Commons Sitting of 9 May 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Brentford Gas Bill (by Order),
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [20th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Sir Donald Maclean): The Committee which has been set up to consider the principle proposed in all these Bills is still sitting, and will not report for some time. I, therefore, propose to move the adjournment of all the Gas Bills on the Paper to-day until the 6th June.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, the 6th June.
Cannock Gas Bill, Hampton Court Gas Bill, Liverpool Gas Bill, Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill, Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill, Cardiff Gas Bill, Commercial Gas Bill, Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill, Maidenhead Gas Bill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gates-head Gas Bill, Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill, Portsea Island Gas Light Bill, Richmond Gas Bill, Southampton Gas Bill, South Metropolitan Gas Bill, South Shields Gas Bill, South Suburban Gas Bill, Swansea Gas Bill, York Gas Bill, Basingstoke Gas Bill, Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill, Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill.—(All by Order.)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, the 6th June.

NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
Copy presented of Treasury Warrant, dated 24th April, 1918, for the adjustment
2300
of the Annuities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Post Office Savings Banks' Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
Copy presented of Home Accounts of the Government of India, 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 56.]
EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
Copy presented of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for the year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copies presented of Order revoking the Wheat (Seed) Order, 1918, and Order continuing temporarily the Cream Order, 1917, made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUXURY DUTY.
Copy ordered "of Explanatory Statement on the French Tax on Luxuries."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    EAST AFRICA (GERMAN CURRENCY).
    Brigadier-General McCALMONTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons which have led to the retention of German currency in what was formerly German East Africa; whether the German rupee is regarded with contempt in Zanzibar and British East Africa; and whether the local military or civil authorities are satisfied that British prestige is maintained when

    2301
    natives receive British pay in the form of coinage bearing the Kaiser's head without British superscription?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): In reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, it is sufficient to point out that no other suitable silver coinage is available. The answer to the second part of his question is in the negative. With regard to the third part, the local and military and civil authorities were consulted at the time, and raised no objection of the kind suggested.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT REGULATIONS.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to inform women arrested under the new Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Acts that they do not need to subject themselves to a medical examination unless they them selves so desire?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I think this is clear on the face of the Regulation, and that no steps are required for the purpose mentioned in the question.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: As there is so much obscurity in the Regulation as to the right of a woman to refuse medical examination—an obscurity which was only cleared up to Members of this House by questions—does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless women who have been arrested are told of their legal right, the system will, in practice, be one of compulsory examination?
    Sir G. CAVE: There is no need to give any such information. I believe the effect of the Regulation is well understood.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked whether in the case of a woman charged with soliciting soldiers or sailors under the new Regulation 40 d of the Defence of the Realm Act, the soldier or sailor concerned will be called to give evidence before the woman is convicted?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no authority to give directions as to the evidence to be called before magistrates. As a general rule the soldier or sailor would in these cases be called as a witness for the pro-
    2302
    secution, but where he is not so called and the defendant desires to call him as a witness for the defence it will be for the magistrate to give the proper directions.
    Mr. R. M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether an arrest was recently made in the West of Ireland of a man who-had been put ashore from a German submarine; whether the prisoner is now in the Tower of London; whether any charge has been or is to be preferred against him; and whether he is to be tried by a civil or a military court?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): An arrest has been made in the manner suggested. The man arrested is in the Tower. A charge has been preferred against him. He will be tried by court-martial.
    Mr. McNEILL:Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House upon what charge this man is to be tried?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir. I cannot.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will he say why secrecy has been observed in this matter, and will he give instructions for the Press to be allowed to publish full details?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is most important in the public interest that secrecy should be observed.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does the hon. Gentleman know that a full account of this matter has appeared in the Irish papers?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this man had any assistance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can add nothing to the answer I have given.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether the superintendent of the Wake-field work centre is called the agent; whether the agent is a business manager and labour director only or has control of the whole centre; how many agents have been employed at Wakefield work centre during the last two years; how many have voluntarily resigned; how many have been otherwise removed; and what are the names, qualifications, and emoluments of the present agent at Wakefield?
    Sir G. CAVE: The superintendent of the Wakefield work centre is called the manager, and his duties and powers are laid down in the Committee's rules which have been laid before the House. The present manager is the fourth who has been appointed, the remaining three having voluntarily resigned their position. His name is George Alfred Pritchard, he is a retired prison governor, and his remuneration is £260 per annum, with quarters.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary whether conscientious objectors who have served a sentence of two years for refusing, on conscientious grounds, to obey military orders, will be discharged at the end of that period without liability to be called up again?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made on behalf of the Government in another place on the 30th April.
    Mr. MORRELL: How are we to know what statement was made in another place? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us himself what is the answer?
    Sir G. CAVE: That would take some time, but the hon. Member can refer to the Debates. [Hoy. Members: "No!"]
    Mr. MORRELL: May I ask, Sir, whether a Minister is entitled to refer us to what happened in another place? Can we not have a statement made by him?
    Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will endeavour to put in form the answer he requires. I recognise the rights of the House, and that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to an answer.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I will repeat the question for Monday.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary why J. J. Sawyer, a conscientious objector now employed by the British Organic Ammonia Company, of Connah's Quay, near Chester, who has been under the Home Office scheme since 28th February, 1917, and who has made application to be given the exceptional employment privilege, has been refused this; and will he take steps to see that this request is granted?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. This man's case has not yet been con-
    2304
    sidered by the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors.. It will be considered as soon as possible.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if an application was received from Mr. W. T Hutchinson, of the works centre, Wakefield, who has spent seventeen months at the above centre and is entitled to the exceptional employment scheme, to be allowed to accept a position as clerk to the executive officer in the Lincoln Food Control office; whether the executive officer wrote to the Home Office Committee in February asking that Hutchinson might be released as early as possible; and will he state why nothing has yet beer, done to release this man for work where he would be more usefully employed?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that no man is entitled to be allowed to take up exceptional employment unless the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors are satisfied that his conduct and industry have been good. In this case they are not so satisfied.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
    General COLVINasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that doubt exists as to the precise meaning of domestic servants, out-door, in Part 1. of the Schedule of the Withdrawal of Exemptions Order, No. 1, 1918; whether it includes men engaged in the production of food upon a substantial scale; and, if so, whether there is any and, if so, what machinery whereby the calling up of such men may be postponed in view of the importance of saving the crops which at the present season they arc engaged in rearing, or whether facilities can be given for the consideration of such cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The Order affects only men under forty-three of Grades 1 or 2 who hold exemptions on occupational grounds, and it is not anticipated that the number of such men who are producing necessary food—not luxury foods—on a substantial scale can be very large. A certain discretion has been given to the officials of the Ministry in the regions in dealing with special cases of decertified men, and, as provided in the Order, permission for exceptional cases to be sent back to the tribunal for decision on occupational grounds, may be granted.

