willing to pay and the other to receive royalties, will that be allowed, or must it be postponed until after the War altogether?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It must be postponed until after the War. The point cannot arise. The licensee will never have to make terms with the landlord during the War, because during the War, having power under the Defence of tine Realm Act, we can put the licensee in possession without having to put upon him the duty of making terms with anyone.
    Clauses 3 (Powers to Inspect Plans of Mines), 4 (Interpretation), 5 (Savings), and 6 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.