Commons Sitting of 21 March 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case; of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Land Drainage (Lotting Fen) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Tyrone (East Tyrone Division), in the room of Captain William Archer Redmond (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Boland.]
LIGHTHOUSES, ECT. (LOCAL INSPECTIONS).
Copies presented of Reports to the Board of Trade by the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, of their Inspection of Local Lighthouses, Buoys, and Beacons in 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY-LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy-Lieutenants lodged during 1917, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT 1889 (ORDINANCE).
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance No. 63 (St. Andrews, No. 12) (Institution of a Degree in Education, and relative Regulations) and No. 64 (St. Andrews, No. 13) (Regulations for Degrees in Arts, Philosophy, and Letters), Supplementary to No. 4 of the University Court of the University of St. Andrews [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36]
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Address for Return "showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by Vehicles in Streets, Roads, or Public Places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1917 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 62, of Session 1917)."—[Mr. Brace.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to.—

Marriage Hours (Ireland) Bill,

Overseas Trade Department (Secretary) Bill,

without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Nitrate Railways Company, Limited (Conversion of Shares), Act, 1891, and the Nitrate Railways Company, Limited, Act. 1901; and for other purposes." [Nitrate Railways Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the qualifications of Deputy-Lieutenants." [Deputy-Lieutenants Bill [Lords.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    CONGO.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the pledge of the International Association of

    1133
    the Congo, given to the United States in 1884, never to grant citizens of any one nation any advantages over citizens of other nations is still binding; and whether Belgium is bound by this pledge?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): As I am not aware whether any communications have passed between the United States Government and the Belgian Government on the subject of the pledge given to the United States Government by the International Association of the Congo in 1884, I am not in a position to say whether it is still in force; but, speaking generally, the international obligations of the Association passed to the Congo Free State on its formation, and to Belgium on the annexation of the Congo Free State to that country.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain recognises that Belgium possesses sovereign rights over the land and resources of the Congo Free State?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir.

    CENTRAL AFRICA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this country has become party to any undertaking, treaty, or agreement since 4th August, 1914, affecting Central Africa?
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain or the Allies have guaranteed the integrity of Belgium's possessions in Central Africa; and, if so, at what date?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government and the French Government assured the Belgian Government on 19th September, 1914, that they would support Belgium in every way in securing the integrity of her Colonial Possessions. Besides this assurance, the only agreement of the nature referred to by the hon. Member has been that of 3rd February, 1915, regarding the delimitation of the Congo-Uganda boundary.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether President Wilson has been made acquainted with all the agreements and understandings between the Entente Powers, including Belgium, which concern the free-trade zone in Central Africa?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not aware to what agreements the hon. Member refers. The only agreements entered into by His Majesty's Government are those described in my reply to his question No. 2, the latter of which, being a boundary agreement, was not communicated to President Wilson, while the former was a public declaration, communicated to the Press.

    EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Greek Government has reduced the pension to ex-King Constantine; and whether, in view of his statement in this House that ex-King Constantine received nothing at all, he will now state the amount which is paid to him?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information as to the reduction of the pension to the ex-King Constantine. As far as I know, the statement made to us by the Greek Government that King Constantine has, in fact, received nothing still holds good.
    Mr. LYNCH: How does that tally with the fact that it has been resolved in the Greek Parliament to reduce his pension by the sum, as stated, of £2,000?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am not aware that it has been so resolved.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Could the Noble Lord say whether the British Government, either officially or unofficially, diplomatically or undiplomatically, are conducting any communications whatsoever with King Constantine?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; none whatever.
    Mr. KING: Is not the difficulty in this matter possibly due to equivocation between pensions and the Civil List, and does the Noble Lord's answer cover all payments arising out of the Civil List of Greece as well as pensions?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes; I think probably the questions are prompted by a statement that appeared in the newspapers. I imagine that is what the hon. Member has in mind, and I have no more information than he has about that statement. If he will read it clearly, he will see that it is not clear that it refers to King Constantine. It may equally refer to the present King of Greece. My impression is that what has happened is a reduction in the Civil List of the present King, and that it

    1135
    has nothing whatever to do with the pension of King Constantine. I may be wrong in that; it is only my reading of the same document.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether, in referring to King Constantine, he means to imply that the British Government still recognises that he is a king?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; but it is usual to refer to an ex-King in that way.

    DUTCH SHIPPING.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make as to the proposals made to Holland by the British and American Governments as to Dutch shipping and the present position of affairs?
    Lord R. CECIL: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject in the course of the Debate.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN (ALLOTMENTS).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the St. Patrick's Division Plot Holders' Federation asking that land in Phoenix Park should be provided for applicants who have not yet obtained plots; and whether he has considered the advisability of introducing a measure to give similar security of tenure as already given by Statute to allotment holders in Great Britain?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): My right hon. Friend has received the resolution referred to. I cannot add anything to the answer to the hon. Member's question in the official report of the 11th March. As to the rest of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers to his questions on the 5th August and 18th October.
    Mr. FIELD: Is it the intention of the Government to grant the same security of tenure to plot holders in Ireland as exists in England at the present time?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot add anything to the answer.
    Mr. BYRNE: May I, as a member of the Vacant Lands Cultivation Society in Dublin, ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we have over 4,000 applications for land to grow potatoes, and, having regard to the Prime Minister's request that everybody should grow potatoes, will he see that these people get some of the spare land?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I think the hon. Member had better put down a question.

    FOOD PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the need for increased tillage in Ireland, and bearing in mind the fact that tenants of labourers' cottages who have only got one half-acre with their holdings rapidly exhaust the productive power of their plots, he will take steps to see that the provision of additional half-acres under the Labourers' Acts is made possible, that the necessary Grants for this purpose will be made available with as little delay as possible, and that the rural district councils will be encouraged to meet the wants of the labourers in this connection?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers I gave to his questions on this subject on the 7th March, to which I may add that the increase of existing allotments to the maximum of an acre is not mandatory, and loans from public funds for the purchase of additional plots are not now available.
    Captain SHEEHAN: I want to know why those lands should not be made available having regard to the urgent necessity for them?
    Mr. SAMUELS: If the hon. Member refers to the previous answers, he will find the explanation of the matter.
    Captain SHEEHAN: Not at all. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether there are not ample powers under the Labourers' Acts for granting these additional allotments, which are undoubtedly required? The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of the fact himself.
    Mr. SAMUELS: The answer which I gave before refers to the necessity for inquiries and local investigations and loans, and I have nothing to add at present.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the

    1137
    food shortage, it is proposed to throw open to tillage any portion of the grass lands of Ireland, and particularly of county Clare, now unused but suitable for that purpose?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot add anything to the answers given by the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member's questions on the 11th and 14th March.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the Irish Office look into this matter and consider it, together with the elements of the real shortage of food, the amount of land which is available for producing food, and the condition of the uneconomic holders adjacent to this land; and will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the very important facts I have placed before him, and try to obtain a satisfactory solution of this question, which is at the seat of the present unrest?
    Mr. SAMUELS: This question is continually engaging the attention of the Government in Ireland.
    Captain SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the extent to which the special measures for securing an increase of food production in Ireland include financial assistance, by way of loan or otherwise, to small fanners and allotment holders; how much was granted in this way during the year 1917; and whether applications for the present year may still be considered?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Under the Urban Allotments (Ireland) Order, 1917, borough and urban councils may supply allotment holders and tenants of artisans' dwellings and others within their districts with such necessaries as seed, manure, by way of loan repayable within six months after the date of supply. Councils with insufficient funds may obtain advances from their treasurers. I am not in a position to state the amount advanced in this way last year. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining good seed in most districts in 1917, the Board of Works were authorised to lend money to rural district councils for the supply of seed to small farmers and cultivators. The amount so advanced was£134,588. I understand that there is no likelihood of a shortage of seed this year.
    Captain SHEEHAN: Have any applications been received this year; and will any be entertained if they are received?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I have no information.

    BEER.
    Mr. ARTHUR RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the shortage of beer for munition workers, engineers, shipbuilders, and kindred workers, he will immediately take steps to prevent any beer being supplied to women entering public houses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. The suggested discrimination between the sexes would appear to be rather invidious. I may, however, state that the question of disposing of supplies in such manner as to meet the reasonable requirements of the classes named is being discussed.
    Sir J. D. REES: If women do men's work should not they be allowed to share the men's beer?
    Mr. CLYNES: That is a view held by many women.

    OFFAL (COUPONS).
    Sir ALFRED YEO(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is a fact that there are nearly 100 retail offal shopkeepers in London, many of whom have carried on business for thirty or forty years; whether these traders will have the opportunity to obtain the same proportion of supplies as other traders in meat, and that no attempt will be made to deprive these shopkeepers of their means of livelihood?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is In the affirmative. In order to enable these traders to carry on their business it is proposed to increase the coupon value of certain offals and to allow certain other offals to be sold free of coupons.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. HUGH LAW(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any definite allocation has yet been made to Ireland of machinery for the manufacture of potato flour and farina, and what is the earliest date at which such machinery can be made available?
    Mr. CLYNES: The first fifteen potato flaking or flour plants manufactured have been already allocated to Ireland, and two farina plants are being reserved for Ire-

    1139
    land. It is expected that these plants will be installed and in working order in good time to deal with the 1918 main crop.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether consignments of Irish potatoes for British consumption have been held up owing to defects in the arrangements for distribution; whether he has considered the advisability of appointing Government agents at ports of arrival to supervise the action of the local committees, so that such dealers may obtain their fair share; whether compensation will be paid to merchants in Ireland who have suffered loss through deterioration of stocks consequent upon failure of arrangements for distribution?
    Mr. CLYNES: I dealt at some length with the points raised in the first and third parts of this question in my reply to the hon. Member for Mayo on 18th March. I then stated expressly that the Food Controller would be prepared to consider claims for compensation in respect of any losses due to delay in shipment. With respect to the second part, the Food Controller has no reason to suppose that the small wholesale dealers are not receiving their fair share of imports, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any complaints that ho has received I will inquire into them.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES, DUBLIN.
  Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether for some months past bodies of the Irish Republic Volunteers have made a habit of marching out from Dublin to the. range of hills situated some seven miles south of the city and carrying out a regular course of field training, including trench digging, loop-holing of wells, signalling, combined route marching, scouting, and bivouacs; whether the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have protested against the carrying out of this field training on their property to the local police force and to the competent military authority; what answer have they received; and what action does he propose to take?
  Mr. SAMUELS: For some time past small bands of men from Dublin, not wearing uniform or carrying any weapons or
  1140
  tools, have made a practice of marching on Sundays to the adjacent parts of the county. Some of these parties have visited the hills south of the city, and have always been kept under observation, but no trench digging or loop-holing has been reported, and no complaints by the owners of property appear to have been brought to the notice of the constabulary authorities. On Sunday last the police came upon one of these bands engaged in drill and dispersed them. Six of the ringleaders were arrested and dealt with summarily next day, five receiving terms of imprisonment.

  TRAMCAR DRIVERS (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS).
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now decided to grant certificates to discharged soldiers to act as tramcar drivers on the Metropolitan tramway systems at the age of nineteen?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George cave): The answer is in the affirmative.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS (SHELTERS).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether, now that he has agreed to air-raid warnings at night-time, any arrangements have been or will be made by which air-raid shelters in London will be opened for anyone who wants such shelter after the warning has been given; or, if it is impossible to open all or any of such shelters, will he have public notices issued forthwith stating what shelters will be closed or the hours when they will be closed.
  Sir G. CAVE: Arrangements have been made for adequate shelter to be available for all persons who are likely to be in the open if an air-raid warning should be given in London during the night. Some of the shelters are closed at night, and the Commissioner of Police is arranging that in every such case notice shall be given of the hour of closing.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, having regard to the recent tragedies at air-raid shelters, of not permitting a warning or notice to be put up saying that an air-raid shelter is available unless a certifi-

  1141
  cate has been received from a competent authority that such place is an adequate shelter?
  Sir G. CAVE: I will make inquiries about that.

  TAXI-CAB DRIVERS' DISPUTE.
  Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether the differences as to conditions of employment which have existed some time between the London taxi-cab drivers and the taxi-cab owners have now been settled; and, if not, what difficulties, are now standing in the way of an arrangement?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware that differences as to conditions of employment have existed between the London taxi-cab drivers and taxi-cab owners, except in the case of one company, which has withdrawn its cabs, of which about 633 were on the streets, because an increase of 50 per cent. on present mileage rates has not been approved. The remaining cabs —about 3,500—are at work.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the burden of enforcing the Food Controller's Orders in Ireland is thrown on members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who, as a rule, previously acted as inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act; if these men have to perform their ordinary duties in addition to the new food control duties; if the food control duties are very laborious, involving the inspection constantly of all the business premises in the country, and these men do not receive one penny additional pay; if district inspectors have been allowed£1 per week, and 1s. per day for a clerk to assist them for any extra duty under the food control Orders; and whether it is intended to grant additional pay to the men on whose shoulders the real work in connection with carrying out food control Orders has been thrown?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The duty of enforcing the Food Controller's Orders in Ireland rests with all members of the constabulary and no special duty in connection with the Orders has been imposed on the members of the force who act as inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. Each district inspector in charge of a dis-
  1142
  trict is the local executive officer of the Food Control Committee for Ireland, and as such has to perform duties in addition to his ordinary duties, for which he receives an allowance of£l a week. A grant of 1s. a day is allowed to a constable for acting as clerical assistant in carrying out the duties under the Food Controller's Orders. It is impracticable to grant additional allowances in respect of the carrying out of duties under the Food Orders by ordinary members of the force. As the hon. Member is aware, the Royal Irish Constabulary have recently received additional remuneration by way of an increased war bonus.
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the compulsory retirement of many non-commissioned officers and men in the Royal Irish Constabulary has created discontent in the force in view of the fact that these men, after faithful service, are now being discharged on pensions entirely inadequate to maintain themselves or their families; if as peace officers these men have been compelled to discharge duties incurring public odium and are thereby handicapped in obtaining employment in civil life; if it is intended to help these men by giving them an increased pension, by making the present war bonus pensionable, or by paying them a war bonus in addition to pension after retirement; and if he can arrange for the employment of all such pensioners in munition factories in the United Kingdom and facilitate the transfer of men resigning from the Royal Irish Constabulary on the grounds of insufficiency of pay to the better-paid police force in England without loss of service?
  Mr. SAMUELS: Sixty non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been called on to retire on pension between now and 1st June. Half of them are over sixty years of age, and are considered, owing to age, infirmity, etc., not fully qualified to discharge arduous duties during the present juncture. The remainder are between fifty and sixty years of age, and are being retired for various reasons affecting the efficiency of the force. There is no reason to suppose that discontent will be caused in the force by these proposed retirements, as suggested in the question. The full pensions to which the men are entitled by rank and service will be granted. There is no power to award

  1143
  increased pensions in respect of the war bonus, nor to grant a war bonus in addition to pension after retirement. The Inspector-General will do everything he can to obtain suitable employment for worthy men whose services are dispensed with.

  HICKMAN ESTATE, WEST CLARE
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in regard to the Hickman estate, Knock, West Clare, he is aware that soldiers have been drafted into Knock in order to facilitate seizures by the sheriff; and whether the Government will suspend the use of armed force at least pending the findings of the Irish Convention?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I have no information as to the matter referred to.

  SCHOOLGIRLS' PASSPORTS (IRELAND).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is necessary for a schoolgirl at school in London or Dublin to obtain a passport before being able to return to her parents in Clare?
  Mr. SAMUELS: Under the terms of the notice issued by the competent military authority declaring county Clare a special military area no permission to enter the county is necessary in the case of a female ordinarily resident therein.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although it is not necessary it is still being enforced, in certain cases as I have described, that schoolgirls returning are compelled to obtain a passport?
  Mr. SAMUELS: There is no difficulty in any young lady obtaining the right to enter by applying to the proper authorities.
  Mr. LYNCH: But the point is, is it necessary or not for her to have a passport?
  Mr. SAMUELS: If she is ordinarily resident in Clare it is not necessary

  POLICE ACTION, WEST CLARE.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received
  1144
  complaints of a military officer, stationed at Kilrush, West Clare, who recently marched a detachment of police and military, with fixed bayonets, through the villages of Doonbeg and Shragh, holding up all and sundry, and threatening with the bayonet people who had committed no offence; whether, between Doonbeg village and Doonbeg railway station, they searched a house and terrified a bedridden invalid; whether they destroyed the musical instruments of a boys' band, the soldiers pointing their bayonets at the boys' breasts to force them to produce their flutes; whether the Government has given a general Order advising such proceedings; and, if so, whether the end sought is the pacification of Ireland?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday, as published in the official report.
  Mr. LYNCH: Was that answer given in respect to this question?
  Mr. SAMUELS: It is the same question.

  ALIEN ENEMIES (IRELAND).
  Mr. LINDSAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received resolutions passed by the urban councils of seven seaside towns in the North of Ireland urging that all alien enemies shall be removed to a distance of at least ten miles from the coast; if certain reasons were given as to why the suggestions were made; and if he intends to take any action?
  Mr. SAMUELS: Resolutions on the subject referred to have been received from the urban district councils of Bangor and Donaghadee. I am informed that there are eighty-eight alien enemies at large in the maritime countries of Ulster. They are all under the supervision of the police in accordance with the Aliens Restriction Order.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

    CHRISTIAN PEACE CRUSADE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether, by confiscating the Confession of Faith of the Christian Peace Crusade, the Government has signified a definite objection to this movement; and whether, since the movement

    1145
    bases its appeal solely upon the literal interpretation of the words in the New Testament "A new Commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you," it is intended to institute restrictions on freedom of religion; whether he will make a statement as to whether the papers, books, etc., taken from the offices of the Christian Peace Crusade Movement, at 39, Doughty Street, in November, 1917, and ordered to be destroyed on the 15th March last, included 18,000 copies of "The Last Weapon," by Theodora Wilson Wilson, which book was first published in February, 1916, and presented by the author to various distinguished persons, including the Prime Minister, whose secretary sent a letter of acknowledgment at the time; and will he say why this book, having run into several editions, is now after the lapse of two years confiscated and destroyed?
    Sir G. CAVE: These documents were seized on the ground that they were intended to interfere with the recruiting and discipline of the Army and the success of His Majesty's forces, and were destroyed on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, to whom the matter was referred. I do not agree with the description of the leaflet, "A Confession of Faith," which is contained in this question, or with the inference which the hon. Member seeks to draw from the seizure of that leaflet. Nor do I think that any inference favourable to the book mentioned in the next question can be drawn from the fact that copies of it were presented to distinguished persons.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the book mentioned in Question 31, and is he aware that it is a touching presentation of what I may call the Quaker point of view of War, and how long has it been an offence to put forward that view even in fiction?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not an offence to put forward that view. I cannot claim to have read the book through, but I have read passages of it.
    Mr. JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that passages out of very innocent books, as, for instance, the Bible, might be used for purposes detrimental to the War, and will he not read the book as a whole before he allows it to be destroyed?
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seized the copy of the book that the Prime Minister has, in order that it may do no harm?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not know that he has a copy.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing Members of the House to judge for themselves by placing copies of these suppressed books in the Library?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think it is desirable to spread this teaching in that way.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of suppressing the New Testament?
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary why, in a raid on the offices of the Christian Peace Crusade movement, which took place in November, 1917, the police confiscated a novel called "The Wrestlers," by Theodora Wilson Wilson, and informed the author on the 15th March last that all the copies in his possession were to be destroyed; and whether, in view of the fact that the subject of the book was the Christian religion and Russian exiles in Siberia, and not in any way connected with the present War, the author will be compensated by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that no copies of this book have been seized or destroyed.

  PLACES OF PUBLIC RESORT.

    EARLIER CLOSING ORDER.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to include the House of Commons amongst the places of public resort and entertainment to be affected by the proposed Order in Council imposing early closing during the spring and summer months; and if such inclusion would effect a considerable conservation of the elements of energy, heat, and light?
    The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Order which the Board of Trade are about to issue will not apply to the House of Commons. I hope, however, that not only the Houses of Parliament, but all public departments will consider

    1147
    themselves under the same obligation to reduce their consumption of gas and electricity as if the Order specifically applied.

  PEISONERS OF WAR.
  General CROFTasked the Home Secretary whether, if there is likely to be a shortage of tobacco in this country, he will explain why prisoners of war should be permitted to purchase tobacco from our already depleted stocks; and whether British prisoners are permitted to purchase tobacco in Germany?
  Sir G. CAVE: The amount of tobacco which prisoners of war are allowed to purchase or procure in this country has been strictly regulated, in consultation with the proper authorities, and is now fixed at ¾oz. per head per week. I have no official information in regard to the latter part of the question, but have reason to believe that at most camps in Germany the prisoners may purchase tobacco.
  General CROFTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that recently at Chichester the civilian population were unable to purchase supplies of fresh fish whilst at the same time fresh fish was being delivered at a German prison camp, sometimes twice a day, by rail; and, seeing that this has caused local indignation, will he consider the advisability of better arrangements being made?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. I was not aware of the facts stated in the question, and am having inquiry made. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
  General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether, bearing in mind that two of our flying men have suffered about a month's imprisonment for dropping pamphlets it is proposed to inflict a reprisal on two enemy flying men in order to show the German Government our determination to secure proper treatment for British prisoners of war in their hands; and, in future, will he consider the advisability of at once taking reprisals for acts committed by the German Government against our prisoners of war instead of giving a time-limit during which period British prisoners are suffering such treatment?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): His Majesty's Government are fully determined to take all necessary measures to secure redress for British prisoners of war improperly treated by the enemy. We understand that the two British airmen in question have been released. As regards the second part of the question I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that both Governments are bound under The Hague Agreement to give a month's notice before reprisals are started.
  General CROFT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me if it is a fact that German officers have been transferred from the West to the East Coast of this country?
  Mr. HOPE: It has been thought desirable to transfer a number of German officers from the West of England to the East Coast, but this must not be regarded as a measure of reprisals or punishment. The climate of the Kent and Essex coast is at least as good, and probably better, than that in a number of prison camps in Germany.
  Mr. BILLINGasked what remuneration is paid by the German Government to British prisoners of war who are working in the Westphalian mines and other German industries in which British prisoners of war are engaged?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The remuneration ranges from 30pfg. to 80pfg. per day, the average rate working out at about 40pfg. per day.