    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES WITHDRAWN.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Minister of National Service if his attention has been drawn to the issue of of notices withdrawing certificates of exemption held by men on grounds of business and domestic hardship as though they were occupational certificates; and whether he proposes to send instructions to his local representatives informing them of the explanation and pledge given on the 24th January last whilst the Military Service Bill was in Committee?
    Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into the cases of which the hon. Member has privately sent me particulars. Detailed instructions have been given to all National Service officials concerned, explaining that an Order withdrawing exemptions, made under the Military Service Act, 1918, relates only to exemptions granted wholly or partly on occupational grounds. It is possible, however, that the hon. Member refers to exemptions withdrawn by a Proclamation under the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918, which include exemptions granted on personal grounds as well as those granted on occupational grounds.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service whether the National Registration Act is now being used for the purpose of the conscription of discharged men?
    Mr. BECK: The information derived from the registers compiled under the provisions of the National Registration Acts is used in connection with the administration of the Military Service Acts. In view of the very wide measure of protection given to discharged men by the new Military Service Act, it is to the advantage of such men to be registered under the National Registration Acts, so that they may be identified, and obtain the benefits of the provisions set out in the First Schedule to the recent Military Service Act.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service whether men who have been discharged for medical reasons can now be conscripted between the ages of forty-one and fifty one?
    Mr. BECK: The position of men discharged from the Army on medical grounds with regard to liability for re-
    2306
    newed military service is detailed in the first Schedule to the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1918. Paragraph 4 of that Schedule sets out the three classes of discharged men who are excepted from the provisions of the Act.

    TIME-EXPIRED WOUNDED MEN.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service whether time-expired men who have been wounded can be con scripted between the ages of forty-one and fifty-one?
    Mr. BECK: Time-expired men between the ages of forty-one and fifty-one are liable for military service under the recent Act unless they fall within the exception set out in paragraph 4 (b) of the First Schedule to the Act which relates to time-expired men officially reported as wounded during the present War if engaged whole time in work certified to be of national importance.

    FARM WORKER CALLED UP.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he will state why W. E. Thornhill, of 32, Montague Place, Shrewsbury, has been called to the Colours by the local recruiting officer, seeing that he is a whole-time agricultural worker, so stated in the national registration form, and in medical category C1; and will steps be taken immediately to cancel this calling-up notice?
    Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will sec that the hon. Member is informed of the result.

    WOODHOUSE TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he can state what action he proposes to take in regard to the action of the representative at the Mansfield Woodhouse Tribunal, who, in the hearing of a claim for conscientious objection on 23rd April, asked one applicant why he could not be straightforward and say he was a coward, and asked another applicant if he had a heart as big as a cauliflower or had he a white liver; and whether the Minister of National Ser vice proposes that this person should continue to occupy the position of representative of the Ministry?
    Mr. BECK: As I stated in answer to the hon. Member for West Leeds on Monday last, inquiries are being made into this matter.

    WIDOW'S TENTH SON.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that Mrs. Pilkington, a widow living in Redoubt Street, Radford, Nottingham, has eight sons serving, one of whom has been killed and two disabled; whether her tenth son, William Pilkington, is now being called up, leaving her without anyone to manage her business; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BECK: The case referred to is one of those covered by the Proclamation of the 20th April, and, as I stated on the 2nd May, in answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, the conditions of the Proclamation were very carefully considered by the Government, and it was decided that in view of the urgent necessity of the present time exceptions must be limited to the extent referred to in the Proclamation.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that his circular of February dealing with one-man businesses, which was issued to tribunals, was not known to several tribunals up to 30th April, or to many members of the legal profession pleading before tribunals, or to men applying to tribunals for exemption; will he say if any means was taken to make such circular known to the public; and, if not, will he in future make the people aware of the rights they possess in appearing before these bodies in so far as these rights arise out of circulars from his Department?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the negative. As the circular was issued to all local tribunals and Appeal Tribunals in February, I am unable to understand the suggestion that it was not known to them up to the 30th April. Means were taken to make the circular known to the public by placing it on sale and by communicating copies to the newspapers in the usual way. In these circumstances, the last part of the question does not arise. I can, however, assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am anxious that the terms of such circulars should be made known to the public as widely as is possible.

    ARRAN (AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. WATTasked who constitute the agricultural committee of the Island of Arran; how many, if any, of these represent the small holders on the island; and how many of the committee are of military age and fitness?
    Mr. MUNRO: The committee consists of fifteen members, of whom it is believed that four are small holders. I have no information enabling me to answer the last part of the question.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take means to find out whether any and how many are of military age and fitness?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no information on that subject.

  LIQUOR TRADE (STATE PURCHASE).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Home Secretary who drew up the unsigned Comparison of Reports and the Abstract (England and Wales) Report which precede the Reports of the English, Scottish, and Irish Committees on State Purchase and Control of Liquor Trade as published; and if the Abstract and Comparison were submitted to the English, Scottish, and Irish Committees before publication?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Abstracts and Comparison of these Reports were prepared in my Department. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (WORK ON ALLOTMENTS).
  Colonel THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he will reduce the fines inflicted upon nine men of Streatham Station, W Division, Metropolitan Police; is he aware that the men were assisting to dig allotments in their spare time, which at the present time is of national importance; is he aware that certain men were picked upon for this technical offence and who were suspected of being interested in the Police Union; and will he call for reports as to the words used by the officer inflicting the punishment respecting Com missioners' orders before work of national importance?
  Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the lion. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for York on the 6th May. I have nothing to add, except that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the men were dealt with because of any suspected connection with the Police Union.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Are we to understand that the Home Office wish to discourage members of the force from assisting in the production of food in this country?
  Sir G. CAVE: By no means. Permission is already given to members of the police force to work of their own allotments, but it is obvious that they cannot be allowed to work for hire for other people to an unlimited extent.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the Home Office take steps to give every facility to policemen to obtain their own allotments?
  Sir G. CAVE: No steps are necessary. The Commissioners are very ready to give permission.

  MUNITIONS.