  ALIENS ADDRESSING PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to employ the powers given him by the new Order in Council in connection with aliens addressing public meetings to insist that such aliens shall have on their person at the time of addressing any public meeting a Home Office permit so to do, and that the police shall have instructions to request, at their discretion, the production of such permit at any meeting at which, in their opinion, a revolutionary gospel is advocated?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Order in Council does not require that any alien addressing a public meeting shall be in possession of a

  1149
  Home Office permit enabling him to do so. It empowers me by Order to prohibit an alien from addressing or taking part in meetings and from engaging in propaganda. I shall make Orders whenever the information in my possession shows it to be necessary, and the police will be given all necessary instructions as to the enforcement of any such Order.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the time he gets that information the damage is done? Are we to understand that he has not authority to restrict aliens addressing meetings on revolutionary subjects or insisting on a permit being issued, but can only take action by Order in Council after the damage has been done?
  Sir G. CAVE: It is usual to have information before the meeting is held, and we usually know something about the alien and can take action accordingly.

  COUNTY AND BOROUGH POLICE.
  Mr. A. RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary if he will grant an interview to delegates from the London City, Metropolitan, Manchester, and other provincial police forces in order that they may place their views before him on the questions of increased cost of living, the recognition of their union, and other questions, and also, seeing that in one police area the chief constables and watch committees have decided that 30s. per week is a living wage, they would be grateful for an opportunity of discussing this point with him?
  Sir G. CAVE: The question of the pay of the county and borough police is primarily a matter for the local authorities, and no useful purpose would be served by my receiving members of individual forces for the purpose of discussing it.

  ST. JAMES'S PARK (TEMPORARY BUILDINGS).
  Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the First Commissioner of Works what is the cost of the various buildings now being erected in St. James's Park; and what number of people they are intended to accommodate?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The extension to the Ministry of Shipping will cost
  1150
  about £27,200, and will accommodate about 800 persons. The building intended for the Admiralty on the old road, near Storey's Gate, will cost about £18,200, and will accommodate about 600 persons. The building for the Ministry of Munitions will cost about £8,400, and will accommodate about 200 persons. The extension to the Ministry of Shipping canteen—which will be used by various Departments—will cost about £4,700, and will provide for 2,000 diners in three relays.
  Mr. HARRIS: Does that include any charge for the land in the centre of London and does it include the cost of the elaborate system of piping and trenches?
  Sir A. MOND: It does not include any cost for the land, as there is no reason why it should, but it includes all other costs.
  Colonel ASHLEY: May we take it that these entirely typical buildings will be done away with after the War?
  Sir A. MOND: Certainly, as far as I am concerned.
  Mr. HARRIS: Is it proposed to keep an equal space of open land—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  CANADIAN RED CROSS.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to eject the Canadian Red Cross from their existing premises at 14, Cockspur Street; and, if so, whether the matter will be reconsidered in view of the inconvenience which would be caused by a change of address to relations of Canadians resident in Canada, to Canadian prisoners of war in Germany, and to the Canadian troops in France who have been accustomed during the past three years either to communicate with, or personally visit, the Red Cross office at its present address?
  Sir A. MOND: I very much regret that it was found necessary to find new quarters for the Canadian Red Cross, and this step was only taken after the most careful consideration by the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation, but the necessity of extending the accommodation of the Mechanical Warfare Branch of the Ministry of Munitions was most urgent.

  1151
  The Canadian Red Cross have been consulted throughout, and new and commodious premises are being acquired for them.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Captain ALBERT SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether a conscientious objector granted non-combatant service prior to the institution of the Pelham Committee and having served several terms of imprisonment, is now entitled to release conditionally upon his taking up work of national importance?
    Sir G. CAVE: All soldiers convicted by court-martial and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which they allege to have been prompted by a conscientious objection to military service, whatever the date of their appearance before a tribunal under the Military Service Acts are entitled to appear before the Central Appeal Tribunal, which has undertaken to make a report on every such case. If the Central Appeal Tribunal report that the man should be treated as a conscientious objector he is offered release from prison and from military discipline on condition that he performs work of national importance under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of John D. Mackay, who occupied several public positions in the West of Scotland, and who is now serving a second term of imprisonment in Barlinnie prison as a conscientious objector; whether the tribunal which tried this man's case expressed any doubt as to the bona fides of his conscientious objections to military service; and, if not, can he see his way to permit him to accept work of national importance under the Home Office scheme.
    The SECRETARY of SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have made inquiry regarding this case. I have nothing to add to the information given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Blackburn on 6th December, and to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Bradford on 14th December.

  TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) why the employés termed temporary employés have not been paid the award of 17th December, 1917, and which has been paid to all other Government employés; and will he take steps to pay this award to these employés so as to make them equal with all other Government employés?
  Mr. SAMUELS: War bonus has been paid to established and unestablished employés and temporary messengers in the service of the Department of Agriculture on the same footing as in other Public Departments in accordance with the award to which the hon. Member refers.

  ADRIATIC COAST.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he gave an interview on the 15th March to Dr. Trumbitch; whether the interview had reference to the reconciliation of Italian and Yugo-Slav aspirations on the Adriatic coast; and whether he can state that any results have been achieved?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Prime Minister does not think that it is desirable that he should give information with regard to the persons to whom he grants personal interviews or to the subjects discussed.
  Mr. KING: As this information was obtained from the "Times," will any notice be taken of the way in which the "Times" newspaper disregards the wishes of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid there is no law, or even a Defence of the Realm Regulation, which will put it in our power to punish anyone who disregards the wishes of the Prime Minister.

  PROPAGANDA (ENEMY WAR AIMS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether any steps have yet been taken to appoint a Director of Propaganda for the proper dissemination in the United Kingdom of the war aims of enemy countries as regards the British Empire?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member's question 011 this subject on the 4th March.
  Colonel YATE: Is it not very desirable that there should be someone to devote his sole attention to this very important subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that the Minister of Propaganda's main duty is to co-ordinate the work of propaganda in all Departments. The special work of making our aims plain is supposed to be undertaken by the War Aims Committee.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the very valuable propaganda bearing on this very subject of Germany's intentions in Middle Europe which is being undertaken by the Earl of Denbigh, who delivered a lecture on this subject to the House, and can he not take some steps to assist the Noble Lord in conducting that propaganda through the country oh a more extensive scale?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered that question to the effect that I do recognise the value of this work, and the Government are prepared to cooperate in any reasonable way.
  Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the proposal I made to him last year that the Government should publish as an official document an exact account of the statements made by eminent statesmen in regard to their war aims which are not known in this country?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.

  PETROLEUM.
  Captain WRIGHTasked the name of the firm with which a satisfactory agree-anent has been come to by the Government to sink trial bores for oil; if this agreement gives this firm exclusive rights so to sink within any and what areas; if the Government is prepared to enter into agreements with colliery companies and others possessing freehold and surface rights over large districts and the necessary boring tackle, within and without the areas, if any, subject to the above agreement; and, if so, on similar or what terms?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): At the moment the Government have under consideration applications to bore for petroleum from three different firms, and negotiations are practically completed, but, pending definite conclusion of the agreements, it is not proposed to publish the names. The agreements would give exclusive rights to bore within certain denned areas. Outside those areas, applications by colliery companies and others possessing freehold and surface rights over large districts and the necessary boring tackle will be carefully considered on their merits.
  Captain A. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have been refused permission to bore?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I must have notice of that question.
  Captain WRIGHT: Will the names of the firms be made public?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer I gave was that pending definite conclusion of the negotiations it is not proposed to publish the names.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will this agreement involve any compensation to the landowners other than making good any damage done?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I must have notice on the question of terms.

  HONOURS.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether an opportunity will be given to this House to discuss the question of the responsibility of Prime Ministers in regard to the recommendations they submit to the King for the bestowal of honours?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no reason to think that there is any general desire for such a discussion.
  Mr. LYNCH: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that an ex-Prime Minister declared that he had made a recommendation for the Garter on account of the wounds inflicted by newspapers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I heard that statement, but it was not quite in that form. The two things occurred simultaneously,

  1155
  and it did imply that the value of Lord Kitchener's services were impressed upon his mind at the moment by the attacks.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Minister of Reconstruction, in one of his schemes, proposes to make everybody a knight after the War?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the surprise created by the title which has been bestowed upon the Mayor of the borough that he represents?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend to the Prime Minister that in future, when any gentlemen are recommended for these distinctions, their respective qualifications should be discussed in this House before the titles are conferred?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am hardly prepared to make that recommendation. If it were possible to have such a discussion, it would have to be at a time when the other Members did not want to be present.

  CANAL TRANSPORT.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the congestion of goods traffic on the railway system of this country and to the facilities offered by the canal system of the country for the transport of heavy goods, he will recommend the various Departments of Government concerned with the transport of war and other stores to utilise the canals to their fullest capacity?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The various Departments of the Government concerned with the transport of war and other stores are fully aware of the desirability of utilising the canals to their fullest capacity, and they are arranging for the transport of any commodities that can suitably be conveyed by canal so as to relieve the railways. Representatives of the War Office and of the Ministry of Munitions sit on the Canal Control Committee.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether all these boats now existing on the canals have been manned?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, I believe so.

  AMERICAN SECRET SERVICE.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the information afforded by Lord Reading, containing a request that the publication of the disclosures by Mr. Rathom, of the American Secret Service, should be discontinued; would he say if this request is at the instigation of the American Government or of Lord Reading personally; if he would say whether it is proposed to accede to this request; and for what reasons it is considered in the public interest that such publications, which have appeared in all the Allied Press, should not be permitted to appear in the British Press?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

  IMPERIAL WIRELESS STATIONS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the statements as to the identification of Government officials in the operations of German wireless undertakings, he will consider the desirability of setting up a Committee to inquire into and report upon all Government transactions in connection with wireless undertakings during the past- ten years?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the public feeling in this matter, which was discussed in this House the day before yesterday, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it in the public interest to clear the Government's connection with this extraordinary political ramp?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is-asking the same question, but in rather-longer words.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the attempt made by Mr. Godfrey Isaacs to blackmail a Member of this House while he was Postmaster-General for the purpose of forcing him to grant a

  1157
  Government concession favourable to the Marconi Company; and whether the Law Officers of the Crown have considered the desirability of instituting criminal proceedings against Mr. Godfrey Isaacs in this case?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the statement made by the Attorney-General on the adjournment on Tuesday last.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a leading article in one of the official organs of His Majesty's Government this morning to the effect that this case should be brought for public trial, and are we to understand that that has the approval of the Government or are we to understand that the Government wish to hush this matter up?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member need not understand the last part of the question. As regards the first part. I have not seen the article in the paper to which he refers.
  Mr. BILLING: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the leader in the "Daily Mail" this morning?

  AIR RAIDS INTO GERMANY.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement that Germany is prepared to refrain from air attacks on this country providing British raids over German territory cease; and whether, having regard to the avowed policy of the Government that British air raids into Germany were in no sense reprisals but legitimate acts of war, he will accept this indication from Germany as an expression of the success of our new aggressive air policy, and, in consequence, redouble British aerial activity over German towns?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I have seen certain statements in the Press. As regards the second part of the question, the Government are doing everything in their power to make the raids into Germany effective.
  Mr. BILLING: Can this House understand that the raids which are being carried out into Germany are considered
  1158
  by His Majesty's Government as legitimate acts of war, and will not be discontinued in the event of the enemy squealing on the point of reprisals?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The House does understand that they are, in our opinion, legitimate acts of war, but I by no means say that they are not undertaken as reprisals.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. TILLETTasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the increased coat of living amounts to more than 100 per cent. since the allowance to soldiers' and sailors' dependants was determined, if he will consider the need of a 50 per cent. increase in all allowances
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to previous replies on this subject.
  Mr. TILLETTasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that men are discharged from the Army under medical jurisdiction alleged to have contracted diseases prior to the War, although passed as medically fit, he will take steps to secure the relief of necessitous cases of the men and their dependants?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to take this question, but I am not quite clear what it is that the hon. Member wishes to be done. If a man is discharged for a, disability which he is considered to have had on entering the Army, which has not been aggravated by his service, he is given a gratuity; if the disability is shown to have been aggravated by his service he may receive either a gratuity or a pension, according to the degree of his disablement, on discharge. I have no reason to think that the State is doing otherwise than discharging its full responsibility towards these men.
  Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Pensions Minister, with regard to the number of discharged men awaiting training, whether he is now able to make any further statement as to more satisfactory arrangements for payment of allowances to them in the interim period before their training begins?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am pleased to be able to announce that the payment of allowances to men who are awaiting a course of training is now sanctioned, and that, subject to certain conditions, men in this position shall receive the equivalent to the full disablement rate of pension, with children's Allowances in addition, for a period which will ordinarily not exceed four weeks. An instruction setting forth the precise terms of the arrangement will be issued as soon as possible.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the period of four weeks dated from the date of selection?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As soon as a man has been selected as suitable for training, the allowance will be made payable for a period of four weeks while waiting to be taken into the place.
  Sir M. BARLOWasked the Pensions Minister, with regard to the case of Private T. Maxwell, late No. 17752, King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment, son of Mrs. Maxwell, who lives at 16, Richmond Place, off Cross Lane, Salford, whether he has now ascertained under what circumstances the deduction of £8 19s. 7d., referred to in the correspondence with the Ministry, was made; whether he is aware that this correspondence has been going on since December, 1916; and will he say why the Ministry or the Paymaster, who states that he has sent all the correspondence to the Ministry, have not settled the matter?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Pension has been issued in full to Mrs. Maxwell from 4th April last when she became entitled to a Grant under the Regulations which came into operation on that date. There appears to have been an over-issue of separation allowance during the soldier's life time but no recovery is being made from pension on account of that, which is a matter for the paymaster and the War Office.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Pensions Minister whether, in the case of the death of the wife of a soldier with children, any allowance in addition to the motherless rate for children can be paid for a guardian or foster-mother; and, if so, by whom and under what conditions?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If the home of the soldier is being maintained, a local committee may make up the
  1160
  motherless rate for children to the amount which the wife was receiving in respect of herself and her children under ten (a) Part II., of the Special Giants Committee's Regulations.
  Sir G.TOULMIN: Do I understand that if the same home is being kept up, the addition may be made, but that if the children are removed to any other home, it may not be paid?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; that is so.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that a number of cases have come before the Dundee Parish Council of the insufficiency of the pensions allowed, one case being that of a woman with four children, whose husband was killed in France last April, who received 31s. a week for six weeks, and was then given a pension of 28s. 9d. a week, upon which it was impossible for them to exist, and that the council granted temporary relief and contended that these amounts should be increased; and if he will say what steps, if any, are being taken to remedy this state of matters?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have had many representations made to me as to the inadequacy of the pensions and allowances for widows and children which can be granted under the existing Royal Warrants. The question of increase is at present under consideration, and until it is determined I cannot usefully make any further statement.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister what powers, if any, local pensions committees have to grant allowances to guardians of motherless children whose fathers are killed or die while serving in the Navy or Army or as a result of wounds or sickness attributable to such service; and if any instructions covering such cases have been, or will be, issued to local committees?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Local committees have no direct power to grant allowances to guardians of motherless children in the circumstances set out in the hon. Member's question except that they may continue for twenty-six weeks following the death of the father any allowance granted by them under Part II., Regulation 10 (a). Where, however, there are-special circumstances it is open to a local

  1161
  committee, after the expiration of the period of twenty-six weeks, to make a recommendation to the Special Grants Committee, who are prepared, in suitable cases, to sanction a temporary allowance to a guardian of a soldier's children who has been acting in that capacity in the home of the soldier to support the home until suitable arrangements can be made.

  COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE RAVITAILLEMENT.
  Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of Russian officers and officials employed in the Commission Internationale Ravitaillement have been relieved of their duties; and what steps the Government proposes to take to secure employment cither in the Army or else where for these officers whose services have been dispensed with through no fault of their own?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, such steps as are possible are being taken to meet these cases.

  INCOME TAX (DWELLING-HOUSES).
  Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a committee of ministers of the Presbyterian Church of England has called his attention to a grievance under which they believe they suffer in having to pay Income Tax, Schedule A, for their houses at the rate of 5s. in the £, no matter how small their earned incomes may be; whether he is aware that it was owing to a mistake or oversight in drafting that relief in such cases was not granted in 1914; and whether he will, in the forthcoming Finance Bill, provide that any person occupying a dwelling-house in respect of any office or employment shall be entitled to relief from Income Tax in respect thereof at the same rate as on his earned income, except so far as he is entitled to recover the tax from some other person or persons by way of deduction or otherwise?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In 1894 the Courts upheld the contention of a minister of the Free Church of Scotland that the annual value of his manse could not be regarded as part of his income for Income Tax pur-
  1162
  poses in determining his claim for the allowance of the statutory abatement. Consequently, a minister of a church occupying his manse under similar conditions is entitled to exclude the annual value of his manse in calculating his total income from all sources for purposes of exemption, abatement, or children's allowance—a privilege which is inconsistent with the present contention that the annual value of the manse should be included in his income for purpose of obtaining "earned" income relief.

  SMALL HOLDINGS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of advancing to county councils loans of money which would be available to enable suitable and approved returned soldiers and sailors to stock small holdings they might wish to settle on?
  Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture to answer this question and to refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Committee on the Settlement of Soldiers and Sailors on the Land presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks, Part I. (Command Paper 8182), which did not find itself able to recommend advances of capital to ex-service men for the stocking of small holdings. At present the Board do not propose to depart from this recommendation.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (UNIFORM).
  Mr. BILLINGasked whether it is necessary for the Minister of State for Air to apply to the Treasury before making a special Grant to all officers in His Majesty's Air Force to cover the initial cost of the new Air Force uniform now to be instituted; if so, if such application has already been made; and whether the Treasury have considered or are prepared to favourably consider it?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, and the application is now under consideration by the Treasury.
  Mr. BILLING: When is it likely to be announced, having regard to the fact that many of these officers have been called on to buy their uniforms, and it is essential to their financial status that they should know whether they are to be called on to pay for it or not?
  Major BAIRD: Nobody has to buy the uniform? It is distinctly stated that they can wear out the old uniform.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the present Order has created a chameleon-like condition among these officers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not monopolise the whole of the time of the House.

  SERBIAN ARMY (PAY).
  Major DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rates of pay in the Serbian Army are, owing to the high cost of living, insufficient to meet the needs of the soldiers of our Ally; whether he can state if any recommendations have been made to the Treasury with regard to this matter; and what steps he proposes to take to see that these recommendations are carried into effect at the earliest opportunity?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No evidence is before me in regard to the first part of the question, and no recommendations have been made to the Treasury since the rates were originally agreed with the Serbian Government.

  LARBERT ASYLUM (NAVAL HOSPITAL).
  Mr. WATTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government have taken over Larbert Asylum, near Glasgow; if so, for what purpose it is to be utilised, and how many persons it will accommodate?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to answer this question. The building referred to has not yet been taken over by the Admiralty, but it is under consideration to do so for naval hospital purposes. The number of sick and wounded that can be accommodated, as at present arranged, will be about 1,200

  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. SUTTONasked the Minister of Labour what decision has been arrived at with reference to the war bonus being paid to insurance agents; and is he also aware of the dissatisfaction existing among these people on account of the rise in the price of foodstuffs?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The inquiry is proceeding as rapidly as can be expected, and until the Report of the Committee has reached me I can make no announcement.

  MUNITIONS.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Minister of Muntiions the names of companies and firms referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure of his Department as showing excessive profits on transactions with his Department, especially those referred to in paragraph 50 of the Report?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): I have no desire to shield any companies or firms, but it would be unfair to mention the names referred to without at the same time submitting the relevant facts in each ease to the judgment of the House—for example, the extent of the increase of production given and the actual as distinct from the nominal capital involved—and also without amplifying certain statements in the Report which, as they stand, have led to false deductions. I cannot make a sufficiently full reply within the limits of an answer to a question, but I hope the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Report after Easter.

    CONTROLLED FIRMS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether lists of controlled firms are supplied for confidential use by trade unions with members employed in the munitions trades; if so, whether any distinction is made between one trade union and another with respect to the supply of such lists; and whether such lists will be sup plied to the Society of Women Welders in the same way as they are supplied to other societies affected?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I find that in two cases applications by trade unions for lists of controlled establishments for their confidential information, were in the early days of the Ministry of Munitions acceded to. Subsequently the practice has been adopted of supplying local labour advisory boards with lists of the establishments which have been declared controlled in their respective areas. In view of the confidential character of this information, it is not desirable to extend the circulation further, but if any trade union desires to be informed whether a particular establishment is controlled, the information is supplied on request.
    Mr. SUTTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what action he intends to take with the employers in controlled establishments to get them to pay the 12½per cent. war bonus to their clerical staffs, having regard to the fact that these people are entitled to the bonus granted by the Committee on Production?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on this matter on 4th March, 1918, to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, to which answer I would add that clerical staffs are not generally entitled to the Committee on. Production advances, not being parties to the awards.
    Mr. SUTTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even the clerical staff have to pay an increased price for foodstuffs, and therefore ought to get the bonus?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Applications for advances made by the clerical staff are always sympathetically considered, but the clerical staff are not parties to the awards.

  PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Local Government Board for Scotland issued a circular letter, No. S/4,721, on 29th December, requesting parish councils in the national interest to forgo their routine visits to boarded-out children, lunatics, and others; how many parish councils, and what councils they are, who have ignored that letter and incurred the expenditure of such unnecessary visitations; what amount these visitations have cost in such instances; and does he propose to insist in future on the money being saved during war-time?
  Mr. MUNRO: The circular referred to was issued to twenty-five of the larger parish councils on 29th December, 1916. I am informed that all but four parish councils thereupon took steps to modify their visiting arrangements. The exceptions were the parish councils of Aberdeen, Govan, Ayr, and Dalziel. Aberdeen did not accept the Board's suggestion, and Govan only partially complied with it. In the cases of Ayr and Dalziel, the visits paid involved practically no travelling. As regards the present position, the only information the Board have is that Glasgow Parish Council are reverting to pre-war visiting arrangements, and the Board are in communication with them on the subject. The actual costs of visits could only be ascertained by a special return. The Board have, however, no control over the expenditure in question, unless the auditor reports it as excessive. I quite recognise that there may be reasons which make it difficult in some cases to comply with the suggestion made, but the matter, in all its aspects, is being further considered.