    MESSES. ELLIOTTS, NEWBURY.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether Messrs. Elliotts, a firm of moulders and joiners, at New bury, Berks, have dismissed several girls because of their membership of a trade union, and that, prior to reinstating these girls, this firm has made the girls sign a paper stating they were not, and would not become, members of a trade union; whether the firm is controlled by his Department and the action complained of is illegal; and whether he will make inquiry into this matter, with a view to its prompt treatment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have caused local inquiry to be made into this matter. I am informed that no girls were dismissed on the grounds alleged. It was necessary, on account of alteration in machinery required by the Government, to give a week's notice to the whole of the women workers, and the women's work was closed down entirely from 15th March to 21st March. Since then women have been re-engaged as work was available for them, but no applicants for re-engagement have been asked to sign any paper on the subject of trade union membership or have
    2310
    been rejected on the ground of refusal to do so. I understand that the girls were asked to sign a card which contains no reference to trade union membership, but contains an inquiry as to the medical association to which the applicant belongs. It is possible that this may have given rise to misunderstanding.

    GLYCO METALL GESELLSCHAFT.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of Munitions whether a company known as the Glyco Metall Gesellschaft, of Manchester, are contractors and sub-con tractors to his Department; whether they are employed in the manufacture of altitude gauges for aeroplanes and other important work; whether the directors of this company are all Germans and the chairman of the company, one Putz, was a member of a club known as the Schiller An salt, founded by the late German Consul at Manchester, Herr Schlagintweit, and closed by the military authorities on account of active enemy connections; whether he will give the names of the other directors and whether these are changed names j how many of the shares are actually owned by Germans; and whether it is proposed to dispose of this enemy property?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): This company has had one small contract for castings in January, 1917, before the Air Force contracts were made by the Ministry of Munitions. So far as can be traced, they do not act as sub-contractors to Ministry contractors. The remaining questions should be addressed to the Departments concerned.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  Sir S. ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, considering the increased duties thrown upon local authorities, he will consider the advisability of introducing a general Bill enabling them to increase the numbers of members of their councils without having to go to the trouble and expense of taking separate action in Parliament?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Stephen Walsh): My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has already had this matter

  2311
  under consideration, but he cannot, under the present circumstances, encourage the hope of legislation.

  CHILDREN (BOARDING-OUT).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Local Government Board the numbers of boards of guardians in England and Wales who have provided for the boarding-out of children above five years of age in their charge either in private houses or in cottage homes, and the number of such boards who have not carried out this reform?
  Mr. WALSH: At the end of last year 566 out of 636 unions had one or more children boarded out. The Department does not possess the information respecting the ages of the children, and to obtain the information would involve a disproportionate degree of labour not at present justifiable. The Regulation which requires that all children above the age of three shall be removed from the workhouse has been suspended in 148 cases owing to causes due to the War.

  REGISTRATION FORMS.
  Major WHELERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the large number of different forms which have been issued in connection with the registration of voters under the new register; and whether, in view of the shortage of paper, he will consider the advisability of reducing the number of forms to be used for such purposes?
  Mr. WALSH: The number of forms prescribed by the Order in Council for use in connection with the preparation of the new register has been kept as low as possible, and the need for economy in the use of these and other forms has been impressed upon registration officers.

  SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES COMMITTEE.
  Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the position of snipping and shipbuilding industries after
  2312
  the War, referred to in the Final Report of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War, has yet presented any Report; and, of so, whether he will consider the advisability of publishing such Report at an early date, so that it may be considered in conjunction with the Report of the Committee on Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given yesterday to the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe.

  SOMME BATTLE.

    WITHDRAWAL OF FIFTH ARMY.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the public demand that the circumstances which led to the defeat of fourteen British Infantry divisions at the hands of more than forty enemy divisions should be made known without undue delay; and whether, seeing that six weeks have elapsed since the occurrence, he can say when the Report of the inquiry into the generalship of General Gough and the conduct of the Army under his command may be expected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the written answer which I gave on the 1st May to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Hampshire West, to which I have nothing to add.
    Major NEWMAN: May I ask whether the hon. Member realises the cruelty, not alone to General Gough, but also to the remnants of his gallant army, caused by this delay?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot add anything to the very full answer I gave on 1st May.

  GENERAL MAURICE'S LETTER.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister pending the decision of the court of honour to be set up in relation to Major-General Maurice's charges, those Ministers who are to submit themselves to it will continue to exercise the functions attaching to their respective offices?
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would ask the hon. Member to await the Debate this afternoon.