  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the artificial arm which is issued to maimed soldiers at Roehamption is regarded as unsatisfactory by the men; that a more expensive but a more useful arm is being manufactured in this country; and whether he can see his way to issue to non-commissioned officers and men, as well as to commissioned officers who have lost an arm, the artificial limb referred to?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: Several types of artificial arms are being prescribed by the surgeons at Roehampton, but I am not aware that any special arm issued at Roehampton is unsatisfactory. If the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to supply further information with regard to the more expensive and more useful arm referred to inquiries shall at once be instituted as to its utility.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are the men to whom the arm is to be supplied allowed to express a preference for one arm over another.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes. The wishes of the men are always considered, and various limbs are tried.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the case, and that the men are not given the limbs they like.

  TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS.
  Major DAVIESasked the Minister of Pensions what provision has now been made, in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively, for the training of discharged tuberculous soldiers; whether he can also state the number of occupations or industries suitable for discharged tuberculous men for which this training is provided; and whether he can inform the House what further steps he proposes to take to make further provision of a similar character?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am fully alive to the necessity of providing for the treatment and training men suffering from tuberculosis. Farm colonies at which treatment will be provided are being established at various places in England, Scotland, and Wales, and arrangements are well in hand in connection with colonies in Dorset, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, and North Wales. In the case of Dorset, application forms for admission to the colony have already been sent out, and the Ministry is awaiting replies. The number of industries and occupations in which training will be provided is about twelve, comprising market-gardening, pig-keeping, poultry-keeping, bee-keeping, fruit culture, intensive horticulture, forestry, and rough carpentry and smithy work. Further proposals are under consideration for the establishment of colonies in Edinburgh, Northumberland, Durham, Norfolk, Suffolk, Worcestershire, and South Wales. As the need arises in other areas similar schemes will be considered.
  Mr. HOGGE: How much has the Ministry of Pensions given to any of those establishments?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I could not say, but we have considered it in several cases.
  Mr. HOGGE: In very few.
  Major DAVIES: How many cases hare already been treated?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The first of these places is being opened in Dorset, and forms of application are now being sent in.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: Has the Ministry really contributed to the original cost of any of these schemes?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have already contributed in some cases a considerable sum towards the establishment of these farm colonies.
  Mr. HOGGE: How much?

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (CLERICAL STAFF).
  Sir M. BARLOWasked the Pensions Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the arrangements for reconstituting and co-ordinating the clerical staffs under the Ministry at Chelsea and elsewhere; whether a leading firm of experts was called in to advise as to better arrangements for the correspondence and general staff work at Chelsea; whether they have presented a Report; and whether he can give any information as to the progress made?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It is only in the Awards to Soldiers Branch of the Ministry at Chelsea that reorganisation had become necessary, and this is being undertaken at my request by Sir Woodburn Kirby, who had carried out similar work at the Pension Issue Office for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for War. Sir Woodburn Kirby has presented a Report which provides for a reconstitution and co-ordination of the staff. I have approved this Report, and he is now giving effect to its recommendations. This should result in better arrangements for the correspondence and general staff work at Chelsea.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the actual reorganisation will commence?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It will commence next Monday.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (TRAINING CENTRES).
  Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that, at a recent meeting of the Northern Counties Joint Disablement

  1169
  Committee, a resolution was unanimously adopted expressing surprise and regret at the refusal of the Ministry of Pensions to provide training centres for discharged sailors and soldiers; and, seeing that the surprise and regret are all the more acute because of the public statements understood to have been made by him to the effect that the Government would find the capital for the setting-up and equipment of such centres, will he say what action he now propose to take?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am aware of the resolution. Every effort is being made to provide adequate facilities for training disabled soldiers, but, as the need will probably exist for a few years only, it is obviously proper to make use of existing schools and institutions, and to arrange, when necessary, for their extension, rather than to incur capital expenditure to duplicate provision. If adequate provision cannot be arranged otherwise, the creation of additional centres will be considered, and proposals of this kind are dealt with upon their merits.

  BOOT TRADE.
  Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the French boot manufacturers are stated to be bringing pressure on the French Government to prohibit the importation of boots into France; and what action, if any, he is taking to protect the interests of British trade?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The allegation referred to in the first part of the question had not previously been brought to my notice. I am not aware that any change is contemplated in the existing arrangements, under which boots manufactured in this country are freely imported into France under licence. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the interests of British trade in this connection will not be overlooked.
  Colonel YATE: Will there be the same tariff put upon. French boots brought to this country as the French Government put upon British-made boots sent to France?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  Secondary School Teachers (Ireland).
  Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has decided to appoint a separate Committee to inquire into the position of Irish secondary teachers; if so, whether he has decided upon the constitution of this Committee; and will he say whether the terms of reference permit the Committee to consider the allocation of present Grants, and to make their Report, independent of existing financial arrangements?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative The constitution of the Committee and the terms of reference are at present under consideration.
  Mr. FIELD: Will the terms of reference be submitted to the House?
  Mr. SAMUELS: No, Sir. I am sure that hon. Members who are interested will have an opportunity of being consulted?
  Mr. FIELD: Will hon. Members who have an interest in this subject be consulted before the terms of reference are finally fixed?
  Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I myself have been in communication with various Members in reference to these matters, and I am sure that everything will be done to satisfy them.
  Mr. BYRNE: Has it been decided to give the school teachers representation on these Committees?
  Mr. SAMUELS: No decision has yet been come to as regards the matter, but it is being arranged as far as possible, and I am sure that the teachers will be consulted—at least, I anticipate so.

  County Kildare Lieutenancy.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is intended to fill the vacancy of the office of His Majesty's Lieutenant for the county of Kildare; and, if so, will the declared wishes of the people, through the local governing bodies of the county, in respect thereof be regarded?
  Mr. SAMUELS: An appointment to the vacant office is at present under consideration.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: How long is it going to be considered, having regard to the fact that the late holder of the office died nearly twelve months ago?

  Housing (Ireland).
  Captain SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, having regard to the urgency of the question of rehousing in Ireland and to the fact that steps are being taken to push this matter forward in Great Britain, that a Royal Commission has inquired into the needs of Scotland, and that national housing and town-planning conferences have been held in England, he will take steps to at once summon a national conference for Ireland to deal with this question in all its aspects, and to be thoroughly representative of Irish public bodies, labour organisations, and other interests concerned?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply to his question on the 21st February. The Chief Secretary hopes to circulate a Report upon housing, and when the Report is published he has promised to consider whether the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received a scheme for dealing with the housing problem in the city of Dublin; if Mr. P. C. Cowan, chief engineering inspector of the Local Government; Board, has yet made his report; if he will state when it will be put into practice; and if he will see that this report shall not be pigeon-holed, as other equally important documents have been?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The Chief Secretary has received the report referred to and is at present considering it.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Captain SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the tenants on the Townsend estate, situate at Fir-mount, Rathcoola, and Ballyqurrihy, county Cork, signed agreements to purchase their holdings on 1st May, 1908, and have since been paying interest at the rate of 3¾per cent., which imposes an undue burden on them; and when their holdings will be vested in the tenants and personal ownership thereby established?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The facts are as stated. The estate referred to has not yet been
  1172
  reached in order of priority on the register of direct sales for cash. The provision in the purchase agreements, whereby the tenants, pending the advance of the purchase money and the vesting of the holdings, pay interest on the agreed purchase money, has the effect of giving them a reduction in their rents.

  Mr. Ginnell, M.P.
  Colonel BURNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention had been called to an alleged speech by the hon. Member for North Westmeath at a meeting held in the Square, Kilcock, county Meath, on Sunday, 3rd March, when he is said to have advised the people to form a deputation and demand land from the proprietors, and, in the event of a refusal being given, to take possession of the land they wanted and act as the Sinn Fein party had done in county Clare; and will he say what action is to be taken in the matter?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member's question, as published in the OFFICIAL REPORT yesterday.
  Colonel BURN: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman received any authentic information as to the statement made in that question as to whether the hon. Member for North Westmeath did make these remarks in a speech?
  Mr. SAMUELS: The information which I have is that the hon. Member for North Westmeath made a speech as referred to in the question, and the matter is under the consideration of the Government.
  Colonel BURN: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that there are many other things said in that speech which are a great deal worse than those that are put down in the question?
  Mr. SAMUELS: I have not got the speech before me, and I cannot answer that.

  Proportional Representation.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the desirability of consulting the opinion of a constituency before it is subjected to a system of proportional representation, he would consider the advisability of taking a referendum of the constituency by post, the referendum to explain, if possible, what is meant by proportional representation?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. The matter is one for the Commissioners, who propose to ascertain local opinion by means of inquiries to be held in the areas which they select for the purpose.
  Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that this House no longer represents public opinion in this country and the House of Lords never did, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of consulting the constituencies before this entirely unconstitutional system is inflicted upon them?
  Sir G. CAVE: It is quite an old practice to ascertain opinion by means of a local inquiry to which all persons are entitled to come and state their views.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that sufficient public notice is given, so that any constituent who wishes to oppose this, is able to be present at such an inquiry and to speak if he so desires?
  Sir G. CAVE: I believe such notice is given.
  Mr. GULLANDasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the desire in such places as Birmingham and Nottingham that proportional representation should be adopted; and what procedure should be followed to propose to the Royal Commission that inquiries should be held in such places?
  Sir G. CAVE: With regard to the first part of the question, I have no information. Representations on the subject should be sent direct to the Commissioners, at the office of the Local Government Board.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it right, while Party is suspended, that this body should be goaded by ex-chief Whips into action which they do not spontaneously adopt?

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. McKEAN: I rise to perform a most unpleasant duty—a duty forced upon me in self-defence by an absolutely wanton and unprovoked attack that has been made upon me by a Member of this House. I rise for the purpose of asking the Leader of the House to appoint a Committee of Members to investigate a charge which I feel it my duty to bring against the Member for
1174
South Tipperary (Mr. Cullinan)—one of negotiating to sell his vote in connection with a measure affecting the liquor trade in Ireland during its passage into law, on which occasion the Member for South Tipperary wanted £10 more for his vote than the paymasters for the trade were prepared to give.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman; I understand, desires to move that a Committee be appointed?
Mr. McKEAN: I am going to ask the Leader of the House to appoint a Committee of Members to investigate the charge that I now make.
Mr. SPEAKER: That must be done by a Motion, of which notice must be given.
Mr. McKEAN: Then, Mr. Speaker, can I make a personal explanation, the same as was made by the right hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse), and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman), a few days ago?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to make a personal explanation as to his own position in respect of any charge which may have been brought against him in his action as a Member of the House, he is entitled to do so.
Mr. McKEAN: The facts are on all fours, as I understand the matter, with the facts in the case as between the right hon. Member for East Bristol and Mr. Godfrey Isaacs. I must repeat that it is with the greatest reluctance I bring anything at all of a personal character before this House.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: On a point of Order. I desire, Sir, to ask your ruling as to whether the hon. Member, who has now engaged the attention of the House, is in order in bringing a charge against an absent Member of the House, to whom he has given no notice, for having exercised his right in a debate in a local governing body in Ireland, where he referred in the mildest possible terms to the conduct of that hon. Gentleman?
Mr. SPEAKER: If any hon. Member desires to make, some personal explanation in respect of charges made against him as to his conduct as a Member of the House, wherever the charges may have been made, he is entitled to give an answer here. I do not know anything of the facts in this case.
Mr. McKEAN: The statement just made by the hon. Member, that I gave no notice, shows exactly the kind of statement made by certain hon. Members. I have given due notice to the Member involved in this matter—ample notice.
Mr. O'CONNOR: I must contradict that absolutely. I am well advised of what I implied by my interference a while ago. The hon. Member has not given the hon. Member for South Tipperary—
Mr. McKEAN: I have!
Mr. O'CONNOR: — any notice that he would bring the matter forward to-day.
Mr. McKEAN: I gave him notice that I would bring the matter forward yesterday. I have given the Member for South Tipperary one day's grace. This is a matter concerning the honour of this House. I hereby formally charge this Member with trying to sell his vote on an occasion that I can specify.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to bring charges against other people. He can come here and exculpate himself, but he is not entitled to make charges against others.
Mr. McKEAN: I am not here to exculpate myself. The word "exculpate" applies the idea of having committed some fault. I have committed no fault. The statements made about me by the Member for South Tipperary are absolutely false. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I am going to state them. I have not got an opportunity of stating them yet. I will read the report in reference to which the statements to which I object were made. I have here a copy of the "Freeman's Journal," of the 27th of February last, in which the statements are reported. A resolution was brought forward at a meeting of the South Tipperary County Council, and I will read part of it, and it will make hon. Members understand. [Hon. Members: "Read the whole of it!"] Very well, I will read the whole of it. At that meeting the following resolution, was proposed by Mr. Keating, and seconded by Mr. O'Dwyer:
"That we emphatically protest against any Power offering insult to the head of the Catholic Church and condemn the hypocritical attitude of the British Government towards the Holy See in appointing a diplomatic representative to the Vatican and at the same time secretly conspiring with other Powers to keep the Pope out of all negotiations concerning the peace of Europe, and
1176
that we call attention to the slavishness of the Irish party in abstaining from the House of Commons when the Motion by Mr. McKean was brought forward in connection with this matter. Since the party allied itself with Sir Edward, Carson—"
Sir E. CARSON: Will I be allowed to make a personal explanation?
Mr. McKEAN: It continues:
"better could not be expected from those men who have ceased to represent Ireland.''
The Member for South Tipperary was present on the occasion, and made a statement. I will only read that part of the statement which refers to myself. He said:
"It should be known that. Mr. McKean is not a member of the Irish party.—"
Mr. O'CONNOR: Hear, hear.
Mr. McKEAN: Mr. McKean does not want and did not want to be a member of the Irish party. The late Leader of the Irish party offered to me to be brought back into the party, but I never accepted the invitation—novel! I preferred to be outside the party—
"It should be known that he is not a member of the Irish party, and that he has been removed from the Irish party."
To say that a person has been removed from a party—
Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask that the hon. Member reads the whole of the speech; it is not in order to read only half of a document?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should read that part of the document which he considers is a charge against his personal honour. I would invite him to approach that aspect of the matter, and not to waste the time of the House with irrelevancies.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. McKEAN: I was just going to do that. The hon. Member asks me to read the whole of the speech. I will proceed to do what you are necessarily suggesting to me. I was going to read that part of the speech which refers to me alone and to which I object. It is absolutely false and unfounded. I read the part of the speech to which the hon. Member said that I was removed from the Irish party. I never was removed from the Irish party, and when you say that a Member is removed from a party you imply something worse. It is not for a trivial cause that a member is removed

1177
from a party, and so there is a serious implication in this. There is not a shadow of foundation for the allegation made by the hon. Member for South Tipperary. Not only was I not removed from the Irish party, but there never was a Motion or a suggestion to that effect—never! He went on to make some other remarks in reference to myself. He said
"We are nut to be brought at the tail of that man."
He is the first member, even of that party, who ever expressed himself publicly, or, so far as I know, privately, in those terms. Another member of the same party was heckled in the same way at a meeting of the Catholic Literary Institute of the University of Liverpool. He did not take up this attitude with regard to me. He only said, "Why were you not present when Mr. McKean's Motion was brought before the House? To show you how the opinions of the Member for South Tipperary are not shared by other members of the party, I will read very briefly what this other Member said:
"There were scores of Irish Members in the precincts of the House, but they had no idea that Mr. McKean was talking about the Papacy… He for one would have supported… Neither English nor Irish Catholics were informed by Mr. McKean that lie intended to raise the question."
I read this to show that this member of the party does not share the opinion of the hon. Member for South Tipperary, namely, that no member of the party would co-operate with me. I do not propose to let this matter rest there, and, in order that I may be strengthened to take further proceedings against this man for the charges ho has made against me, and, as I said before, as the character and honour of this House is at stake—[Laughter]— well, if when I charge a man with selling his vote for money, is not that a charge against the honour of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to take up the time of the House in making charges against another hon. Member. He can protect himself by saying that the statements made by the hon. Member for South Tipperary are not in accordance with the facts.
Mr. McKEAN: Do you rule that when one Member here—I do not do this thing gratuitously; I do not bring forward this charge except in self-defence—do you rule, Mr. Speaker, that when it is alleged
1178
that a Member of this House offered his vote for sale it ought not to be inquired into? Do you rule that, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do. The hon. Member is himself making, not answering a charge. We will go on to the next business.
Mr. McKEAN: Will you allow mo just to finish?
Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order: I have given the hon. Member every opportunity. He must not delay the business of the House any further.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. GULLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House state the business for the week after the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Tuesday, the day of reassembling, Supply (Foreign Office Vote).
  On Wednesday and Thursday, Committee stage of the Education Bill.
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Budget will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In the week following.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: Will the House sit to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Motion on the Paper for a Friday sitting was only put down in case, by any accident, it should become necessary to sit to-morrow.
  Resolved, "That the Proceedings on Education [Grants] Report and the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for Easter have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."

  EDUCATION [GRANTS].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional Grants as may become payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to Education in England and Wales."
  Resolution agreed to.

  EASTER RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).
  Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do Adjourn until Tuesday, 9th April"—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  EASTER RECESS (ADJOURNMENT).

    BLOCKADE OF ENEMIES.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: I desire to call attention, before the house rises for the Adjournment, to the question of the blockade. I have realised that this question of the blockade of our enemies is
    1232
    divided into two great parts. There is, first of all, the question of financial blockade, which I do not intend to touch upon to-day, but which has been one of very vital importance since the beginning of the War. The other is the question of the economic blockade, about which I wish to offer a few remarks to-day. In referring to this question, which interests every man, woman, and child in this country, I desire to say at the outset that I fully realise there has been considerable improvement in this matter in the last two years, or year and a half, and especially since the United States of America came into the War. But the blockade, even in that period, has not been perfect. There have been various questions. I should be very glad to find that the Noble Lord had been able eventually to put his finger on the sand and gravel to Holland, and then to hold up the question of cement pending inquiry. We also know that in recent times there have been exports of our articles which have materially affected the position of industries and the conduct of the War in regard to this country, and I would particularly refer in that connection to the question of linen, which I raised not long ago in this House. We discovered that in the case of Switzerland alone the exports of linen from this country had increased by something just over 100,000 yards. The Noble Lord told us that this traffic had been stopped, but this question had assumed greater proportions than we would understand from the figures which at that time came forth. The matter is now one of supreme importance to this country, and one in which, unfortunately, the country was not taking so much interest up till quite recently.
    I refer especially to the exports of linen goods to neutral countries. If we take the Norwegian imports from Britain with regard to linen, there was a very serious increase last year. There is even more to be said with regard to this question than a casual reference to these exports. When the occupation of Belgium took place a big supply of our flax was immediately cut off, and when the fall of Riga took place, I am sorry to say, practically the whole world supply of flax fell into the hands of our enemies. Even advice at that time, apparently, had little effect on the Minister of Blockade. Flax in the shape of yarn, piece goods and linen thread was allowed to leave this country, I believe, in very large consign-

    1233
    ments, notwithstanding that the Irish flax crop in 1917 was the worst they had for ten years. I am referring to the general position of flax up to this year, but perhaps the Noble Lord will refer even to so late a period as the beginning of January of this year. I want to ask the Noble Lord whether it is a fact that this position was at last recognised to be so important that the authorities, finding that the situation had become desperate, actually issued an Order in Council forbidding all export of flax products and linen goods at the commencement of January —I think the date was 8th January. Perhaps the Noble Lord will be able to tell me whether that is so?
    Captain Viscount WOLMER(Assistant-Director, War Trade Department): Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where the linen went to?
    General CROFT: I was mentioning just now linen exports to Norway, but what I am going to refer to now is all linen exports. I shall be very glad to hear from the Noble Lord that this is not a fact, but the figures I got from the Board of Trade as to Switzerland show very clearly there was an increase of 100,000 yards of linen piece goods. I am going to ask if the Noble Lord can tell me whether it is a fact that in January, 1916, we exported 10.535,000 yards of linen piece goods; in January, 1917, 9,954,000; and in January,1918, 7,000,000 yards In the first eight days, to foreign countries?
    On the 29th of January a meeting was held in Belfast for the purpose of encouraging the growing of flax in the British Empire, and the President, Mr. J. C. Crawford, chairman of the York Street Flax Spinning Company, Limited, said:
    "They were so short of flax that the trade was faced with disaster, and that it would be nothing short of a calamity to the Empire if We could not maintain the supply of aeroplane cloth and other necessary supplies made of linen for Government requirements. The breakdown of Russia made us realise how dependent we were on that country for the very existence of our trade, and we were now face to face with the fact that we were threatened with an absolute shortage of raw material."
    Presumably, he would not have made that speech unless he was of opinion that we had carefully to economise our linen supply. I will ask the Noble Lord for information, and I hope he will tell me that my fears are not realised, and that this very large supply, in the face of this calamitous shortage, did not take place. Again, I would ask the Noble Lord if it
    1234
    is not a fact that even up to this year there have been jute yarn exports from this country? Is it not a fact that, up to 1917 even, vast quantities were allowed to leave this country?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Jute?
    General CROFT: Yes. And even as late as last January returns showed an increase. The figures, which, I submit, are substantially accurate, show that in January 1916, the export was 2,000,000 lbs. weight, and in 1917 2,314,000 lbs. weight, and 1918 2,918,000 lbs. weight. Those are the January figures. Now, such is the scarcity which exists in Dundee, that it is necessary, I believe, for a manufacturer to obtain a licence before he is permitted to put any order into work. Those are facts which we would like to be informed about, and are matters of very great importance. They show the blockade, even recently, to have been nothing like complete. They show that we have been exporting—I believe that they have been stopped since January, as far as linen is concerned—material vital for the prosecution of the. War, and which might be used in the prosecution of the War if transferred through those countries to Germany. And in this connection—and I am going to deal With the earlier period—I will only say this, that it does seem to the majority of people in this country that if there is any question whatever of any of these goods reaching the enemy, even if the Noble Lord has no direct evidence, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the interests of this country, and no export ought to take place, and it ought to be completely stopped, as was the case when the Noble Lord stopped the export of cement, after considerable agitation had taken place.
    The reason I want to raise this question particularly this afternoon is owing to what I can only describe as the contradictions and almost the equivocations of Ministers with regard to the indefensible export of essential and vital foodstuffs during 1915 and the first half of 1916 to neutral countries, with the distinct probability of this food ultimately going on to Germany. I have endeavoured to find out recently who was responsible, and I maintain that it is the duty of this House to fix the responsibility for this most serious matter. The right hon.

    1235
    Gentleman on the Front Bench (Lord Robert Cecil)—I do not know whether it is through a mistaken idea of chivalry—refuses to point out to the country who were responsible. I will only say that if they refuse, they will be regarded as accomplices, and the result will be that they will not strengthen the position of the Government. It would be far better if they would say quite frankly who were responsible for these exports. I asked the Noble Lord on 12th March to say who were responsible, and he replied that three different Departments were responsible—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Blockade, and the Admiralty. I think it was on 13th March that I asked the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Leverton Harris, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Blockade), who was responsible, and he gave me a very vague answer, that it was not the Minister of Blockade. I was very glad to hear that.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of BLOCKADE (Commander Leverton Harris): Before March, 1916.
    General CROFT: Before March, 1916, and I then pressed him further and the hon. Gentleman was retained in his seat by the Noble Lord, and, like the Tar Baby, said nothing. I then asked:
    "Whether the Prime Minister would state what Minister was responsible in 1915, and the first eight months of 1916, for the very large and increased exports of essential foodstuffs to Scandinavia, Denmark, and Holland?"
    The Leader of the House replied as follows:
    "At the time referred to the control of exports from this country had not been fully organised, but it would be impossible to say that any one Minister was responsible."
    It is a curious fact that the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) is rather under the impression that three Ministers are responsible, then the Member for East Worcestershire eliminated one, which left two, and the Leader of the House states that no Minister was responsible. At the time referred to, in the year 1915 and in the first eight months of 1916, exports were not organised and no one Minister was responsible? We fed the Germans because no Minister was responsible. I asked him whether he would give a day to discuss this question, and he replied:
    "I have no doubt, if the House thought it desirable to attach responsibility for what happened three years ago, it would do so."
    1236
    These facts have only been realised lately. The enormity of feeding the Germans has only recently come to light, and. the country has only recently realised that while we were going short of those very commodities we sent this enormous volume of food to neutral countries, and I am going to prove to the House that they very largely went on to Germany. The Leader of the House seemed to consider it a waste of time to discuss what happened in 1915 and 1916, and quite properly wanted to get on with the War. But the world knew at that time and realised the dangers of the submarine, and our enemies knew it and our Allies. Only the Government in 1915 and 1916 did not grasp the vital necessity of preserving every pound of food we had in this country. No Minister was responsible during this time, and yet we find that millions of tons of produce and rawmaterial left this country—ore for shells to blow our men to bits with in the trenches, cotton to provide explosives for those shells, and food to feed the Germans who fired those shells—and when we remember the way that not only the fighting men, the soldiers and sailors, have borne the burden of this War and of these continual perils, but the way in which the civil population of this country has gone through the discomforts of this War—when we remember all that, I say it is very difficult for us to remain silent while the poor of this country go short of tea and other commodities at the present time, and when we remember the vast exports that went on by the deliberate policy of Ministers in the years 1915 and 1916. Therefore I submit that I have the right to ask, and the country has the right to know, who was the man, or men, who betrayed their country by feeding the Germans in this manner. Figures in these days are very difficult to get at. The returns are not issued in the same way as they used to be, but, at any rate, we have some figures from the Noble Lord himself which he very courteously and kindly gave us recently.
    I am going to take the case of Sweden alone as an instance. In 1913, the last completed year before the War, our exports to Sweden were 245,000 lbs. weight of tea. For the nineteen months commencing 1915 up to 31st July, 1916, our exports were 7,709,000 lbs. weight of tea. Our exports for this period of one and a half years were thirty times as great as those of 1913. If we take cocoa in 1913,

    1237
    149,000 lbs. weight were sent and then for the nineteen months of 1915–16 not 149,000 lbs., but 13,788,000 lbs. weight went to Sweden. That is an increase over the 1913 period for this nineteen months of no less than 90 per cent. This may have been very good for the cocoa manufacturers in this country, but I venture to think, in the light of all that has happened, it was a crime against the people of our land.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it is not 900 and not 90 per cent?
    General CROFT: That may be; in any case the increase was a very large one—yes; the right hon. Gentleman is right. May I give the total exports of tea to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland in 1915–16? It amounts to 127,000,000 lbs. weight. I bring the deliberate charge against the Government of that day that they were, by allowing these vast exports to go, and knowing that our ships were being sunk right and left, they were actually feeding the Germans, and helping them to sustain the War at that time. May I give the proofs which I said I would give in justification that these things were not meant entirely for the local consumption of the countries to which we sent them? I remember the other day that we found the export of pepper had gone up to Sweden, I think, by 1,000 per cent. Why should Sweden have this sudden taste for pepper? That was in 1916. Here we have the actual facts which, I think, conclusively prove what has been happening. The imports to Germany of foodstuffs from Holland and Scandinavia during 1916, so far as I can make out, were 1,406,000 tons, and if I take the Dutch figures alone, those from Holland, for the first six months of 1914 and 1916, these comparisons are very remarkable. Of butter, in 1914, Holland sent to Germany 8,000 tons; in 1916 she sent 19,000 tons. Cheese, in 1914, 6,000 tons; in 1916, 46,000 tons. Eggs, in 1914, 8,000 tons; in 1916, 20,000 tons. Meat, in 1914, 8,000 tons; in 1916, 40,000 tons. Flour, in 1914, 21,000 tons; in 1916, 52,000 tons. The total increase in these commodities alone of Dutch exports into Germany were of no less than 128,000 tons in 1916 over 1914—a very remarkable fact. Yet, while Holland went on sustaining Germany, we went on sustaining Holland, and that is a fact which the people of this country at the time were not aware
    1238
    of, or I venture to think they would have very soon seen that a Minister was appointed who was responsible for our exports; during those years. What is the other side of the picture? How did Holland treat us in that time? In 1914 Holland sent us 3,652 tons of butter; in 1916 it dropped to 97 tons. Of cheese, in the first year, Holland sent us 9,702 tons; in 1916, 668 tons. Eggs, in 1914, 4,595 tons; and in 1916 it dropped to 591 tons. Of meat, in 1914, Holland sent 34,000 tons—I am giving rough figures without the hundreds —and in 1916 this dropped to 1,630 tons. Potato flour, in 1914, Holland sent us 15,50c tons, and in 1916 this dropped to 6,932 tons. Holland, a country which fed us in peace-time, deserted us in war. Whilst Holland's supply of food to Germany of these essentials increased by 128,000 tons, her supplies to the United Kingdom decreased by 57,000 tons. The whole of this agricultural export business to Holland is controlled by a certain Mr. Kroeller, who is, I believe, the expert who does all the business for the Netherlands Overseas Trust. I gather from the answer I was given that Mr. Kroeller was the adviser and decided what agricultural produce was to go into Germany, but, if the right hon. Gentleman says that is not so, then I am mistaken. May I put it that Mr. Kroeller is a member of the Netherlands Overseas Trust, probably one of the most influential members, and that he is a gentleman who has made a great amount of money out of the War? I believe that at one time he was in this country a great deal, and was received in one or two Government Departments, where he was welcomed as the ambassador of Holland.
    Lord R. CECIL: I never received him.
    General CROFT: Mr. Kroeller is the head of a German firm; he is an avowed enemy of this country, and the head of this great trust. I want to deal now with the total weight of extra food exported by Holland to Germany in the nine months from January to September in 1914 and 1916. The increase in 1916 over 1914 was: Butter, 15,500 tons; cheese, 59,600; eggs, 16,000 tons; fish, 67,400 tons; meat, 34,800 tons; potatoes, 121,900 tons; potato flour, 31,000 tons; making in all a total increase of 346,000 tons. During the same time the decrease in the Dutch exports to this country of those commodities came to 75,000 tons. When we come to look into these figures, and when we see the enormous increases that have taken

    1239
    place, then I say we have to consider how it was that even a disorganised Government, which had no one to look after this matter after two years of war, allowed this extraordinary change to come about in the complexion of the trade which allowed Holland to increase so enormously her exports to Germany, while at the same time a decrease was going on to this country.
    My next figures are a comparison of 1913, before the War, with 1916. The exports from Holland to Germany in 1913 were: Butter, 19,000 tons, and in 1916, when you would naturally assume no more would go in to Holland, it was 31,000 tons, or an increase of 12,000 tons; cheese, in 1913 16,000 tons, and in 1916 76.000 tons, or an increase of 60,000 tons; eggs, in 1913 15,000 tons, and in 1916 30,000 tons, or an increase of 15,000 tons; fish, in 1913 90,000 tons, and in 1916 155,000 tons, or an increase of 65,000 tons; meat, in 1913 22,000 tons, and in 1916 49,000 tons, or an increase of 27,000 tons. The only de-creases were in potatoes, which decreased from 154,000 tons to 122,000 tons; and margarine, which decreased from 22,000 tons to 3,000 tons. From these figures it will be seen that there was an increase, if you deduct margarine and potatoes, in the supply from Holland to Germany in 1916 as against 1913 of 152,000 tons of foodstuffs, as against a decrease of 51,000 tons of potatoes and margarine, or a total increase to Germany of 101,000 tons. At the same time the decrease to the United Kingdom was 100,000 tons in this connection. In the case of margarine the increase was 59,000 tons to this country, while there was a decrease to Germany of 13,000 tons. I desire to say that because I am very glad to see that there was some slight rectification in the other direction, although it was a very small one.
    This is the policy which the Noble Lord opposite says that he was "proud to inherit from Lord Grey." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that I appreciate how difficult it must have been for him to take up such an office when no Minister was responsible for this vast matter, and. I can fully realise how long it took him to disentangle this trouble. His business may account for some of the small lapses which have taken place since the Noble Lord took over this Department. Lord Grey told us, if in this matter the right rule had been enforced,
    1240
    that almost every neutral would have declared war upon England. How many neutrals have declared war on the United States? I do not believe, with a case as strong as ours, that when these neutral countries could be proved to be feeding our enemies, if you had insisted that they should not export more than in pre-war time there could possibly have been a casus belli. But even if there had been these difficulties, who is the dictating Power, if not the Power which held command of the seas at that time? Who was responsible? Were any licences granted for this export of commodities in 1915 and 1916, and, if so, who were they granted by; and, if no licences were granted, what explanation is there for the conduct of the Government of that time for allowing these goods to go out without licences. It is very difficult to find out who was actually responsible. Was Lord Grey responsible? Was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) responsible or was neither of them responsible? Was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) responsible? If they were, I ask the House, in view of the facts I have put forward, is impeachment too mild for these right hon. Gentlemen? I ask is impeachment too mild to be adopted towards those right hon. Gentlemen, if they can be proved to be guilty?
    Germany was in great straits in 1916, and up to the harvest of 1917. At that time we were informed that it was touch and go as to whether Germany could maintain her position, and prevent her people from starving and maintaining the morale of the German people. Is it not a fact that the figures which I have given might have made all the difference as to whether Germany would have had to come out of the War or whether she would be able to prolong the agony of this conflict? I maintain that our blockade was one of the main factors in enabling Germany to continue this struggle. The people in this country do not understand why the House of Commons allows these things to go by unnoticed. When we realise that all this traffic was going on by which it was possible for Germany to be helped and assisted in order to kill our men, when I am asked why we want to refer to questions which happened two or three years ago, I reply that soldiers and sailors who have failed in time of war are called upon to suffer for even a momentary

    1241
    failure of duty the death penalty, whilst Ministers who pursue a deliberate policy of this kind for two years, with frightful consequences to the community and the whole of civilisation, go scot-free.
    This kind of thing cannot go unnoticed. Our political life has already become suspect in the eyes of our countrymen because we allow these mistakes to go unpunished. Every one of us here is responsible, and unless we demand action and information which will fix the true blame, then our countrymen will think we are accessories to this crime of feeding the Germans in time of war. I believe the country demands that it shall be told who it was who betrayed them in this respect, who was responsible for sending all these vast supplies out of the country, leaving us short. I hope that the Noble Lord will not adopt the policy which he has adopted at Question Time when this matter has been raised, and I hope he will not endeavour to camouflage the House, and even though he has to let the cat out of the bag, I hope he will tell us who were the Ministers responsible for this policy at the beginning of the War. I hope he will not have any foolish mistaken idea on this question, for the simple reason that the country wants to know who is responsible, and the people are determined to have the truth.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: While I find myself very much in agreement with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member, there are certain points on which I find myself opposed to him. As regards the export of food from this country to Holland during recent periods, I agree that the matter requires some explanation as to how it came about that with an impending shortage of food here we continued to send large quantities of food to Holland in face of the known fact that Holland was increasing her exports of food to Germany and that Holland was decreasing her exports of food to this country. I am not in possession of any official secret, but I have endeavoured in my own mind to try and find a possible explanation of this apparently inexplicable thing, and the suspicion which has formed itself in my mind is that we were bound by some agreement, possibly what is called a rationing agreement—an agreement entered into with Holland, perhaps, before my Noble Friend came upon this sphere of activities—the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—but we were bound by
    1242
    a rationing agreement entered into at one period between the then Government of this country and neutral countries. If my memory serves me rightly—I have no special knowledge, I only know what has transpired in this House; and what has been stated elsewhere—the basis of the rationing agreement was that the neutral countries were to receive their pre-war rations of certain commodities. If such an agreement were made there must have been an oversight, because, apparently, no provision was inserted to the effect that the pre-war, ration was to be based on the assumption that the rationed country should continue to export to this country our pre-war ration. I do not know if I have made that quite clear, but I think it is evident that any rationing agreement of this nature ought to have contained a clause which said, "We will agree to your obtaining certain rations of certain commodities on a pre war basis, on the assumption that your exports of commodities to this country are maintained on a pre-war basis also, and that your exports of commodities to enemy countries shall not exceed the pre-war basis." Apparently no such provision was inserted, with the result, as far as I can see, that although a country like Holland was increasing her exports to our enemies, and was decreasing her exports to us, we still continued to say, "You are entitled to your pre-war: ration, even although you have made this fundamental change in the basis of the agreement."
    Having said that, I would like to deal with the broader question of the statistics in connection with the export to neutral countries, or perhaps I should say in connection with the imports of neutral countries of various commodities which have been much commented upon. Personally, I have always held the view that nearly all these statistics are misleading. I do not think I have even seen a single set of statistics published or quoted which is what might be termed a scientific set of statistics, because one set of statistics for example gives, say, the exports from the United States of America to certain countries, ignoring all the exports from other countries, while another set of figures give the exports from the United Kingdom to Sweden, ignoring all other considerations. Statistics of that kind really are laughable and ludicrous, or they would be so were there not a tragic side of the case. They mislead people of

    1243
    small statistical education. It is quite possible for a person to be highly educated in every other respect and yet to be statistically ignorant, and statisticians admit the fact that it is only men in the habit of dealing with statistics who really appreciate how misleading they can be.
    Take, for example, the question that we have sent within a certain period from this country huge quantities of goods to Sweden—a volume so great that it exceeded by 90 or 900" per cent., I do not café which, the quantities which we sent from the country to Sweden in pre-war years. It is important to ask what was the destination of these goods. Were not probably large quantities going through Sweden to Russia? In some cases it may be not. In other cases it was undoubtedly so, and if you take any particular item by itself you are sure to arrive at a misleading conclusion. There is, I believe, only one safe way of dealing with the matter, and that is to take Germany and the adjacent neutral countries as one great area, to ascertain what were the imports of the various commodities into that area during a certain period, arid then to compare that period with a later period. If you do that it will very often show that the apparently extraordinary increase in the imports of neutral countries from outside is due to the fact that those goods are being imported not in order to be sent into Germany, but that they are being imported to supply the deficiency caused by the failure of Germany to supply that country with goods in the manner in which she had done before the War.
    I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Noble Lord and his colleagues at a certain point stepped into a very delicate position—an inherited legacy—which I think we must admit was a very unenviable legacy, because it was a policy which was so obviously inadequate that it had to be changed. It is, of course, extremely difficult for any Minister or set of Ministers or any Department to turn right round and change a policy at once. Some time must always be allowed for a horseman to get into the saddle, to take the reins into his hands, and to turn his horse's head in an opposite direction to that in which it was proceeding before. The difficulties in regard to the neutrals were immense. I was often struck by the fact that the man in the street or the writer in the newspaper
    1244
    spoke or wrote about "the problem of the neutral." There was no such thing as a problem of the neutral. It was the problems of the neutrals because there was a separate problem in connection with each neutral country. Every country, and particularly Sweden, had to be handled differently from other centres; Sweden, because we had to use her in order to send munitions of war to Russia. America had to be handled differently from other neutrals, because upon the handling of America—her proper handling—depended whether there might not be arrayed in hostility to us a great league of neutrals with America at its head. People who criticise past errors are, I think, sometimes inclined to minimise the immense difficulties which existed at that time and which were familiar to those of us who, like myself, during that period of three years from an obscure background watched closely and attentively the development of our policy.
    General CROFT: Why was not a responsible Minister appointed to do it?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. It is one which should be addressed to a Minister and not to a Back Bench Member. We have not merely to dwell upon the mistakes that have been made, but to consider also the practical successes which have been achieved in one way or another by various means which are familiar to all of us who have studied the subject, but which it would be unwise to mention more specifically. By various friendly means we have done a great deal during this year or two to stiffen the blockade, as far as that could be done by such means. But if I were asked to name one of the great successes upon which I think the Government, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Noble Lord can congratulate themselves, it is that as a result of this policy, whatever its mistakes may have been, we have the United States of America fighting on our side to-day instead of remaining possibly as a critical neutral. That is such an important factor in the waging of the War that, personally, I am inclined, while fully admitting the mistakes that have been made, fully admitting that a start was made in the wrong direction, fully admitting also there has been a certain amount of vacillation, weakness, and lack of judg-ment—in spite of all that I am inclined to condone a great deal of it in view of that, one great practical success that as a

    1245
    result of the policy, on the whole, we have now with us as our Ally and fighting with us in this War, the great United States of America.
    Lord R. CECIL: Before I deal with the speeches which have been made this afternoon about the blockade I desire to fulfil the promise I made to the hon. Member at Question Time that I would make a statement on the subject of Dutch shipping, The House will recognise, I am sure, in the light of the Rebates which have recently taken place on the shipping position, that the warfare which has been waged by Germany on the sea has not been directed only against her enemies, but has been directed against the shipping of the world Every nation, neutrals not less than belligerents, has been closely interested. In my judgment, and indeed as the facts make perfectly evident, every nation has been profoundly interested in the result of these lawless proceedings, and it has, therefore, followed that in our View, in the view of this Government, and of the Allied Governments, it has been a matter of deep regret that any Government should have appeared to assist these operations of Germany by not making the fullest use of the shipping which belongs to her.
    5.0 P. M.
    That being so, it has been our endeavour together with the Allied Powers for months past, by negotiation and agreement, to induce Holland to make the. fullest possible use of its shipping, and in the fulfilment. of that policy we negotiated with Holland an agreement providing for a number of other matters—matters with which the hon. and gallant Member's speech was concerned; exports of Dutch goods and the like—but dealing particularly with the employment of Dutch shipping. On the 4th of January last, I think it was, the representatives of the Dutch Government and our negotiators— the negotiators of the whole of the Allied Governments—arrived at an agreement, the substance of which was, as far as ships were concerned, that the Dutch would permit their ships to be chartered, to be used, for Allied purposes, excepting those which were necessary for the essential requirements of Holland herself. There was a provision in that agreement that the ships in question should not be required to sail in what is called the danger zone, the zone which the German Government arrogate to themselves the right to describe as the danger zone.
    1246
    There was some difficulty and considerable delay in the ratification of that agreement by the Dutch Government, and what was called mo dus vivendi was arrived at, by which for one voyage, with certain limitations and conditions, Dutch shipping lying in the harbours of the United States, and not being utilised, of which there was a considerable quantity, should be chartered for Allied purposes for one voyage; and it was part of that modus vivendi that tonnage up to 150,000 tons might be used, for the purpose of carrying cargoes for Belgian relief, provided that for every ship that sailed from the United States with cargo of that kind a ship should be allowed to sail from Holland. Of course the ships with the Belgian relief cargoes go to Rotterdam, and the other ships would come from Holland. That was the position arrived at. When it was attempted to put this modus vivendi into operation the Dutch Government informed the American Government that they were not permitted by the German Government to carry out that part which provided for allowing a Dutch ship to sail from Rotterdam in exchange for the ship sailing with the Belgian relief cargo. Apart from that, for more than two months after the 4th of January we received no reply from the Dutch Government as to whether they would or would not accept the general provisions of the shipping arrangement, and the House will understand that that lapse of time made a very material difference in the conditions of the agreement. Had the agreement been put into effect early in January it would have been open to the Allied Powers to make arrangements with their shipping whereby they could have used the Dutch shipping in routes outside the danger zone and put other shipping into routes which involved crossing the danger zone. But since the Dutch Government were unable to give us a reply after this length of time, it is evident we were not able to make these arrangements so as to meet the considerable claims on our shipping which at this time of the year naturally arise, and the position had become in consequence entirely different. Moreover, after our experience with the modus vivendi, the Allied Governments felt that it might well be, even if the agreement were confirmed, that the Germans might take some action which would render it impossible to be carried out. For instance, they might by extending their danger zone make the whole purpose of the agreement nugatory.