  EMPEROR KARL'S LETTER.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether he assumed sole responsibility for rejection by this country of the proposal made by the Emperor Karl of Austria for the initiation of negotiations for peace?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can make no statement on this subject.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the documents relating to this matter have been published in the French Press, which disclosed the fact that the Prime Minister supported the proposals of the Emperor Karl, and is it not very essential, therefore, that we should know the whole facts, at any rate as far as they are disclosed to the French public?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention has been called to the examination before the French Committee. At present I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a statement showing the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister in this matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall be prepared to make a statement when we think it will be to the public interest to do so, and not otherwise.
  Mr. PRINGLE:Is it not in the public interest that this House and the country should know whether the Prime Minister, on his own responsibility, without consulting his colleagues, was prepared to agree to the terms in the Emperor Karl's letter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We must be the judges as to what information we shall publish.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment for Whitsuntide.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DOGS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister what are the exact duties of the Committee appointed to inquire into the feeding of dogs; and can he say what are the terms of the reference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee is considering what steps are necessary and practicable to effect a reduction in the consumption of food by dogs. There are no formal terms of reference.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee to consider the advisability of cutting down the food allowance of German prisoners and making some small saving in that way?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the reopening of Deptford Cattle Market for the slaughtering of live cattle from the Argentine would increase the meat supply for the London area and the supply of hides for Army requirements, and incidentally relieve the congested railway traffic; and if the proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply. At the present time no live cattle are being imported into this country from the Argentine, and consequently the re-opening of Deptford Cattle Market would not increase. the meat supply, unless the regulations governing the importation of live cattle were modified to permit of Argentine cattle being imported. It is not clear that such importation would be desirable, in view of the fact that the cattle and their fodder would require a larger amount of freight space than that at present used for refrigerated meat.

    JAM.
    General COLVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that there is no jam on sale in London; and whether, with the small ration of butter allowed to the working classes, he can see his way to release a greater quantity of jam for public consumption?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that all jam is passed into consumption as soon as it is made.

    PIGS (FEEDING STUFFS).
    Major WHELERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the scarcity of feeding stuffs for pigs, he will authorise

    2315
    the sale of small seed potatoes for such a purpose after the requirements of this season's acreage for planting have been met?
    Mr. CLYNES: Any potatoes which are not ware potatoes fit for human consumption may be sold for feeding to pigs without a licence.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is the intention of His Department to pay to farmers possessed of ware potatoes from 15th May to end of June the price of £7 per ton f.o.r. in 4 ton lots if they have failed to find purchasers at that price, or whether they are expected to offer these potatoes to dealers at lower prices than £7 per ton; and, if the latter, is the difference to be made up by the Food Department?
    Mr. CLYNES: Farmers who arc able to satisfy the Ministry of Food on and after 15th May that they are unable to find purchasers for their potatoes in lots of 4 tons or more at or above the base price then ruling, will be entitled to receive payment for their potatoes from the Ministry of Food at the rate of £7 per ton. If potatoes are sold to dealers at a figure which is below £7 per ton but not below the current base price, the seller can claim the difference from the Ministry of Food.

    CATTLE CAKE.
    Colonel W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Ministry of Food has imported all the cattle cake for which the Ministry of Shipping has been able to allocate tonnage, or whether there was in the latter months of last year much spare freight space on neutral and other ships which might have been used for the importation of cattle cake?
    Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, previous to December 17th, 1917, 96.7 per cent, of our imports from North America—the main source of supply of imported cattle cake in present circumstances—came in controlled tonnage, and of the remaining 3.3 per cent, of uncontrolled space, the greater proportion was occupied by foodstuffs.
    2316
    Since December 17th, all tonnage has been controlled and allocated in accordance with a priority scheme approved by the Cabinet, and the policy of the Government has been to import grain and other food for human beings in preference to feeding-stuffs for animals. The importation of cattle cake from Egypt was discontinued in order that space might be provided for cotton seed and other more directly important materials. In no case has the question of price had any effect upon the amount of cake imported. I would further point out that large quantities of cotton seed and linseed have been imported into this country, and on arrival here have been crushed so as to produce both oil for edible and explosive purposes, and cake for feeding purposes.