    1247
    In these circumstances we felt compelled to inform the Dutch Government that as they had not agreed to the original agreement we were unable now to make any agreement which did not provide for the utilisation of the Dutch tonnage without any condition at all. But in order to make it clear that we had no wish whatever that by any such agreement any Dutch interest should suffer we, apart from all the ordinary arrangements as to hire and insurance, offered that if any Dutch shipping were sunk by enemy action in the danger zone it should be replaced at the end of the War. I venture respectfully to say that that was a pretty generous offer in the circumstances. However, the Dutch Government felt itself unable to agree except under conditions, one of which was that no Dutch ships should be asked to carry war materials. It is quite plain that in the present stage of the War a ship that is unable to carry war material is of very little value to anybody at all, because almost everything is, more or less, war material. Therefore, I think the House will agree that it was impossible to regard that as an acceptable reply from the Dutch Government. In these circumstances the Allied Governments have felt that the only course open to them is to exercise what they believe to be their undoubted and unquestionable right to requisition the services of any neutral vessel found in their ports, under what I believe is called technically the right of angary. Of course, I should explain that any belligerent Power exercising that right is bound to take care that no injury is inflicted on any private interests at all, but that on the contrary that every precaution is taken to see that private interests are not affected in any way. As far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, I can say, without any kind of qualification, or modification, or reserve, that the British Government is desirous, in the exercise of this right, to do so in a way which is the most careful and least obnoxious in which the right can be exercised. They are prepared, in fact, to make provisions which I think will carry out that desire.
    They will enter into an agreement, if they can, with the owners as to the rates of payment for hire and the values for insurance. They will undertake that the ships shall be returned at the end of the War to their owners. They will further compensate
    1248
    those owners for any losses caused to the shipping by enemy action, and they are prepared to abide by their offer to replace after the War any ship lost by enemy action by another ship within the shortest possible period alter the conclusion of peace. They will, of course, provide for the repatriation of the crews, and will take care that they are treated with every possible courtesy and consideration. Further, they naturally must give an undertaking that any Dutch ships which after this date leave a Dutch port will not be brought into Allied service except by agreement. That is evidently right and fair, because otherwise Dutch ships that sail would be subject to requisition themselves. The Government is perfectly prepared to give an undertaking that that shall not happen. Further, they have had brought to their notice that, owing: to circumstances, there is a very, very great want of wheat in Holland, and they, with the assent of the United States Government and the other Allies, have undertaken that 50,000 tons of wheat, or an equivalent quantity of flour, shall be put at the disposal of Holland in a. North American port as soon as possible, and another 50,000 tons in a South American port, and it is hoped that the Netherlands Government will immediately send out such part of the tonnage remaining in Holland as may be necessary to convey this grain. Of course, the associated Governments guarantee, as far as it is in their power, that these ships shall enjoy immunity from delay and detention, and shall receive every facility.
    I mentioned just now that this question of shipping was only part of the general agreement; and, as far as we and our Allies are concerned, we are perfectly prepared to proceed with that general agreement, which provides for necessary supplies to Holland and for the interchange of goods from Holland. Finally, we are prepared to say this, that though we believe that the Dutch shipping now in Dutch ports—that is, ports in Holland or the Dutch Colonies—is sufficient for Dutch purposes, yet if it shall be found that it is not so, we will make arrangements to provide for all Dutch need. I merely mention these things to explain to the House, to prove to the House, that when I said that the Allied Governments were anxious in this matter to meet the Netherlands Government in every way, it is not a mere way of speaking, but a real, genuine declaration

    1249
    of intention which the Government have every purpose to carry into effect. That is really all I have to say about this Dutch shipping.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: How many Dutch ships are there in Allied ports being held up with the intention of utilising them, and also what action has the Dutch Government taken in regard to it?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know that the Dutch Government have taken any action. They had explained their view in reference to an earlier transaction. They do not take the same view as we do about these cases. The Dutch tonnage is very considerable, but I should not like to commit myself definitely to figures. By far the largest part is in American ports. Perhaps 450,000 tons of shipping is in American ports. In other ports of the world there would be between 300,000 and 400,000 tons, but I should not like to commit myself definitely.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Seeing the importance of the question, would it be possible for the Government to lay Papers upon the Table now so far as they have gone? I presume a Note was sent by the Allied Governments. Is it not fair that this country should know exactly what are the terms of that Note?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will consider that matter, but I think I have given a fairly full account of the transaction, and I do not know that there is anything further that I can lay upon the Table.
    Colonel YATE: If these ships have not been taken over already, will they be taken over now without any further delay?
    Lord R. CECIL: I believe that the American Government have taken steps to-day with that object, and I believe that we are doing the same. I now pass to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (General Croft). It was a speech full of figures, and he is probably as conscious as I have been when I have had to speak that it is an exceedingly intricate subject to deal with. It depends entirely upon details and figures, a close examination of those figures, and a proper understanding of them. There are two separate things. There is the question of the conservation of essential supplies to this country and the question of blockade, properly so-called. They are two entirely different things. It may very well be, and
    1250
    it is undoubtedly true at the present moment, that we have to prevent the export from this country, and that the United States Government have to prevent the export from the United States, of a number of goods which, from the purely blockade point of view, might perfectly safely go to neutral countries, but they are necessary for our own needs. Strictly speaking, that is not a matter of blockade at all, and my knowledge is not very much more than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It has not been any part of my Departmental duties—of course, as a, member of the Government I am responsible more or less for what the Government have done—to look after the conservation of supplies to this country. Since the appointment of the Food Controller in food matters it is his duty. Before his appointment, I presume that it was the duty of the Board of Trade. It is rather difficult for me to be certain, but I believe that was so. I ought to make this explanation. In a number of matters, such as munition requirements of the Army and Navy, and so on, other Departments come in—the War Office, the Admiralty, or the Munitions Department, as the case may be. Therefore, as far as the conservation of supplies is concerned, it is impossible to give the hon. and gallant Member the head of any particular Minister on a charger. That cannot be done. He must define exactly the particular article of which he complains, and then, if he thinks it is desirable, we will search for the culprit.
    With regard to the figures, I will not deal with them in too great detail, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants any further details, I shall be only too glad to furnish him with them. As to tea and cocoa—I am not sure that he mentioned them in his speech, but he has asked several questions about them—I think, unquestionably, if you look at the matter merely from the point of view of whether tea or cocoa ought to go into Germany, that too much was allowed to go in 1915, and perhaps even in the early months of 1916, into the neighbouring neutrals. On the other hand, in the case of tea certainly, and to some extent in the case of cocoa, dealing with it merely from the blockade point of view, it is not quite a clear case. In the first place, undoubtedly a good deal of those things went by way of Sweden to Russia and not to Germany. The whole course of trade has been upset by the War, and

    1251
    that has happened much more since the War began than it did before the War. There is this also to be considered, and I think it also applies to cocoa: If Germany spent her money on tea, she had less to spend on other things. You will find that very largely urged by German writers in German newspapers. I remember seeing a statement in a German newspaper which said that every mark that was spent on tobacco meant so much less butter imported from neutral countries into Germany. There is something to be said from that point of view. I do not put it higher than this. If you are to be lax in anything in a blockade it is far better to be lax in a matter like tea or tobacco than it is in essential foodstuffs or in essential materials for the manufacture of munitions of war. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned sand and gravel. That has nothing whatever to do with the blockade, nor, strictly speaking, has the cement question, though I do not wish to shirk responsibility.
    As to linen, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as my information goes, there is no case about linen at all. He said that there have been exports of linen in January and February of this year to Scandinavia and to Holland. As far as the border neutral countries are concerned, so far as I am informed, none went there at all. Taking it rather larger and taking the general aspect of the matter since the beginning of 1916, I find these figures. Take hemp, linen yarn, and linen piece goods together. That is the only fair way of doing it. It is no use taking linen piece goods alone. You must take the raw material of those piece goods if you are really to see what is going on. If a country gets more piece goods and less raw material it is the same as if it got less piece goods. Taking them together, the pre-war quarterly average for the four countries was 1,603 tons; the quarterly average for the first half of 1916 was 940 tons, about 60 per cent.; the third quarter, 490 tons; the fourth quarter, 606 tons; the first quarter of 1917, 391 tons; the second quarter, 290 tons; the third quarter, 362 tons; the fourth quarter, 131 tons; and the quarterly average for the two months of this year was 2 tons. Therefore, I do not think that there is the slightest case as far as linen imports to Northern neutrals are concerned.
    General CROFT: I am particularly anxious not to be wrong in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that there have been imports into Norway. The Board of Trade returns disclose them. The imports of thread in October, 1917, were 1,780.000 lbs. There were also imported into Switzerland, a contiguous country 100,000 lbs. of piece goods.
    Lord R. CECIL: You must not take it because there has been an increase from this country into Switzerland that there has been an increase in the total imports of linen into Switzerland. Switzerland before the War got a great many of these goods from Germany, and she is not able to get them from Germany now.
    General CROFT: I agree with the Noble Lord that he is not solely involved in this question. It may be an entirely Board of Trade question, but the speech made at Belfast, to which I have referred, shows the lamentable policy of allowing it to go at all.
    Lord R. CECIL: As a matter of fact, very little linen has been allowed to go since 1916. I will not say that none has gone, because occasional parcels have been allowed to go. I do not wish to go into the detailed causes of the trouble in Ireland, but they are not due to exports from this country. The exports of linen from this country have been restricted to the utmost possible extent for many months past. There are other causes. There was undoubtedly during the earlier months of this War a very great deal of doubt as to how you could carry out the blockade, to what extent it would be safe to carry it out, and by what means it was to be carried on. Undoubtedly there was no attempt at organisation. I do not know that there has even been complete organisation. There was certainly no attempt at complete organisation until the establishment of the Ministry of Blockade. Up till that time the work was distributed among a number of Committees, doing the best they could, and a number of Departments of the Government. The Admiralty did a certain amount, the Foreign Office did some, the Board of Trade did some, there was the War Trade Advisory Committee, the Rubber and Tin Exports Committee, the Cotton Committee, and so on. They were all working. A great many of them exist still—they are essential—but they were working without any single responsible

    1253
    head who co-ordinate their efforts. That was the difficulty which met the Government. As for the blame to be attached for it, I will say a word or two in a moment, but I am not quite clear that the case is so obvious as the hon. and gallant Member would have us believe. If there is, and so far as there is blame to be attached, it would be impossible to single out any particuar Minister. You must take the Government as a whole. Everyone of us who were members in 1914 and 1915 of the first Asquith Government, or of the second Asquith Government, have their share of responsibility to bear. The policy was the policy of the Government, and if there was a mistake, and if one particular Minister may have been more or less responsible than another, it would be very unfair and unjust for anyone of us to try to escape a certain measure of responsibility for that action.
    I have a number of other details mentioned here, but I am afraid I have no time now to go into them. There is one error I want to point out to the hon. and gallant Member, because it really is of importance. He made an attack on Mr. Kroeller, a Dutch subject, whom it would be unfair for me to attack or defend, but I do wish to say a word about the Netherlands Overseas Trust. It is an error to suppose that the Netherlands Overseas Trust had anything to do with the exports from Holland. Its sole duty was, and I think it is still, to receive goods consigned to Holland and guarantee that they should be dealt with only in a manner consistent with the agreements which the Netherlands Overseas Trust entered into, and that part of its duty—though I have constantly heard the Netherlands Overseas Trust attacked—I believe that body has discharged faithfully and well. At any rate, nothing has ever been proved against it. I think it has done its duty, on the whole, with remarkable success. I can only tell the hon. and gallant Member that at a very early stage of my career I asked Lord Faringdon expressly to go to Holland to report on the whole question of the blockade there. He went in great detail into the working of the Netherlands Overseas Trust, and he reported to me that he regarded it as an extraordinarily good bit of organisation, working extremely well, and carrying out its duty with extraordinary fidelity and success. I do not know what other steps I could take. If the hon. and gallant
    1254
    Member can suggest any, I shall be glad to consider them. It is a great pity that perpetual attacks should be made on this organisation, which, in my judgment, has done its duty with great honesty and fidelity.
    The hon. and gallant Member went on—this was really the burden of his observations—to say that we had fed the Germans because no Minister was responsible. May I point out to him, what was very properly said by the hon. Gentleman who followed him, that it is very easy to forget the extreme difficulty under which any Government must labour at the beginning of a war? In the first place, there is the financial difficulty. It is quite true that it is very important—indeed, vital—to prevent anything going to Germany. On the other hand, it is equally vital—this is a fact constantly lost sight of in this House—that we should keep up our financial strength. Until America became our Ally, it was one of the most vital matters in the conduct of the War not to interfere unnecessarily and harmfully with trade. Merely to say, because there is a suspicion that this might reach Germany, although we could not prove it, and although we had no ground for thinking it would, still it might, therefore we will cut off the whole of that trade, would be reckless and improper action, in my judgment, on the part of any Government. That was one difficulty. There was another difficulty, namely, the political difficulty. There was a difficulty inherent in trying to carry out a blockade of an entirely novel character that nobody had ever tried to carry out in the history of the world before, namely, the blockade of Germany through adjacent neutral countries. I need not dwell on that, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has, as I am sure he has, taken the trouble to read carefully the various Debates which have taken place in this House on that subject, he will know that the difficulty has been dilated on constantly, and that more than one Parliamentary Paper has been laid on the Table to explain the matter to Members of this House. Apart from that, there were special difficulties. Until May, 1915, Italy was not one of our Allies. Until Italy was an Ally, any attempt to blockade Germany through neutral countries—Italy being one of them—would be a task which, so far as I can see, having now a good deal of experience, would have been almost impossible

    1255
    to carry out. It is difficult enough with small countries, but when you have a large country, with a large home consumption, you have to distinguish—because that is what you always have to do—between the home consumption and imports which are not merely intended for home consumption, but are intended for ultimate transmission to the enemy country. When you try to carry that out in respect of a large, populous and flourishing country, such as Italy was, I am quite sure it was a task which would have been too difficult to be accomplished successfully. Therefore, I do not myself believe it would have been possible to carry out any really effective blockade of Germany and Austria until Italy became our Ally.
    That was one great difficulty. Then another, and, of course, the greatest of all, was the position of the United States. I am not going to dwell on that. I do not even like to recollect the various discussions we had on blockade matters with that country, which, I am happy to believe now, is one of our closest friends, but it would be absurd to ignore the fact that at that time great difficulties did occur. Our friends in America, not only your official friends, but our unofficial friends, were constantly warning us against pressing the matter too far, and though the hon. Member persists in blaming Lord Grey, in my judgment Lord Grey was right in regarding that danger as the greatest danger against which he had to guard as Foreign Minister of this country. Any impairment at that time of our relations with America was by far the greatest danger which threatened us from external sources. Although it is possible that Lord Grey may have made many mistakes—I do not say he did not—I do not defend Lord Grey or anybody else—on the whole the lines on which he conducted the foreign policy of this country in that respect were right lines, and any Foreign Minister who knew his business would have done much the same thing. That is really all I have to say about the great difficulties in the way of the blockade. When the hon. and gallant Member demands the impeachment of this or that statesman or that some gentleman who did his best for his country should be immediately held up to the odium of his fellow-countrymen. I must consider very carefully whether, if
    1256
    he had been in their place, he would have done any better. The difficulties, believe me, were enormous; the responsibility was tremendous. I am perfectly certain that every one of these statesmen who have served this country since the War have done their best honestly and patriotically, and the suggestion that they have been moved by any unworthy motive—the hon. and gallant Member did not make that suggestion, but it has been made—is absolutely baseless and without foundation. What is true is that the difficulties were very great. That very great mistakes were made and that action ought to have been taken which very often was not taken soon enough, after all only shows that every Cabinet Minister showed that he was also a human being. For my part I suppose I shall not be free from criticism. When my conduct comes to be examined, as I daresay the conduct of all of us will be examined by history or by some more rigid tribunal on which the hon. and gallant Member may sit at the end of the War, I shall be perfectly satisfied if all that can be said against me is that I tried to do my duty and very often failed. All I can say is that criticism which merely look at one aspect of the case and forgets the enormous complexities of the problems which confront Ministers at the beginning of a war, is not really patriotic, and does not really carry out the wishes which I am sure the hon. and gallant Member has very much at heart.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I wish to say a very few words about the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech, for I feel certain that this matter of the taking of the Dutch ships is giving great concern to large numbers of people, and that what the right hon. Gentleman has said has not thrown perhaps as much light on it as is wanted. I asked in the course of his speech if more information could be given to the House, and I will explain why. Apparently the basis of the action of the Allied Governments is what the right hon. Gentleman calls the unquestionable right to requisition any neutral vessel in our ports. That right may exist. If it is a legal right, I suppose that it was quite clearly stated in the Note or communication to the Dutch. It is only right that as this action is being taken the British people, in whose name it is taken, should be made thoroughly conversant with what that legal right is.
    Lord R. CECIL: As I said just now, I think some Papers are being laid—they were laid either yesterday or to-day—dealing with the general principle. If anything further is required I shall be glad to furnish a fuller statement of the principle.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am glad to hear that, because it was not made very clear. Even so, there are other questions which follow. Even if there is a legal right, I presume this is very much the largest exercise of it that has ever been made, so much the largest as almost to constitute a. new situation altogether, where the larger part, I take it, of the shipping of a friendly and neutral country is being taken against their will. The Noble Lord let drop a phrase which showed how serious the situation is. He said naturally the Dutch dislike it—that is to say it is, taken by itself, a rather high-handed proceeding.
    Lord R. CECIL: I did not say that. I said it was very natural that they should not take quite the same view about the case that we did. I hope the hon. Member will recollect that he is speaking as an English Member of Parliament.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The reason why I speak at this moment is because there is grave concern in this country about what is happening. I am not going to say that the Government is wrong. I am going to say that it is creating a critical situation, and that before that situation gets more critical they ought to consider whether it is worth it. They ought to consider what will be said about action of this sort. No doubt it may seem essential to us. We have heard a great deal about military necessity, but military necessity does not justify everything. Beyond that we ought to consider, when we are dealing with a friendly and a neutral people, even if there is going to be some advantage to us in what is being done, what the effect is likely to be on them, and if, as appears from the information that we are getting, the Dutch people strongly disapprove of our action, whether that in itself is not a reason for our Government holding its hand.

    SWANSEA DOCKS.
    Mr. T. J. WILLIAMS: The question which I have to submit for the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade arises at the request of a large number of shareholders who are scattered
    1258
    throughout the United Kingdom and some of whom live in my Constituency, the town of Swansea, and the Swansea Harbour Trust. Complaint arises because certain ports in the Bristol Channel receive financial support from the Government, while the important docks at Swansea do not get any. As a commercial port it is the oldest in the Bristol Channel. Before the War it had always been a successful financial port and it had advantages over all the other ports in the Bristol Channel in the matter of equipment and facilities. It also had the advantage that it was the first and nearest port to the Atlantic. The Swansea Harbour Trust has a capital of about £4,500,000. There are something like 8,000 to 9,000 shareholders, apart from individual money and invested funds representing those of the trustees, and very large amounts belonging to friendly societies. Not long before the War a new dock was constructed known as the King's Dock. The promoters of this undertaking gave it ten years before the revenue would be able to cover the dividend on the capital. This was accomplished in about half that period. When the appeal for the King's Dock was promoted the town of Swansea came forward with the responsibility of the rates of the town to assist up to the extent of £150,000. The whole of this money has been taken up. The area surrounding this important port is the metallurgical centre of the whole Kingdom. If the port ceases to-morrow, your War stops. Over 85 per cent. of the spelter manufactured in the country is produced in this area. Over 80 per cent. of the tinplates manufactured within the area are shipped at Swansea, for commercial purposes chiefly, and only secondly for war purposes. I might also touch on the copper industry and on the very important metal, nickel. Apart from metals, it is the Western port for the shipment of the coal of West Monmouth, Glamorganshire, and Carmarthenshire. We at Swansea have nothing whatever to say against the Government for their kindly treatment of other ports in the Bristol Channel, but in a war of national existence there should be equality of financial treatment to the community interested in these important docks of Swansea.
    It may be suggested that Swansea has its remedy. It may be said that it might put up its dues. This cannot be done. Swansea, together with other ports in the Bristol Channel, belongs to an association whose dues are organised through a com-

    1259
    mittee. Furthermore, if it were possible it would be a means of diverting shipping to other ports. The Board of Trade, in taking hold of the railways, decided that docks which are controlled by railways should also come under any support given by the Government to railways. Swansea has never been in a financial position to ask any railway company to come forward to give it support, and many of these controlled docks which are receiving support to-day from the Government owe it to the fact that they were financially wrong and simply wanted aid. In fact, it amounts to this, that because Swansea required no financial support from railways in the past, it seems to be the position of the Government to wish to tax successful financial management. The Board of Trade has treated Swansea on nothing more or lees than a technicality. If you investigate the point you will find that though the technicalities in the case of the controlled docks in the Bristol Channel may not be quite the same as compared with Swansea, yet there are technicalities which have not prevented those docks having that support from the Treasury which has been denied to Swansea. I consider that the docks of Swansea are of as great national importance as any railroad. The railroads would be unneeded there if it were not for the docks. By giving a preference to certain docks in the Bristol Channel you are creating a financial monopoly, and you are doing another thing which is most important. You are bringing about less employment in Swansea for the benefit of other areas, whereas there should be equality throughout South Wales. This is a point about which the employés in the docks are very much concerned. Swansea and its port do not complain of equality of sacrifice in any sphere arising out of the War, but they complain of want of equality of privilege, which you have denied it. We hear a great deal in reference to reconstruction after the War. A stitch in time saves nine. If you come forward to-day you will save the country thousands of pounds, and by taking control of this dock at Swansea you will be accomplishing a fact which will be of national importance to the community.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I am sure we have listened to the hon. Member's statement with regard to the
    1260
    importance of the port of Swansea with great interest, and I can assure him that there is no need to ask for the sympathy of the Board of Trade in regard to the matter. It is already given, and it has been given on many occasions. Only yesterday the President of the Board of Trade received a deputation from the harbour and dock authorities, upon which Swansea was represented, and he gave a definite promise that he would look into the whole question both as regards Swansea and the very great difficulties that many other ports and docks are in at present. The whole question of the docks is a matter of great national importance at this time, and the importance of Swansea has not been overlooked during recent months. But it is not a question which can be settled merely by the Board of Trade or by one Department alone. The question of the treatment of docks from a financial point of view and from a control point of view differs enormously, not only according to the situation of the dock, but according to the past history of the dock and according to its relations with railways, public or private trusts, or town councils, as happens in some cases. The whole of these relations have to be explored. Up to the present there has been no national policy applied to the whole of the docks of the country, and Swansea, no doubt, to some extent suffers from its virtues in the past. It has tried to paddle its own canoe entirely, and, as a consequence, it is not linked up with some of the other docks to which the hon. Member has referred, and as a consequence of that it has not a financial backing and guarantee on its own account or Government account which have come to these others. I quite recognise that the importance of Swansea at present, from a metallurgical point of view, is exceedingly great, and that it would not only be a disaster to Swansea, but to the country, if anything happened to interfere with the trade of that port; and I can assure the hon. Member that the facts which he has put forward and those which were brought before the Board of Trade by the deputation which was received yesterday will not only receive our careful consideration, but will be followed by an inquiry and, I hope, by immediate action. I will give the hon. Member the undertaking that the question of Swansea Dock, as well as the general question of the docks, will receive our attention in the very near future.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: Yesterday I gave notice that I would raise to-day, on the Adjournment, certain problems affecting the Pensions Warrant, on account of what seems to me to be the still unsatisfactory nature of several existing provisions. We had published in the Press a few days ago a Report submitted to the Members of this House by the Committee on Financial Expenditure, presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel), and in that review, from the financial aspect of pension administration, they drew attention to certain customs and habits at Chelsea and elsewhere, which must have indicated to hon. Members who were not fully intimate with all the changes in the Pension Warrants, the justice of a considerable amount of the criticism which has from time to time been made against both the award and the administration of pensions. I refer in particular to the extraordinary statement contained in that Report that it was left to temporary girl clerks in the employment of the Ministry of Pensions at Chelsea to determine what should happen in the case of discharged men whose disability had been assessed by a medical board outside, and to say whether or not that medical report, about which they could have no intimate knowledge, should be sent on to a special medical board for a decision as to the amount of pension which should be paid as a result of the award. That is one indication of the con fusion which still exists on the administrative side at Chelsea. I am one of those who believe that this country has not completed what one has frequently called the active prosecution of the War until they have satisfied the legitimate claims and demands of the men who have been discharged. The point to which attention is drawn in this Report is an illustration of the kind of thing that one means.
    Take another question which is replied to this afternoon in reference to the over hauling of the system at Chelsea. We were told that an eminent accountant had finished his work of overhauling the system, and that next Monday we might expect a better administration from Chelsea than we have now. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on the Front Bench I would like to put certain questions to him and to have them
    1262
    replied to. It is much better to put these things to him direct rather than through someone else, who may not be able to take adequate notes. I do not criticise my hon. Friend who has been taking notes, but the other day, when he took notes for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, in his reply, said he had got very adequate notes from my hon. Friend, and then the Prime Minister passed over all the best notes that had been made and replied only to the worst ones. I want to get to closer grips with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the new Warrant. Yesterday, in a question which he answered, he seemed to indicate that at the back of my mind I had an idea that he was not so sympathetic as the rest of us in regard to pensions. I can assure him that none of us supposes that for a moment. Every one of us recognises the difficulty of his position—first, in addressing himself to this problem as a man and then as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I admit quite freely and frankly that I have never approached my right hon. Friend on the question of pensions without his receiving one's representations in the spirit that one would expect. One has not always got as much as one always wanted from him, but I have no complaint to make on that score. My right hon. Friend told us that the Pensions Minister had submitted a War rant to the Treasury, and, as a result of the submission of that Warrant to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend has submitted, or is submitting, it to a Committee of Ministers to overhaul it and make recommendations to him. In the first place, every one of those Ministers who are on that Committee are extremely busy men, and I do not know that they have very particular recommendations for doing this work of criticising the Warrant.
    I would like my right hon. Friend much more frequently than he does to take ad vantage of the opinion of Members of this House, and others outside this House, who have had administrative experience in determining what is the right amount of pay in connection with disability of all kinds. My right hon. Friend said that he would consider whether or not the Warrant shall be laid before the House in such a way that it can be discussed before decisions can be come to. That was done before. The Warrant was introduced in the House, and we had a long discussion—if I remember rightly, a whole day's discussion—on the Warrant, but, as a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend knows

    1263
    perfectly well that the House of Commons has no method known to him and no method known to me—and I think, between us, we have a fair idea of what can be done—by which the House can definitely alter a single line of that Warrant. It is brought before the House in such a way that the House has very little to do with it in the last resort. If, for instance, it was pro posed after debate in this House, and after the majority of Members expressed the view, that we should give, say, 100s. instead of 10s. in a particular case, the House could not put that into the War rant. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend agrees to submit the Warrant to the House before it is definitely settled, that does not really mean very much. I should like to suggest to him that a very much better way would be to consult those in this House who have made some study of this problem, and who, in the light of their experience could, at any rate, advance a view whether it is acceptable or not in regard to the Warrant. What criticism I have made and what questions I have put on the Paper in regard to the Warrant have arisen from the fact that I was not satisfied with what is known as Barnes' Warrant, and I have sought to improve that Warrant until we have got to the level of getting the Leader of the House to do in the new Warrant exactly what he did in that.
    There is one subject about which I am more keen than any other, and I would like something more than a promise from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is to be done. I refer specifically to the pension that is paid to the widows and children of men who are killed in this War. We are going away for a fortnight's holiday, and I suppose during that holiday none of us will feel the pinch of circumstances very much; but my right hon. Friend knows that the widow and children of a man who has been killed in this War is now in receipt of less money than she received when she was the wife of the husband who has been killed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend does not know in detail what actually happens, but the sentence I have just spoken to a large extent covers it, although it does not cover the whole. My right hon. Friend knows that, in addition to the fact that the woman has more money in separation allowance as the wife of a serving soldier, she also has the rent of the house in which she lives
    1264
    paid; but when she drops to a pension that amount is entirely removed, so that the widow and children of a man who is killed has not only less money in pension than she had in separation allowance, but she has the other burden thrust upon her of finding the rent which was previously provided for her while her husband was fighting. That cannot be right, and it is not right. We have put that ease to the Leader of the House over and over again, and it is that kind of alteration that I want making at once if the Leader of the House will agree.
    There are a great many other points in the Warrant in which one would give and take. There are a great many other changes in the Warrant which, he says, quite truly, that involve a large expenditure of money. I should not be worried about that, but it is quite a different matter when he is faced with it. I do not think, however, that there can be any hesitancy about this particular case. My right hon. Friend will see that the question of the sum of money involved is not much relatively, if he considers the figures that are now available to the public, as to the number of people that are being dealt with by the Pensions Minister. My right hon. Friend knows that something like 1,250,000 people are being dealt with under the pensions Warrant. Of these, over 200,000 are officers, disabled men and nurses in receipt of disability pensions. Some 120,000 are widows who have definitely lost their sole support in the War. There are half a million children, and probably 150,000 other dependants. It may be noted that there are only 120,000 widows out of the million and a quarter being dealt with. It is only fair to assume that of the half-million children a certain proportion are the children of the widows, and it is also probable that a much larger proportion are the children of disabled soldiers who are in receipt of pensions, so that probably it will be fair to say that the number affected by the increase I am suggesting is not more than 250,000. I want the Leader of the House before we part for the Easter Recess to definitely give these widows and children to under stand that there is to be no longer delay in the raising of their pension. They can not get now as when they were wives, certain grants from the local war pensions committees. The fact of death cuts them off from much better provision to which they were entitled when their husband was alive. I have never understood it, and I

    1265
    cannot understand it. I cannot under stand why the Government have delayed so long in coming to a decision, and that when a proposal is put forward to in crease these pensions they refer it back to this Committee.
    I want the Government to live up to its reputation of doing things now. I have heard it stated to-day—it is not in the Press, but my right hon. Friend knows that in certain parts of this building one hears rumours of what is going on—that the Government have at last decided to bring into some kind of line with the figures that exist now the pensions to soldiers who have suffered disabilities in previous wars, and to the widows of those soldiers. The arguments for that need not be stated at any very great length except by way of illustration. The widow of a man who was killed in the Boer War is entitled to a pension of 5s. a week, and the childless widow of a man killed in this War is drawing 13s. 9d. a week. There is a difference of 8s. 9d. between the two cases. A man who lost his, right arm, for instance, in the Boer War will draw a pension for that war of 10s. 6d., whereas a man under the Pensions Warrant now will get 22s. 6d. Anomalies of that kind cannot stand. I would be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say definitely this afternoon that the Government have finally agreed to make some provision to deal with cases of that kind. A third point is this. I would like my right hon. Friend to pass over to the Committee which is investigating the amounts which are to be paid a few other questions. I will bring one case to his notice, in order to establish what seems to me to be an unwarranted hardship in the administration of pensions. I had a letter by this morning's post which touches the point I want to raise, and will explain the matter much more briefly than I can. The man writes from a sanatorium, and says:
    "I am a discharged soldier at present under treatment at the above institution. While I am a patient here I am compelled to contribute 7s. per week for my maintenance, which is being stopped weekly from my pension. Am I bound to pay for my maintenance out of my pension? I have been a contributor to the National Health Insurance since it came into force. Can you enlighten me on this subject, as it concerns many other discharged men from both Services?"
    Does my right hon. Friend know that when a discharged soldier, as in this case, suffering from tuberculosis, is sent to an institution to recover, if possible, first of all his pension is put up to the highest
    1266
    rate of disability—namely, 27s. 6d. —but the moment he goes to the hospital Is. a day is deducted from the pension to maintain him in that hospital, so that his pension is at once reduced to 20s. 6d? Does my right hon. Friend clearly under stand that in the 27s. 6d. there is 5s. of the 10s. a week payment to which he would be entitled under the National Health Insurance scheme arrangement, which my right hon. Friend made when his Warrant was drawn up by which the Pensions Minister took over payment of half the 10s. under the National Health Insurance scheme, so that what the Government really are giving is only 15s. a week as the other 5s. a week is paid under the National Health Insurance scheme? Would my right hon. Friend himself not consider it a very great injustice if, after he had paid all these years into the National Health Insurance scheme and after he had paid for one of the benefits, namely, free treatment in a sanatorium, as a result of that payment, simply because he happens to be a discharged soldier he should have deducted from his pension payable for his disability 7s. a week to maintain him in hospital for which he has been contributing his money all the time? This is really an example of the man paying 9d. for 4d. That kind of thing is not just. I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is felt keenly by a great many men who would rather have a fixed sum as pension and no deduction made than to have money paid which is subject to deduction. I would suggest that when creating Committees to deal with the Warrant and payments under the Warrant, questions of that kind should be put before them, not ordinary administrative points but administrative points which involve questions of finance. There are many other points involved on which I could take up the time of the House, but I do not propose to do so. I shall be perfectly satisfied if I can get, on the authority of my right hon. Friend, some definite statement as to the widows and children, and in that case I shall go away happier for my Easter Recess, and I am quite sure that the Leader of the House will also do the same.
    Sir C. SEELY: I desire to draw attention to one question connected with pensions which was raised earlier this afternoon. It is the question of allowance to the guardians of motherless children of men who have been killed. At present it is possible for the local committees to

    1267
    grant, in addition to children's allowances, allowances for a person who is looking after them constantly—it may be a sister or sister-in-law. As explained in answer to a question to-day, that Grant cannot be continued by the Pensions Committee. What we were told was that the local committees have no direct power to continue those allowances to the guardians of motherless children in the case of the death of the father, that they may continue the allowance granted for twenty-six weeks but that it is a temporary arrangement. Then it says that where there are special circumstances they may, after the expiration of that time, make a recommendation to the Special Grants Committee, which in suitable cases are pre pared to sanction a temporary allowance. That does provide for immediate cases at the moment, but I do think the Government Pensions Committee should take into consideration that the permanent arrangement is generally desirable where a man is killed and leaves a motherless family, and that the relation or whoever it may be who was looking after the children should have the temporary allowance which is made while he is alive continued as a pension—at all events, while the children are growing up—after his death. Of course, the number of cases will, I hope, not be relatively very big, as this only applies to children who have lost their mother and whose father is afterwards killed when fighting for us, but I would be very glad if the matter were taken into consideration.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The point which has just been put by my hon. Friend is one for the Minister of Pensions. I can only say that the case, as he puts it, seems to have a great deal to commend it; but, at any rate, there is something to be said on the other side, and we shall have to hear that before a decision is given. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh I gladly recognise—for I have read the Warrant myself—that the opportunities for making speeches which it affords to anyone who has given as much study to the subject as he has would enable us to spend the whole of the holidays here listening to a discussion if he had chosen to go into all the points that might be raised. I am, therefore, very grateful to him for the brevity of the remarks which he has addressed to us to-day. He asked, practically, three
    1268
    specific questions. The last was in regard to a soldier suffering from tuberculosis who went into a sanatorium. Like the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, it is one in regard to which I have no knowledge. It has been arranged by the Pensions Committee on some definite system. As my hon. Friend puts it, again there is nothing to be said against his view; but I do not know how the matter stands. It is possible, even from what the hon. Member says, that the arrangement about the continuance of the insurance allowance was done in such a way as to give the soldier some benefit as compared with the civilian.
    Mr. HOGGE: I do not know. I do not think it was.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If that is true, there is really something to be said on the other side. It is obvious that if a man goes to a sanatorium, and is saving there expense to which he would be put somewhere else, then, on the assumption which I have made, it would not be unjust that the sanatorium should get part of the money which other wise he would spend in treating himself. But that is a question as to the facts of the arrangement. I will look into it myself, and will be prepared to treat every question of the kind fairly. The other question was that of pensions to soldiers before the present War. I do not think the hon. Member is in any doubt as to what are the views of the Government. In reply to a question asked it was stated that the subject was going to be considered, and it is obvious that I would not have said that if I had not intended to do something. We are doing something, but I am not in a position to say exactly what it will be. Of course, as a matter of con tract, if one were to treat it solely in that way, there would be no case whatever for those who had received pensions in previous wars. But when the matter was brought to my notice I felt that we were not entitled to look at it altogether in that way. I think that as the result of this War the sense of justice of the community as a whole has changed in relation to what should be done to men who have been engaged in fighting our battles. There has been a change in the whole spirit. If that is so, it seems to me—and I am quite sure that the whole House of Commons, however anxious we are to save money, would feel that it was right—that if it means that the moral sense of the

    1269
    community has changed, then that should be taken into consideration in respect of those who have fought in previous wars.
    As regards the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend said that he spoke as if he imagined that because I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I had no human sympathy, I do not take that view, but I did notice some references in the Press about the Treasury which seemed to imply that whenever you get there you get to a stony substance which has no human sympathies at all, and that was due in part to a speech, which I read with much interest, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. The Press rather treated that as if, in fact, my right hon. Friend was engaged in sitting upon the Treasury. Now, for this purpose, the Treasury is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because no one can refuse sanction to a thing of the kind except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have the greatest, I was going to say respect, but I have the greatest liking for my right hon. Friend, but I must say that I would not like to be sat upon by him, and I would not wish any idea to be entertained abroad that there was any difference between the Pensions Minister and the Government as a whole as to the necessity of dealing fairly with cases of this kind. I agree that there has been no change whatever in the way in which from the first it was intended to deal with this question. The House remembers that in the history of this question of pensions a proposal was introduced by the Government of the day which was generous in character and an advance beyond any thing that had ever been done before, and which the House appreciated. But, for all that, when it came before the House the moral sense to which I have referred realised that what was proposed was hardly enough under present conditions. The result was that on my own suggestion a Select Committee was appointed to go into the whole question, and in consequence of that a scale of pensions and allowances was adopted which beyond all question was generous as compared with anything that had ever been done in this or in any other country. I believe that the longer this War continues the more the people of this country realise what it is causing in suffering and the more the moral sense of the community is inclined to an extension of benefactions to those who suffer. Last year, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon.
    1270
    Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) brought in another Warrant. It came before the Treasury and that Department subjected it to a careful examination. That is the only thing that can be done by any Chancellor of the Exchequer in a case of the kind; he has to submit it to the careful scrutiny of that Department and to consider the question of means and of methods by which pensions are to be given. When the right hon. Member for Blaekfriars brought in another Warrant I at once determined to take the same course as on the first occasion and have it examined by the experts of the Treasury. This was done, and then I said to my right hon. Friend that I was going to put the matter before a Committee, as had been done before; but, I added, before this is done, I wish the matter to be thoroughly gone into by the Ministry of Pensions in order to see to what extent it agrees with the criticisms of the Treasury. That is the position now. The danger is not that human nature and human sympathy will be insufficient, but the danger is rather the other way and that our sympathy may carry us too far, and really extend further than, perhaps, it ought to go. Having said that, I hope my hon. Friend will see that it is not reason able to ask me to give away or to prejudge what the Committee is doing, or what it is going definitely to decide in this case or in that. At the risk of being supposed to be unsympathetic, I feel bound to say that I do not think the statement of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is one which really ought to be taken absolutely for granted, that where a husband is killed the women and children automatically ought to be as well off as they were when he was alive.
    Mr. HOGGE: That was not my contention. What I said was that you are giving, from the point of view of maintenance and physical efficiency, less to the children of the man who has been killed while serving in the War than when he was alive, and you take away their rent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious from what the hon. Member says that we are not speaking of the same thing, but I will leave that point, and I do not think the House will consider that I should under take to give any definite statement on these points while they are still being: deliberated upon by the Committee. But I am prepared to say this: I have spoken to the members of the Committee, and

    1271
    they are going to set about this work as quickly as possible, and I am sure there will be no delay. Before I sit down I wish again to point out to those Members of the House of Commons who are present that there is nothing in the world so easy as for all of us to get the applause of everyone by asking for something more, and I do rely upon the House of Commons to realise, and I think the House of Commons does realise, that both it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have responsibility in these matters, but I can promise on behalf of the Government that the sympathy which we all feel will not be lacking in dealing with the matter; but I do ask hon. Members that we should at the same time take into account the immense sums of money which are involved.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in circumstances of this kind, has to hold the balance between the interests of the public purse and the interests of those in whose behalf our sympathies are naturally engaged. If I enter into this discussion to-day, I do so in my capacity of chairman of the Committee on National Expenditure. That Committee has recently examined the expenditure of the Ministry of Pensions and has reported. I myself had the honour of being chairman of the Select Committee which examined the question of pensions, and later reported upon it. A Sub-committee, following its recommendations, has reported on matters of pensions, and one circumstance which, above all else, ought to be borne in mind is that the nation must deal generously with those who have suffered in this War, and that no man should have the right to complain of niggardly treatment on the part of the State for whom he has fought, and in whose service he has suffered. That is the prime principle that must always be borne in mind. But that is a principle which, while we all recognise it, lends itself to very grave abuses. We know that there have been these abuses in other countries. We know, in the United States of America, how grossly the natural claim for sympathy and generosity on the part of those who have fought in its wars has been abused. Further, it must be borne in mind that claims may be made on the part of people who have suffered in the War which might be almost unlimited. You cannot assess in terms of money the loss that a man may suffer through physical disability,
    1272
    from wounds, the loss of a limb, or the loss of eyesight. A healthy young man, full of life and energy, goes into the War and is blinded. Is a pension of 27a. 6d. a week for life any compensation for his loss of eyesight—is 50s. a week, is 100s., is a £l,000 a year? How can we say what would recompense him for the loss of his eyesight? There are cases of that kind that cannot be limited in terms of money. If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh were to say, "Here you have a man from the War who has lost his eye sight," how can you say that a pension of 50s., or some other sum, a week is adequate? You can never give an answer as to the adequacy or inadequacy of a pension in circumstances of that kind.
    Nevertheless, you must adopt a figure, and you must do so with some regard to the public purse. In the Report of the Committee we have given an illustration of the evils that may arise in the case of a pension. Claims are being made that pensions should be given to persons who have really never suffered at all in the War, men who have never been to the front, men who were subject to physical disability before they came into the Army, who ought never to have been brought into the Army, but who have been brought into the Army and who have left it, their health being just the same when they came out of the Army as it was when they went into it. A claim is made on their behalf that a, large sum should be paid by the taxpayers in pensions to them. Claims are made that permanent pensions should be granted to certain people because of the present abnormal prices of commodities, though these prices may be reduced after the War. Suggestions are made as to pensions for parents in respect of sons, although they were not dependent on those sons, or had no prospect of be coming dependent upon them, but the pensions are suggested merely by way of compensation for the loss they have suffered. All these matters and others have to be considered, and the purpose for which I rise to-day is to remind the House that when we are discussing questions of national economy it urges the Government to a careful examination of additional claims upon it, yet, when there is any question of expenditure in relation to questions such as are now raised, it would appear that the whole House is unanimous in admitting every claim for increased expenditure in any direction