    SUGAR.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Government can now see its way to release further supplies of sugar to retail confectioners for the manufacture of sweets and chocolates, in view of the distress they suffer by the almost extinction of their trade, while the public suffers only in less degree from the want of a commodity possessing no little food value and sustaining properties?
    Mr. CLYNES: As I informed the Noble Lord the Member for South Kensington on 16th April, the Sale of Sweetmeats (Restriction) Order is designed to pass all the available confectionery through the hands of the small retailers and those mainly dependent on the trade. Actual and prospective sugar supplies will not permit of increased issues of sugar being made to the manufacturers of sweetmeats.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will my hon. Friend strain every nerve to afford a further allowance to owners of small sweetshops who have invested their capital in them, and are threatened with absolute ruin?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid the supplies cannot be increased. The Order has already diverted the supplies from those general shops where sweets are a sideline and the smaller shops are dependent on them.
    Sir J. D. REES: They are still short in those smaller shops, and cannot the supplies be increased?
    Mr. CLYNES: We cannot do that, Sir.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that in future no sweets will be available at the large stores, and will it be illegal for large stores to sell sweets?
    Mr. CLYNES: In the main that would be the effect of it.

    ORKNEY BREAD FAMINE.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Minister of National Service if he has received representations that an island in Orkney with over 1,500 inhabitants, and at the present time entirely inaccessible, is threatened with a bread famine should the present foreman baker be called up; that the time of the owner of the bakery is fully employed on Government service; and that it has been with the utmost difficulty he has been able to carry on the bakery with the assisance of his daughters?
    Mr. BECK: My attention has been called to the case of Mr. Robertson, the foreman baker referred to. It is not possible for individual cases to be dealt with separately in London, and provision has been made in the instructions which have been issued to National Service officials administering the Decertification Order of the 9th April that exceptional cases may be dealt with in the appropriate region. Particulars of Mr. Robertson's case have accordingly been sent to the headquarters of the Scottish region.

  CLYDe SHIPYARDS (LOST TIME).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of National Service if he can state the number of riveters of military age employed in the Clyde shipyards who lost time on the 1st and 2nd May; whether any of them have been called on to explain before a committee; and whether any of them have had their protection certificates withdrawn?
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Pretyman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It will not be possible to get the information in the first part of the question asked by my hon. Friend without detailed inquiry from each firm. I am informed that the time lost by the shipyard trades on the dates named was small in proportion to the number at work, and I do not propose to institute an inquiry, as it would involve a disproportionate amount of time and labour on the part of the clerical staffs of
  2318
  the firms and Admiralty Departments concerned. Answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the negative, because the Admiralty time-keeping scheme is only applicable to workers who habitually keep bad time, and not to men absent on these specific dates, although absence on these dates might count in determining whether a man was an habitually bad time-keeper
  Mr. TERRELL: Is my right hon. Friend unable to give any information about these specific workers? He talked about workers generally. The question relates to rivetters.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have not any information as to rivetters who are concerned more than others. The information I have is correct, that there was no specially large absence on that day.
  Mr. BILLING: Is not this a question of principle and not of hours, and under these circumstances would the Admiralty consider the advisability of inquiring into the case whether time is lost purely on a question of principle and not a question of time?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: We do not inquire into cases where an individual man loses time on a particular day. What we inquire into is when time in habitually lost, and whether a man loses time on a particular day that contributes towards his becoming a habitual time loser. That is really the point.

  MEDICAL STUDENTS (ROYAL NAVY).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements his Department is making for the return of medical students from active service to their studies; has his Department recently received communications from the Scottish University authorities pointing out the urgency of speedy release in view of the fact that the summer medical session began on 24th April; and, if so, will lie say why the delay, as compared with the War Office Department, has arisen?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: An Order was issued to the Fleet in January last calling for reports of the names of all officers and men (other than surgeon probationers) who have, as medical students, passed the first professional examination in chemistry physics, and biology. On receipt of these reports, the lists are scrutinised, and,

  2319
  where such a course appears desirable, the officer or man. is allowed to return to continue his studies. Surgeon probationers are allowed to be demobilised at the end of six months' service at home or twelve months abroad, in order to complete their studies and qualify. I cannot trace that any communications from the Scottish University authorities pointing out the urgency of speedy release have been received. A number of officers and men have already been conditionally released, but some time must necessarily elapse before the replies from distant stations are received and dealt with. If my hon. and learned Friend has knowledge of delay in any particular case, and will furnish me with details, T will inquire further into the matter.

  SHIPBUILDING.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the gross tonnage of merchant vessels completed in the United Kingdom in April; how this compares with the corresponding figure for March; and what was the total output of the first four months of this year and of the last four months of last year?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: As my right hon. Friend will have seen, the information for which he asks is contained in the Return published in the Press this morning. The gross tonnage of merchant vessels completed in the United Kingdom will be published in the Press on the first Thursday in each month; if this should fall on or before the 3rd of the month, publication will be made on the second Thursday of that month.