    1273
    where it is on behalf of people who have suffered in the War. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while desirous of acting justly—and, indeed, generously—towards those who have really suffered in the War, is expected to safe guard, at the same time, the interests of the public purse, the interests of the tax payer, and to see that sympathy shall not be allowed to extend so far as to lead to lavish expenditure from the public purse on persons who have really not suffered in the War, but whose claims may be attached to other legitimate claims though not in themselves so legitimate. I am glad to know that these questions are being examined by the Committee, and I hope they will be considered in that spirit.
    Major D. DAVIES: I wish to refer to some remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, and to draw his attention to one or two grievances in connection with this subject of pensions. Attention has been called to the case of a man who, while in a sanatorium, and who was a contributor under the National Insurance Act, had to contribute a portion of his pension to his maintenance there. The Insurance Commissioners came to an arrangement with the Pensions Ministry whereby the Pensions Ministry paid £10 per head on behalf of each discharged roan who went to a sanatorium. That sum of £10 in no way covers the cost of the treatment in the sanatorium, and the result is that of the balance of the cost half falls on the Treasury and the other half on the rates. The county councils feel that they have a grievance, especially against the Treasury, by the treatment of these discharged soldiers falling upon the rates, whereas, in their opinion, it ought to come from the Ministry of Pensions, which should be responsible for their treatment. Owing to the fact that so many men have gone into the Army, the sanatorium benefit fund has de creased enormously since the commencement of the War, and the county councils have to bear the extra cost from the rates. The county councils argument is that the diminution in the amount paid into the sanatorium benefit fund is a legitimate charge on the Treasury, and not upon the rates. There is one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is as to an increase of pay for soldiers who are fighting in the Serbian Army. I understood the right hon. Gentleman
    1274
    to say that this matter has not come up before the Treasury at the present time and that no recommendations have been made to him with regard to it. We all know perfectly well that the lot of the Serbian soldier has always been a hard one. He has for years been fighting away from his country, and, at the same time, he should be doing so for those whom he has left behind in Serbia and who are under the control of our enemies. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the Government should give this matter their close attention, and that they should increase the rate which they fixed some time ago, when circumstances were quite different from what they are to-day. I think if the right hon. Gentle man makes inquiries he will find that recommendations have gone to the Treasury in connection with this matter, and I hope he may take those into consideration and give effect to them. I can assure him that there is a great deal of distrust and anxiety on the part of the county councils with regard to this question of insurance benefit. They hope that the Government will, at an early date, place this responsibility once and for all quite definitely on the Pensions Ministry, and that the agreement which has been arrived at between the Insurance Commissioners and the Pensions Ministry will be reconsidered and a proper arrangement come to.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. FIELD: I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food was to be present, and the hon. Member for Sligo and myself gave notice that we intended to raise certain points. I would like to know more particularly about the Birkenhead business, and what arrangements have been made regarding that the demands made by the Irish Cattle Dealers' and Stock Owners' Association, and set forth in a communication; sent to the hon. Gentleman. I understood there was a question on the Paper to-day the reply to which was expected to give us fuller information. It is, I think, desirable in the interest both of the men who rear the live stock and of the consumers in this country that all possible friction should be avoided with regard to the importation of live stock into England. There can be no doubt that what is called the Birkenhead ring seems to be a peculiar arrangement which pleases practically nobody. Let me explain what it

    1275
    means. There has been an association formed calling itself the Birkenhead Association, the members of which pay £25 and give a guarantee of an entrance fee of £100 in order to be afforded the privilege of selling at Birkenhead lairage. They have assumed to themselves this extraordinary position, that they will not allow anybody in except somebody who passes muster as one of themselves. I know at least two instances of two men who have been associated with that market since it was opened and who sent live stock to Birkenhead and were refused. That is the kind of thing which ought not to be permitted by this House and ought not to have been arranged, as I understand it was, by the Ministry of Food. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give an explanation as to why such a system has been allowed to go on at Birkenhead. There are two or three specific complaints in connection with this matter which have been sent by the Cattle Traders' Association to the Ministry of Food. There are questions as to free sale, flat rates, and other minor points, and I trust in these respects that something will be done to meet the demand of the cattle traders.
    7.0 P.M.
    The other point I wish to raise is as to the price of pigs. Some hon. Members may say that these are rather curious matters to raise on an Adjournment Motion, but, after all, if you want food, of which we have a certain amount, and if anything can be done in order to provide that food for the community it is a service to the State. Therefore it is because not alone that I happen to be connected with this trade, but also in the public interest, I bring forward these matters so that the Ministry of Food may be able to arrange them and carry out their functions to the satisfaction of all concerned. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food is now in the House. I had a conversation with him this evening and informed him of the points I intended to raise. I am told by those who are experts in the pig business that the price fixed for pigs is practically preventing production. You must have production first before you can have the article. If the price is satisfactory you will have the supply of pigs and without pigs you can not produce bacon. If you want Irish
    1276
    bacon in England, unless you get a certain number of pigs, you cannot have that bacon. Bacon factories in Ireland have been seriously affected by reason of the facts that they could not obtain a sufficient number of pigs to keep the men employed going. There are two of those in my own Constituency, one of which employs 300 men and the other 150. Arrangements have been made, I understand, to allow them to obtain a sufficient number of pigs to keep the men going for the time being. The crux of the whole business is price. In fixing a price you have got to take into account the increase in the price of foodstuffs, labour taxation, and all those things which go to make the sum total of the cost to the consumer. The consumer sometimes says that it is the fault of the man who produces or of the business man, but it is really a combination of circumstances which produces the excessive price that has to be met by the consumer. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member who opened this Debate about the sending of food to Germany via Holland from America. I have a cousin, resident for many years in New York. He wrote to me about a year after the commencement of the. War with regard to certain commodities. He had obtained information from Friends of his who were engaged in business in New York that at least seven times the quantity of those food commodities had been sent via Holland to Ger many. I sent that communication to the authorities, and I received a simple civil acknowledgment, but I never received any information as to whether any action was taken on the information which I gave. I do not wish to reopen a discussion which was practically closed, but I am perfectly independent of the Government —and, indeed, of other people, and I think it is well I should add my testimony to what has been stated by the hon. Member who opened this Debate. The only other point to which I wish to allude is the question we discussed last night about the gas Bills. The reason I mention it at all is that I have been asked by the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, by the Dublin Corporation, and by all the suburban districts to oppose this gas Bill. I dare say I am skating on thin ice in talking about it on this Motion, but I am not going to say more than this: I trust when the House comes to consider these gas Bills they will remember—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing those Bills on this Motion.
    Mr. FIELD: I have nothing more to say, except that I hope the hon. Member, when he gives a reply, will enable me to take a message to those I represent that he has given consideration to all the points I have brought to his notice, and that, so far as he can, ho will endeavour to meet the necessities of the case and try to smooth down, as far as possible, all the difficulties that have arisen. We are not all saints—in fact, the majority of us are sinners—and I quite understand the difficulty of the position the hon. Gentleman is in; but if I might give him advice, it would be that, so far as possible, he should consult the men in the, particular business and endeavour to carry out their desires, so that the business he has undertaken will be carried out with the least possible friction.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I wish to call the attention of the Government, and especially the Parliamentary representative of the Food Controller, to a matter which does not excite much enthusiasm. The subject is potatoes. Ordinarily there is no very great interest taken in potatoes, but an almost romantic interest has been infused into this question by the week-end message of the Prime Minister to this country, that the country could be saved by potatoes. There are difficulties which the Navy has to contend with and there are great difficulties which the Shipping Controller has to deal with—difficulties which, I am sure, will be shared by Lord Pirrie, and I am sanguine enough to believe that the coming of Lord Pirrie will make a very great difference to the Government in so far as the Shipping Controller is concerned. Whatever success we may have in shipbuilding, it is necessary to preserve supplies of food for this country, and the mainstay of the food supply of this country, as stated by the Prime Minister, is the supply of potatoes. My object in addressing the courteous and efficient representative of the Food Controller to-night is to call his attention, and the attention of the Government, to certain difficulties which arise in regard to the increased production of potatoes in Ireland. Last year the people of Ireland, in response to a demand of the Government, made a most remark-able increase in tillage. We had a great increase in the acreage devoted to cereals, and a great increase in the
    1278
    acreage devoted to potatoes. We produced a very vastly increased amount of potatoes. I have often heard it said outside this House, and sometimes in the House, that the most prosperous country in Europe was Ireland, and certain hon. Friends of mine, who do not think with me as to what should be done about Ireland, are inclined to say with reference to Ireland that the country is now enjoying a prosperity to which it is not entitled. If that means anything, I think it means this: Ireland at the present moment is producing more for England, and for the Empire, than any part of Great Britain, and the only reflection on Ireland, and on the Irish people, which any of my friends who ordinarily differ from me in politics can make, is that the people of Ireland demand for the potatoes and pigs the ordinary market price. I am not going to apologise for that. That is business, and I think there is nothing in which Ireland can more help Britain in this War, help the Allies in this War, and help America, to whom all Ireland looks as a country who has befriended her in past times, and is befriending her now, than by increasing the food supplies avail able for Ireland itself, available for this country, and available for all the Allies; and I respectfully submit that Ireland is not being faithfully dealt with in regard to the production of food.
    The people of Ireland are anxious to produce more food. They are anxious to increase the acreage under cereals, and anxious to increase the output of potatoes. But I take this matter of potatoes alone, and let me call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller to the fact that quite recently, in the month of January, an arrangement was made in Liverpool between representatives of his Department and representatives of an Irish potato growing association by which the surplus produce of potatoes of the 1917 crop from Ireland was to be sent to Wales and to Liverpool. It was arranged ultimately that a net amount of 5,000 tons per week was to be sent from Ireland to associations, representing consumers in Wales and in Liver pool. When this meeting was called the Irish association were told that they would be asked to supply not 5,000 tons, but 50,000 tons per week, so long as the surplus supply in Ireland was unexhausted. It was agreed that Ireland should supply 5,000 tons per week. What has happened? The potato growers in Ireland produced

    1279
    the supplies, brought the supplies to market, brought the supplies to railway stations and alongside the quays for shipment to this country. The supplies were stopped. The Parliamentary representative of the Food Controller was good enough to say in the House the other day, in answer to a question of mine, that, not withstanding the fact that thousands and thousands of tons of potatoes are now in warehouses and undergoing deterioration, the loss will be made good. But I submit to him that is not the way to answer this question. If it is necessary that the people in this country should be supplied by Irish potato growers, the produce of the potato fields in Ireland should be brought to market and brought to the consumers in this country. They are not being brought to the consumers—why? I do not blame my hon. Friend the Parliamentary representative of the Food Controller, and I do not blame the Food Controller, but I do blame inefficient committees in this country—mere theorists to whom this matter is entrusted, who know nothing about the market, who are out of sympathy with Ireland, and who by their methods are wasting the Irish crop and depriving the people of this country of sources of food to which the people of this country, and especially the poor, are entitled. I respectfully ask the Food Controller to make arrangements whereby it would be possible for the Government to avail themselves of all the surplus of the 1917 crop in Ireland, and not only to pay the people compensation who grow the potatoes, but to have the potatoes brought to market and made available for human food in this country.
    There are two other matters on which I am very anxious to speak in reference to potatoes. There are various uses which can be made of potatoes. For instance, potatoes are very much used as an ingredient in flour. They are also used as an ingredient in starch. I am told that in pre-war times the Germans sent to Manchester alone 4,000,000 tons a year of starch made largely from potatoes. This starch is made by machinery. One of our present war developments is the adaptation of everything possible to meet the needs of the community. I believe the Government have commandeered machinery for the manufacture of flour with potatoes as a large ingredient. I want to know from the Parliamentary representative of the Food Controller
    1280
    what machinery there is available for the manufacture of potato flour, and I want to know how much of that machinery we are going to get in Ireland? Ireland is by far the greatest potato-growing country in the United Kingdom, and I submit that, in so far as the Government contemplate the manufacture of flour from potatoes, there should be an installation of machinery for that purpose in Ireland. Under the Defence of the Realm Act, the Government take charge of all the available machinery; the Government know how many machines for the manufacture of flour from potatoes are avail able altogether within their resources in this country. I submit that a fair proportion of the available machinery should be installed in Ireland, and I ask my hon. Friend to state to us to-night what machinery is available, and what proportion of that machinery he proposes to instal in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And where!"] That is as regards potato flour. The same thing applies to farina. Farina is a starchy substance. There is an amount of machinery being manufactured to the order of the Government for this purpose, and we ought to have a proportion of that machinery for Ireland. I want my hon. Friend to be quite frank with us, and to tell us for all those purposes of manufacture what the amount of machinery is; how many machines are to be set up in Ireland, and where they are to be installed.
    With reference to the question of cattle, and prices generally, I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College is here, because I have always observed this in connection with Irish Debates in the House of Commons, that there has been one question on which all Irishmen have always been united, and that has been in demanding that in regard to expenditure Ireland should get her fair share. We are not getting our fair share for potatoes. The Prime Minister, in a speech in February, I think, of 1916, said that there was to be a flat rate, guaranteed by the Government, of £6 per ton for potatoes. This has been cut down by the Food Controller, Lord Rhondda, and I am sure, unwillingly, by his very capable representative in this House. This was cut down so as to deprive the small growers of potatoes of the guarantee of £6 per ton. I received a letter yesterday from, a landlord in my Constituency. I am not a great friend of landlords—very few Nationalists are—

    1281
    but this gentleman pointed out to me that he has sold his potatoes at £3 per ton. He does not ask for any sympathy, because, he says, he can get the difference between £3 and £6 made up by the Government; but he draws my attention to this. "What about my labourers," he says—"my labourers who take conacre for me—who grow potatoes on small patches of my estate which I let to them? They are growing potatoes for the same purpose that I am—for the same national demand, and at the same time for their own profit. They are left entirely out of consideration by the Government. I get my £6 per ton, but my labourers do not get it." One of the meanest actions in connection with the food potato question has been that of the Food Controller in depriving small growers of the guarantee of the Government. The Prime Minister said that so far as potatoes were concerned for 1917 there was going to be a flat rate guaranteed by the Government of £6 per ton. When the Prime Minister made that statement, he bound the Government and bound Parliament, and under it potatoes have been grown in this country, the general understanding being that every man who grew potatoes, whether he were a small holder or a land lord controlling a great acreage, should receive a flat rate of £6 per ton. I appeal to the Government, now, to redeem that pledge, and to make it good to the people to whom it means most—that is, to the smallest men, the people who are not able to bring four tons at a time into the market. With reference to the price of potatoes for next year, let me point out this difference to the representative of the Food Controller. The price paid in Ireland does not take account of freight and insurance. The Scotch farmer, the English farmer, or the Welsh farmer can cart his goods to the nearest railway station, and when he has deposited them at the railway station he is entitled to the maxi mum price allowed by the Government. Not so in Ireland. In Ireland the price is diminished by reason of the fact that the farmer and the producer have to pay freight and insurance, and, of course, that means a very considerable difference. The Government have taken over the rail ways; thy have largely taken over steam ship traffic—they should take over the whole of the steamship traffic for the conveyance of foodstuffs between Ireland and this country and, of course, from this country to Ireland in the same way. I
    1282
    submit that the farmer in the West of Ire land is as much entitled to the full price for his produce, whether it be cereals, potatoes or live-stock, as the farmer in Cornwall or Aberdeenshire. The Government are entitled to make full use of the railway facilities in this country. May I respectfully ask the Government and the Food Controller to re-examine this question, with a view to enabling those of us who represent Ireland to say to our constituents, and to the country, that the best service which Ireland can render at the present time is to increase her food supply? But, if she is to increase her food supply, she should get fair play; and the Irish farmer and the Irish producer are entitled to equal consideration with the farmer and producer in this country.
    Mr. REA: I desire to ask for an assurance from my hon. Friend opposite on one small point, which is nevertheless of considerable importance to a number of health resorts in this country which are expecting a certain influx of visitors at Easter time. We are all aware that the Government are desirous of limiting the amount of travelling at Easier, and we all sympathise with them, and shall do what we can to prevent unnecessary travel. But it must be admitted that there will be a certain influx of visitors into some health resorts, and there is, at the present time, a considerable amount of anxiety about the supplies for these extra visitors. I understand that they have been told that special arrangements will be made to provide this extra food, but so far we have not got anything more than a sort of pious promise that something will be done, and the food authorities are anxious to make their arrangements in good time. I have risen solely for the purpose of asking my hon. Friend if he can give us an assurance that definite instructions as to the procedure which is to be followed in these cases will be sent at once to the local food authorities, so that those concerned, in the health resorts where these people are expected, may be able to satisfy them selves that they will be able to feed their visitors when they arrive?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I intend, in the short time that I propose to address the House, to limit myself almost entirely to the points that have been raised. Those points, apart from the one just broached, deal mainly with the, question of bacon and potatoes so far as those articles of food affect the food

    1283
    situation in Ireland and the supplies that have come from that country to this. But before dealing with those two main points of detail, I would like to express to the public at large, and to the local authorities throughout the country who are co-operating with the Ministry of Food, the gratitude of the Food Minister for the way in which the restraints and difficulties of a rationing system have been borne and overcome during the course of the past few weeks. I may recall to the House the fact that a feeling of gloom tended to pervade the country in the beginning of the winter, or at any rate in the early part of December last year, and considering what at that time was the prospect and the forecast, we may, I think, without saying too much of our noble selves, congratulate ourselves upon the way in which we have emerged from difficulties that seemed to threaten very serious unrest—and, indeed, very serious trouble—in many parts of the country. The Ministry is indebted to the country and to this House, and to those who have co-operated with it throughout the country, for the great assistance given in a task which it is recognised to be one of extreme complexity and difficulty. I would like, at the same time, to remind the public that we must further draw upon their patience, if only for the reasons that, through the authority of Parliament, and the operations of the Ministry, and the work of the local food committees, the public can justly be said to be enjoying cheaper food than the public of any other belligerent or neutral country concerned closely in this War. Though we are bound to continue to suffer from food shortage, we have been able, in a comparatively short time, not merely to imitate, but greatly to improve upon the systems of organisation and rationing arrangements which long ago were established in some other lands. I regret to say that we are still in many places beset with the troubles produced for us by the profiteer. I speak now not mainly of that type of profiteer whoso great fortunes were made in the early stages of this "War. He, to a very great extent, has been handled by the law, and in some instances severely punished for his offences. It is, however, not too much to Bay that a considerable number of smaller profiteerers have made their appearance, and the matter we have to take in hand now is whether that large section of the public who have taken so many meals away
    1284
    from home in cafes, restaurants, and hotels are being charged a reasonable rate for the less costly food which those places have been supplying. I make no imputations, but I do say that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and a growing sense of unrest in the minds of many people on this matter, and we are taking steps to inquire as to how far any action may be necessary under this heading. We are still concerned as a Ministry with the second branch of the problem placed in our charge when the Food Ministry was first established.
    The first branch is that of prices, and the second is that of supplies. Therefore, having to do all we can to improve supplies, we have to encourage and stimulate home production, and we have to pay any price which is necessary in the circum stances to secure abundant quantities of food, if possible, from other parts of the world I agree heartily with the main arguments of my hon. Friend who addressed the House on the question of the action of Ireland regarding potatoes, and in that respect, as in others, Ireland has done much to relieve this country from difficulty and to supply us with a large supply of that wholesome article of food. I think, however, the hon. Member who. Raised this question is totally misunderstanding the nature of the guarantee which was given repeatedly in this House at the time when the Prime Minister and others on behalf of the Government asked that a larger crop of potatoes should be grown not merely in Ireland but in this country as well. It is not the fact that we have deprived the small potato grower of the benefits of any guarantee given, for that guarantee was never made to apply to the small growers who have so frequently been brought into this question. There can be no considerably increased potato crop by turning to the small grower, and for an abundance of potatoes we hope to turn to those whose tillage enables them to immensely increase their crop, and thus place a much larger stock of potatoes on the market.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask how does he qualify, or what authority has he or Lord Rhondda to qualify, the definite statement of the Prime Minister that there was to be a guarantee of £6 per ton for potatoes, irrespective of the amount?
    Mr. CLYNES: I accept that statement as applying to the Prime Minister as well as the Food Controller, with the exception

    1285
    of the concluding words, "irrespective of the amount." It is on record that the guarantee was stated not to apply to less than four tons.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Certainly not by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. FIELD: It was not so understood.
    Mr. CLYNES: The question was referred to here on three occasions. On the first occasion there was clearly a reference to the weight, and the weight was then limited to 6 tons, not four.
    Mr. SCANLAN: That was after the Prime Minister's statement.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member who has asked these questions ought to listen to the reply without interruption.
    Mr. CLYNES: The concession made was that the amount was reduced from 6 tons to four. On the second occasion the Prime Minister, speaking in this House, dealt not with the question of weight at all, but with the price only, and he did not touch the question of weight, but the fact that he did not make any reference to the question of weight on that occasion did not mean that the price which had been fixed, and the price with which he was then alone dealing, was to apply to every body, whether the growers were large or small. That is really the history of the extent to which the Government is committed in this matter. I do not know whether it is practicable, or whether it would be proper, to consider further the claims of the smaller growers. I have no prejudices against their claims, and I agree that the repeated appeals made to home producers to do their best to increase our food supplies may justify such arguments as my hon. Friend opposite has put.
    May I make one or two other remarks while on the subject of potatoes. The situation as it has developed in the past few weeks has given rise to a good deal of uneasiness and dissatisfaction among the potato growers in Ireland, or perhaps rather more amongst those who import potatoes for the traders in Liverpool and South Wales. This difficulty has arisen because within a space of a very short time the Government has had to try and import great quantities under conditions of great disadvantage with regard to transport and shipments, and this has caused a congestion which we are seeking
    1286
    to remove rapidly. But the fact that this has happened is traceable to shortages of transport which we have not been able to foresee or overcome. Some of this difficulty is also due to what might be described as strained relations between certain people in the potato trade. In this matter the Government is not exactly the buyer and the seller, and we appear rather in the character of a mediator and supervisor and as one who gives a guarantee that in certain circumstances losses shall be made good. The real buying and selling is done by those who ordinarily pursue this trade. The Government, however, has stepped in, by conferences and mediation, and has done every thing it can to compose these differences, and cause the potatoes to continue to arrive here in large quantities.
    I will mention two things as showing how we are seeking, not to prejudice, but, if anything, to favour Ireland in respect of potato supplies compared with other parts of the Kingdom. Not merely have we closed some seven English counties to the use of any potatoes except Irish potatoes, but we have gone further and recently arranged that a large supply of potatoes shall be sent from Ireland to feed the Armies both of the French and the Belgian nations. That is now being done, and the Belgians have been so pleased with what has happened that they are disposed to recognise what has been done by decorating some of those who are interested in the potato supplies of Ireland. As regards machinery and potato flour, I was able to give to the House, in reply to a question, figures showing that we have already allotted fifteen machines, the first consignment for this very purpose, and that Ireland has got the largest supplies of those machines, as compared either with Scotland or England, so that in respect of placing machinery at their disposal and opening up opportunities for the sale of this article everything possible is being done for the Irish potato growers. Fifteen is the number of machines for Ireland.
    My hon. Friend has asked me some questions about bacon. In the arrangements with regard to price, no material change has been made, and little or no dissatisfaction is expressed under that heading. There is nothing obscure about the prices, although we find them little understood. With respect to imported bacon, the maximum wholesale price fixed by the Order of 17th November last year still stands.

    1287
    The retailers allow them a profit of 3d. per lb., which he has also to average over the whole side of bacon. With regard to home-produced bacon, this is governed by the price fixed for pig, and the Ministry has announced that the price for pigs is to be raised by 3s. per score, or 16s. 9d. per cwt. on the dead-weight. We are examining the present wholesale prices under the Order of 17th November. Of course, these prices require revision from time to time. We are aware that this is an urgent matter, and there will be no delay in making any necessary adjustments. Just as we have in the case of other articles of food, like tea and flour, been able to establish one quality—you may say it is either good or bad—alike for all people, rich and poor, we have standardised certain of these articles, and, as a war measure, I think there will be no disapproval of the steps we arc taking. Even in the case of bacon a similar question is now being dealt with, but as a side of bacon varies in quality in some eight or nine directions, I am told it is not an easy matter, but the consumer's interest is the main one which we must keep in mind. We are not hastening any decision towards the end of establishing what might be termed one quality of bacon at one uniform price, because we must retain the good will of the retailers in this matter, and as they say that there are insuperable difficulties in doing what we have now under consideration we are taking them into our counsel, and nothing will be done in this matter except by agreement. I hope that I have now covered all the points raised on this question by hon. Members from Ireland. With regard to the two curing factories, if the hon. Member will refer to a reply I gave a few days ago he will see that, so far as there is bacon available for curing purposes, we are taking all the necessary steps to place at their disposal great quantities to keep them working and to keep the men in employment.
    My hon. Friend opposite addressed to me a special question of considerable public interest. He wishes to know what is in contemplation in regard to the necessary provision at public resorts during the spring and summer. We have not, of course, desired on this matter to leave local authorities or the public to depend upon mere general statements. You cannot feed people even in holiday time on vague generalities. If these holi-
    1288
    day resorts are to be maintained, I will not say, at anything like their usual level, but at a level that will accommodate a considerable number of tired, weary workers, soldiers, and ammunition workers, some thing substantial must be done to meet their needs. Of course, what is done will still leave them more or less under the same limitations as to food rations as apply to those who remain at home, so that when we say that steps have been taken to provide additional quantities of food my hon. Friend can take it that that statement is to be relied upon. I under stand that to-day definite instructions are going out to these particular places in order that the local food committees may not be handicapped by receiving their authority too late to meet the needs of the coining Easter. I hope that these places will be able to adapt themselves to the conditions of rationing, and that they will be able to procure under our authority the necessary supplementary supplies of food. I would like, however, to say that the view of the Minister is—and I think it is the view that will be endorsed by this House and by the public at large — that during the spring and summer of this year, in view of the conditions under which we must live, holiday making, the holding of conferences, and the congregating of large bodies of people into these places should not be carried to the point of excess, and, as far as possible, it is better people should remain at home, if they can get the rest and change which will fit them properly for their work. At the same time, we know there will be considerable patronage of those places, and we, therefore, wish to place the public mind at rest by putting quantities of food at their disposal. I think what I have said covers the whole of the points raised during the course of this Debate, and at this late hour I do not wish—
    Mr. FIELD: The hon. Gentleman has not said a word about Birkenhead. Has he no information to give us on that point?
    Mr. CLYNES: I thought the hon. Member was well content with the answers given respecting the payment of 30s. I do not wish to go into details, but if any hon. Member desires more information, and will approach me, I shall be glad to give him all I can.
    Mr. J. F. MASON: I wish to refer to the conditions under which separation allowances are paid to soldiers who have returned to civil occupations. The House

    1289
    is aware that a considerable number of soldiers are now in civil occupations all over the country, the greater number being employed in agriculture. When employers of agricultural labour ask for soldier assistants they naturally in many cases endeavour to get the men whom they have previously employed, and in the same way, when a man finds he is going to be returned to agricultural work, he frequently writes to his former employer to suggest that he should be applied for. I am mentioning this because a large number of these men have been able to return to the places from which they came, and to live in the houses which they formerly occupied with their families, and continue to draw their separation allowances as well as their civil pay. As this is occurring on a large scale, it is involving a very considerable waste of public money, and at the same time it is causing dissatisfaction among other soldiers and civilians who are aggrieved at this special provision for a particular class of men. Let me give one or two instances within my own personal knowledge, and I think they will be fair illustrations of many thousands of cases to be found throughout the country. Some time in last year a carter, who had been with me before he went into the Army, was returned on the application of my bailiff to work on my farm. He lives in a house of mine which he has rent free, he gets his coal, he receives full carter's wages, and I find that all this time he has been drawing a separation allowance, which, of course, puts him on the footing of having nearly double the income of other carters.
    But I have hero another case which is really far more inexcusable. It is the case of a gamekeeper, a man of thirty-nine, who had been four times rejected on medical examination, but was finally, although he was far from fit to be a soldier, called up on the 19th January, this year. He was away from home three weeks; he then returned to the house where his wife and family were, a house belonging tome which he had rent free; he continued to live there, and I have only just heard that he has been working for a tenant of mine on full agricultural labourer's wages, approximately the same sum as he received before, and in addition to that his wife is drawing 37s. per week separation allowance. Thus this man, who has returned to the condition in which he was before, continues to wear Government clothes and boots, thereby saving his own, and he is drawing some-
    1290
    thing over £3 a week as against the 25s. which those with whom he is working are getting. That is naturally creating considerable dissatisfaction among the other labourers. Another gamekeeper of mine, who has been on active service and has been abroad for nearly two years, came home the other day on leave, and you can imagine there is some cause for the discontent he expressed seeing that he has been risking his life and doing real soldier's work for 1s. 2d. per day, while when he comes home he finds that this other man, who has only been a soldier three weeks and has never been abroad, is drawing 25s. a week in addition to his separation allowance. I trust some notice will be taken of this. I know the Financial Secretary, who is interested in these matters, has not been able to be present, and I earnestly hope that someone on the Government Bench will draw his attention to these remarks.

    ARMY OFFICERS (PAY).
    Colonel YATE: I wish to say one word with regard to the pay of officers, a question which I hope the Financial Secretary of the War Office will take into his consideration during the Recess. My first point is as to the position of officers who have completed their time for pension, but are compulsorily retained in the Service owing to the War and are not allowed to draw the pension to which they are entitled. Now, a soldier who has served twenty-two years is permitted to draw his pension if he is retained in the Service, but that privilege is refused to officers. It may be asked, what is a pension? I say a pension is deferred pay. It is given to officers and men for a certain time of service. The Financial Secretary suggests that officers do not serve a fixed time and are, therefore, not entitled to get the pension, but I am urging that officers do serve a fixed time, and when they do so they are entitled to the pension.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned.
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Marriage Hours (Ireland) Act, 1918.

  2. Overseas Trade Department (Secretary) Act, 1918

  EASTER RECESS: ADJOURNMENT.
  Question again proposed.
  8.0 P.M.
  Colonel YATE(resuming): I was saying that officers were entitled to pensions and was asking a question as to what their position is. I was arguing that pension is deferred pay, and that it is the right of officers to get that deferred pay when they have completed the term of service, and that there is just as much right on the part of the officers as of the men. I hope some opportunity will be afforded to officers, so that when they become entitled to deferred pay they will be able to draw it. The Financial Secretary objects, and says they may go on and qualify for higher pay. If a man can go on, by all means let him go on; but there are many men who have been promoted from the ranks, quarter-masters, and others, who are suffering great hardships. They can get no further pension, and I say they ought to be allowed to draw their deferred pay, when they become entitled to it. I hope the Financial Secretary will consider that during the Recess. Another question I want to raise is that of certain majors-general who have been deprived of their commands in this country to make room for returned generals. I quite agree that when generals come back from the front they should be allowed to rest in England for six months, or whatever period is necessary; but it is hard on general officers who have been doing good work in England to have to vacate their appointments to make room for these returned generals from the front. The third point I would ask the Financial Secretary to consider is the question of the promotion of Reserve officers. Numbers of officers were called up for this War who were on Reserve—captains of fifteen years' service and majors of twenty years' service. They have done good service in the War, but have not been given promotion. They have seen many young officers put over them, and it is very hard on them. I hope the Financial Secretary will take this into consideration also. He gave me a list of a certain number of officers who had been promoted, but it was a very small one, and I trust that these officers, who are doing good service in this War, will receive the promotion which is their due.

  GERMAN OFFENSIVE.

    STATEMENT BY MR. BONAR LAW.
    Mr. McKENNA: May I intervene for a moment to ask whether my right hon. Friend has any statement to make with regard to the Front?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have no doubt is known to many hon. Members of the House, an Infantry attack was launched by the Germans this morning upon our front. The attack covers almost the whole of the front from the Scarpe to the Oise — a front of something over 50 miles. This, I may tell the House, is an attack on a larger scale than any that has been made at any stage of the War on any part of the front. We have not yet received any information which enables us to give the House any indication whatever as to what the result of this attack is. We know that on part of that front our outpost troops, where the line was very lightly held, have with drawn to the battle zone. That was exactly not only what was expected, but what instructions were in the event of such an attack. Perhaps some hon. Members may recall that in discussing the military situation a week or so ago I pointed out that it was certain that if an attack of this kind did take place the attacking party would gain a certain amount of ground. Our information so far does not lead us to suppose anything beyond that has happened. I am sure of this, that, with the knowledge beforehand of what has happened in every similar attack on either side, the House and the country will not be unnecessarily alarmed by information of that kind. I should like also to say that there is absolutely nothing in the nature of surprise in connection with what has happened. Our Staff and the Versailles Council have naturally been considering what would happen in the event of an attack taking place, and I may tell the House that this attack has been launched on the very part of our line which we were informed would be attacked by the enemy if an attack were undertaken at all. I may say, also, that only three days ago we received in formation at the Cabinet from Head quarters in France that they had now definitely come to the conclusion that an attack was going to be launched immediately. I am sorry, as the House will understand, that in regard to an event,

    1293
    the importance of which we all realise, it is impossible for me to give any information whatever as to what the result is; but I do feel justified in saying that, as it has not come as a surprise, and as those responsible for our Forces have foreseen and have throughout believed that, if such an attack came, we should be well able to meet it, nothing that has happened gives us in this country any cause whatever for additional anxiety.
    Mr. LYNCH: The statement to which we have just listened is of such grave import that I will make no further reference to that subject than to express a hope, and even an ardent vow, for the success of the arms of the Allies, trusting in this juncture, in what seems to be rather a soldiers' battle, to the tenacity and dazzling courage which the Allies have more than once manifested already. But despite, or perhaps because of, the very gravity of the situation, I propose to say a few words on matters which directly deal with the progress of the War. One is with reference to the speech which we had recently from the First Lord of the Admiralty. That speech, to me, was disappointing for more reasons than one—disappointing even on the basis of his own arguments. What we have to consider in judging of the nature of the present situation is not an elaborate computation of curves having reference to world's tonnage, and being so chosen by the experts in the Admiralty as to lead to a false conclusion, even in cases when each actual statement may be true. In estimating the character of the present situation we have to consider, not the construction of the world tonnage or even the construction of British tonnage, but whether, in view of the fact that the sustenance of these Islands depends in great part on sea-borne traffic, we have reached the point when we can say that the arrivals are such that, however the trans port may be diminished by actual sinkings, the country has been placed beyond the danger of starvation. Placing that simple question before the First Lord of the Admiralty, and following his own course of argument, so far from finding his statement reassuring, I have come to the conclusion that that statement, if this country is capable of producing no better plan, has defeat stamped upon its face—ultimate defeat within a certain definite limit of time. When a man holding the high position of the First Lord of the Admiralty deliberately puts forward a
    1294
    plan and declares that is the plan on which he intends to rely, and when that plan is found in itself insufficient, then I declare that he has already condemned himself.
    I speak with no personal animus what ever against the First Lord of the Admiralty, whose advent to office I was inclined to hail not without hope, but, judging him at the work, judging him by his own statements, and judging him by results, I say that he has failed. What was required in his position was not what the Government seem to have searched for, a man of what is called driving force. Driving force may be admirable up to a certain level of the hierarchy, but when a man reaches a position that by his commanding situation alone he is able to obtain all the driving force that he requires, then what the Government should seek—and I insist on this—and what the Government has neglected, is a high intellectual power, the stamp and character of a man who will envisage all these great problems and bring great qualities of intellect to bear upon them until he has obtained the solution, and who will then, by virtue of the strength and faith which he derives from his own solution, obtain all the driving power that he requires. Simply to look for what is called driving power without that great intellectual power is to condemn that office to failure. Therefore, dealing with that, I invite the First Lord of the Admiralty to send in his resignation. I will not now touch upon the military side of affairs on account of the gravity of the events which are now before us. We can only hope and offer up our vows to Heaven. On the side of the Foreign Office, I will not for the moment add anything to what I have said repeatedly in this House to bring home the argument which ought now to be clear and patent to all that the Foreign Office has signally failed and that even now, if it is not too late, there should be a complete clearance of those who, having had their opportunity, have misused it in so extra ordinary a manner.
    I will touch, however, on one or two questions of Irish administration. I have very grave forebodings with respect to Ireland, and those grave forebodings are brought to my mind by what I see plainly to be the mishandling of the Government of a dangerous situation. The great panacea of the Government was the Convention, and I believe that an

    1295
    order has gone forth recently to all the newspapers to refrain from any comments on the Convention. It must be remembered that the Convention has been in existence now for many months, and, if it were a real, valid, and honest institution, that Convention would be ready with its Report. There is something suspicious in the attempt of the Government not to obtain the result of its deliberations, but to keep it alive by a sort of artificial respiration, knowing that as long as the mere name of Convention is kept alive the Government can avoid what for months has been their plain duty, namely, to look the Irish problem straight in the face. Their tricks, if they have been tricks, are at an end, and they must make up their minds to adopt one of several alternative policies which have been presented to them. One of the policies with which I have heard they are toying, in their usual insincere, helpless, or drifting style, is that of Federal Home Rule. Federal Home Rule was at one time looked upon as a possible solution, not merely of the Irish question, but of various questions affecting the mutual relations of all those Condominiums. If it be really the intention of the Government to arrive at a solution of the Irish question which would give them merely the name of self-government without the reality, maintaining the great influence of this Parliament, not merely in the larger issues affecting Ireland, but even in very many details of the local government of Ireland, then I say that the time has passed by adopting that solution.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): I would remind the hon. Member that he is now discussing matters of legislation which are not in order on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. LYNCH: I thank you for that re minder, and I will drop that question. I will come to one or two matters of pressing interest in Ireland. It has been thought necessary to introduce martial law in a severe form into certain places in Ireland and into my own Constituency. It is always a mistake in Ireland to have resort to force, especially in a case where it is quite possible to ascertain definitely the causes of the unrest and where the Government have, by their present action, shown no disposition to remove what I call the root causes of all these disturbances. We have had to-day the subject
    1296
    of food debated. That question is becoming more and more pressing throughout the country, and we are face to face with this position: that Ire land is capable of producing a far larger quantity of food than it has yet turned out. That food may be necessary for the very subsistence, therefore for the very existence of this country. The possibilities are there, the labour is there, not merely available, but the tenants adjoining big cattle farms or ranches now untilled are not merely willing but anxious to enter upon those lands, to till them and make them fruitful to the last degree. The Government have prevented such a step. They have prevented it in the face of the fact that an Act was expressly passed so far back as 1909 to deal with these very evils. That Act should have been in complete operation years ago. Its application was retarded wilfully by the Government, and now, even under the menace of great privation, the Government is still with holding the application of that Act, defeating, even cheating, the hopes of those for whom it was framed and protecting those Irish landlords who have been thought to be the buttress of one of the great parties in this House, but whose action for generations has been detrimental to the best interests of the Irish people. Therefore, I say that the remedy for the present state of unrest in Ireland is not the brutal application of military force but the resolute removing from the path of the people of all the evils from which they unjustly suffer.
    I will touch very briefly on quite another aspect of the question of public policy to say that, whereas the Prime Minister declared that unity of command on the Western Front was essential, in face of these grave events of which we do not now know the issue, that unity of command has not been obtained, a fact that already condemns his whole policy. A Government takes the spirit of its leader, just as an Army takes the spirit of its commander. We saw that clearly in the example of France. Before the arrival of M. Clemenceau the country was beginning to hesitate and doubt. Immediately after his arrival, as by magic, a new strength, a new force, and a new spirit were inspired in the French nation. We had all hoped that the Prime Minister would have given that spirit of force and faith when he arrived himself at supreme power, but almost from the first he began to wilt and fade, failing

    1297
    to justify his own great reputation. The times are far too serious for us to abdicate our own judgment or our own criticism, however severe, in the face of great temptations. I declare that the Prime Minister, too, has failed. The best service that he can render to the country now is to retire and to allow, I will not say the formation of another Government within this House, but something which, however remote from Parliamentary practice it may now seem, will, I feel sure, within the next few succeeding months, be brought more and more insistently upon the attention of the country itself, that is, the necessity for the formation of a Committee of Public Safety.
    Mr. O'MALLEY: I am anxious to direct the attention of the House to a matter which very seriously affects my own Constituency and also all the districts on the Western seaboard of Ireland. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has referred to the unrest which at present exists in the West of Ireland. He has very properly pointed out that that unrest cannot very well be dealt with adequately except by removing its cause. We all know that that unrest exists. The general opinion in this country is that it is political unrest, and that the outrages we read about are caused by the Sinn Fein movement. I have no doubt that some of the outrages, such as the seizing of guns and entering houses and all that kind of thing, have been the work of the Sinn Feiners, but the unrest to which I should like to direct the attention of the House is of a different nature altogether. I have, in this House and outside it, and my colleagues also for a good many years have been pointing out to the Congested Districts Board the necessity of acquiring the untenanted lands in the congested areas. There is some unrest in my own Constituency, and it is directly traceable to the fact that these poor people living on their uneconomic holdings, who have the greatest possible difficulty at any time in making a living, are face to face every day of their lives with large grass farms in the possession of strangers, who are generally shopkeepers. For the last twenty-seven years, since the establishment of the Congested Districts Board, there have been some people in my own Constituency who have been waiting all these years to get relief from that Board. They are waiting still. What I want to point out is that where they have bought
    1298
    estates in Connemara they have not divided up the grass lands among the tenants, but have continued to let those grass lands to the shop keeping graziers. The War has made this a very urgent question. I cannot for the life of me under stand why the Board, in view of the urgent necessity for food, have not used their compulsory powers to purchase these small estates with grass farms, and divide them up among the poor tenants, who are only too anxious to have them cultivated.
    I heard of one case in my own Constituency the other day, where, I believe, the Board have bought an estate. The untenanted land has remained in their hands for some considerable time. Some few weeks ago they offered some of the land on the conacre system for tillage to the tenants. The only part that they offered was the very worst and most unproductive part and the tenants declined it. The Board in this case actually gave to a man who does not depend upon the land at all the only decent part of that little estate which could be useful to the tenants and would be very productive. I understand that some of the tenants, I think very foolishly, entered upon the land and attempted to cultivate it. They are now, I believe, in jail or under remand, and their case will come on very shortly, and I shall say no more about it, but if hon. Members or the people of this country could fully realise the conditions of the peasantry along the Western sea board, pressure would be brought to bear upon the Board to bring this to an end. I hope the Chief Secretary will take some steps to carry out an improvement on the lines I have suggested.
    Captain SHEEHAN: I wanted to follow on the lines of the two previous speakers and to develop some arguments bearing upon the issues which they raised and also dealing with the problems of Irish reconstruction. I feel that the manner in which the Minister of Reconstruction and the Chief Secretary for Ireland have been dealing with that issue is not at all satisfactory, but since neither of those right hon. Gentlemen is present it would be largely waste of time to develop the issue at any length. I will content myself with saying that I will take the earliest opportunity of raising this question when they are here and insisting that the separate conditions and considerations which apply to Ireland must be considered and dealt with. I

    1299
    have the fullest sympathy with the demand which my hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch) voiced. I regard these so-called outrages in Ireland as legitimate efforts of the people to acquire the right of free Access to land which is not properly used. The denial of that right is at the root of most of the mischief in Ireland at present. I believe if the Government only tackled the problem properly of distributing the grazing ranches and the uncultivated areas in Ireland among the landless people they would be capable of using them to the national advantage, and you would have an end of a lot of the trouble in that country at present. I hope the matter will be earnestly considered on an early and a suitable opportunity. In every country, particularly where the peasant population is the mainstay and the backbone of the nation, the demand for utilising the land properly will always be the strongest national demand the people can make. I think in the highest Government quarters they will be exceedingly well advised if they remember that the agricultural labouring population, regard themselves as the dispossessed tenants of the land of Ireland and will never be satisfied until they get back to it on equitable conditions. As to the question of re-housing, we are not satisfied with the statements which have come from the Ministerial Bench. It is in a backward condition. You have already your schemes of preparation in England, Scotland and Wales, but you have done nothing for Ireland, and our demand is that we should have a separate Irish Reconstruction Council to deal independently with the separate conditions which exist in Ireland, so that we should be able to frame schemes suitable to the needs of our people, and particularly I want for reasons which must be obvious to everyone, to see that the Irish
    1300
    soldiers and sailors who have given their services in this War, when they are being demobilised, must have conditions pre pared for them so that they shall go back to useful occupations.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now Adjourn."
    Mr. KING: May I ask when the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill will be taken?
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): We shall not take it on the first day we meet, though it will be down on that day. I think we may take it on the second day—probably after eleven o'clock.
    Mr. KING: There will be a very great number of Amendments. A great number of Members wish to take part. They were very considerate on the Second Reading, and I think, under the circumstances, it will be very hard to take it after eleven o'clock. I put forward the consideration that we ought to have it in the following week as first Order.
    Lord E. TALBOT: My right hon. Friend wishes to get on with the Education Bill.
    Mr. KING: You are taking a long holiday.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes before Nine o'clock till Tuesday, 9th April, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day