  GOVEKNMENT OF IRELAND.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet have considered the proposal made in Sir Horace Plunkett's letter; whether the Government will adopt his scheme whereby an Irish executive broadly representative and composed of responsible men could be set up without delay, to whom should be entrusted the task of bringing into being the Irish Parliament, of promoting voluntary recruiting, and generally carrying on the administration of Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the steps to be taken in the event of the Bill being passed will be considered in due course.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    SECRETARY OF STATE'S MEMORANDUM.
    Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Prime Minister if, on 9th April, the late Secretary of State to the Air Ministry submitted a Memorandum to him setting forth the changes he proposed to make in the reorganisation of the Royal Air Force in this country, with the reasons for those changes, and asking assent thereto; if this Memorandum contained nothing of a secret nature except two figures; and, if so, to remove a prevalent misconception and in the interests of the Royal Air Force, will he communicate this Memorandum, omitting any confidential figures, to the House, together with the reply from the War Cabinet conveying approval of the changes proposed and authority to carry them into effect?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a confidential Cabinet Paper, it would not be right for me to answer his question.
    Sir H. NORMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he will seek some method of conveying to this House and the public, including the Royal Air Force, at least the outlines of the reorganisation which is proposed, and of which the resignation of General Trenchard was only a part?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a question which I think ought to be addressed to the Air Board as to general information. As to the question on the Paper, I can only say that a document intended for the Cabinet must be for the Cabinet alone.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they are going to employ General Trenchard?
    MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  SHEBA GOLD MINING COMPANY.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Sheba Gold Mining Company, a low- grade mining proposition of the Transvaal,

  2321
  bas decided to close down owing to the impossibility of continuing production under existing conditions of greater cost of working and un increased price of gold; and whether he can now make any statement as to the results of the consideration Government is giving to this subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 22nd ultimo.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter the earliest consideration in view of the fact that the loss on such mines is a continuing proposition?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite realise the importance of this subject, but my hon. Friend, I am sure, understands how difficult a one it is to deal with.

  BRITISH CREDITORS OF ENEMY COUNTRIES.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether any, and, if so, what, action has been taken for the protection of British creditors on enemy countries similar or analogous to the association formed in Germany for the protection of German creditors on enemy countries; and if such an association has been formed in this country, who are the directors thereof?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any such association in this country, but the position of British creditors of enemy countries has for a considerable time occupied the attention of the Enemy Debts Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles is acting chairman.

  TITHE RENT.
  Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of inserting in the present Finance Bill some clauses to restore to tithe payers the benefits promised and presumably provided for in the Tithe Act of 1891, Section 1, which appears to guarantee that the amount of the tithe should never exceed two-thirds of the then assessment under Schedule B; and whether he will provide in the Finance Bill that the tithe-rent shall not, during the War, exceed two-thirds of the pre-war assessment under Schedule B?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend apparently refers to Subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Tithe Act, 1891. In that Sub-Section there is no question of the amount of the Income Tax assessment under Schedule B. The criterion is the annual value of the lands as ascertained for the purpose of Schedule B, and this annual value is, of course, not affected by the amount of the actual assessment under Schedule B, for which it merely serves as a basis of computation.
  Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the General Commissioners of Income Tax are, under the Tithe Act of 1891, Sections 4 and 5, compelled to give to the owners or occupiers of land subject to the tithe-rent charge, upon payment of Is. per certificate, certificates as to the assessment of such lands under Schedule B; and whether the Government will cause the General Commissioners of Income Tax to give such certificates forthwith and not withhold them, as they are at present doing, in clear disobedience to the. plain intentions of the Tithe Act of 1891.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of any case of refusal to furnish a certificate upon application in the circumstances for which the Act provides, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars I will have the matter investigated.

  MATCH COMMITTEE.
  Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether upon the Match Committees acting with the control officer there are men who are really agents or nominees of the Scandinavian trusts; whether one of these is of alien birth and another is a partner with one who is of enemy-alien birth; if these were appointed as having match factories in this country; whether inquiries will be instituted to see if these factories are, according to the published balance-sheets of the Scandinavian trusts, wholly their property and erected in this country to get behind the preferential tariffs of our Colonies; that these factories have been so manipulated as to the cost prices of the same and raw materials obtained from the trusts in Sweden as to evade the payment of British Income Taxes such as are paid by bonò fide British match factories; whether these factories are largely manned 'by alien labour; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir A. STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Match Administration Committee, established under the direction of the Tobacco and Matches Control Board, consists of representatives of match manufacturers, importers, and wholesale dealers, and includes a member who is a director of a Swedish firm owning a factory in this country. He was elected by the trade to watch the interests of those in this country who formerly bought imported matches, but neither he nor any other member of the Committee is of alien birth, and I understand that the only alien employed at the British factory is the manager, who is a Swede. I doubt if the company are able to evade taxation in respect of their business in this country, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any information on this point I suggest that he should communicate it to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

  BANK AMALGAMATIONS (REPORT).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked if the Committee on Bank Amalgamations have yet reported; and if the Report will be published?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report has been received, and will be published immediately.

  COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE RAVITAILLEMENT.

    RUSSIAN COMMITTEE.
    Mr. KINGasked bow much money has been paid or authorised for payment by the Treasury in respect of the needs of the Russian Committee of the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement; and how much money, if any, has been paid as rent by this Russian committee as due in respect of offices in or near Kingsway, London?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 7th instant. No rent has been charged.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether salaries are still being paid to the Russian officials in this building?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I have referred, he will see that that is dealt with.

  WHITSUNTIDE BANK HOLIDAY.
  Sir E. GOULDINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the near approach of the Whitsuntide holidays, he can say what arrangements have been made to secure that Saturday, 18th May, shall be declared a holiday for bank staffs?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday on this subject to the hon. Member for Newington West.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY
  Mr. HOLTasked whether the Board of Inland Revenue has decided that a firm may deduct a sum not exceeding 10s. per head of its employés from its Excess Profits Duty to be expanded in approved schemes for the recreation of its employés; and, if so, what authority exists for this decision?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no authority for a firm to make such a deduction as is described in the question, nor is any such deduction made. But annual contributions actually made by a business solely for purposes from which the employés directly benefit, and properly attributable to the periods for which -hey arc charged, are regarded as legally admissible under the general deductions in the computation of taxable profits for the purposes of Excess Profits Duty.

  INCOME TAX.
  Major WHELERasked whether, in view of the fact that the value of farmhouses is taken into account in fixing the rent of farms, he will issue instructions that, where farmers are paying Income Tax on the basis of a double rental, a deduction shall be made of the value of their farmhouses, so that houses inhabited by farmers shall not pay Income Tax on double their rental value?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Budget proposal is to measure the farmer's profits on the basis of double the annual value of

  2325
  the farm, including the farmhouse, which is comprised in the letting. As I have repeatedly stated if in any case the actual profits fall short of the Statutory measure the farmer will be able to obtain a corresponding reduction so as to bear tax upon no more than the profits made.
  Major WHELER:Is it a fact that any farmer who cannot come under Schedule B will have to pay double on his farmhouse?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. He will have to pay double the total value of what he has left, which includes the farmhouse.
  Captain Sir B. STANIER: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is fair that farmers should be called upon to pay double on the house when it is not part of the business premises?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It may not be fair taken by itself, but it is certainly fair if they have the option of being taxed in precisely the same way as everyone else.

  NATIONAL WAR BONDS.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the amount subscribed last week to the National 'War Loan and the amount that has to be subscribed per week to make up the deficit between taxation revenue and expenditure?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The proceeds of National War Bonds paid into the Exchequer during the week ended 4th May were £12,596,000, which is much below the average weekly receipts. The expenditure and the revenue fluctuate greatly from week to week. On the basis of the Budget Estimate, the deficiency to be made good by borrowing from all sources in the year is just under £41,000,000 a week on the average.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for this falling off of half the subscriptions to the Loan, in view of the statement that his Budget would give further encouragement to the lender?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I cannot give any special explanation. I may say that we expected that there would be a falling off in May. I am told that part of the reduction, especially in War Saving Certificates, is due to the efforts of the
  2326
  pacifists, who are trying to discredit the Loan, although they have not been very successful.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of that statement, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only efforts of the pacifists in that direction are to show the country what an incompetent and corrupt Government they have?
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw the word corrupt!
  Mr. BONAR LAW: However bad the-Government is, money is necessary if the War is to be continued.
  Mr. D. MASON: In view of the fact that there is a very large increase in short term floating indebtedness, and in view of the poor response to the War Bonds, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of issuing a new popular loan?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member must feel certain that these considerations are not absent from our minds, but these War Bonds have succeeded to a far greater extent than we expected. A special effort was made for the purpose of being able to meet the deficiency.

  WOMEN VOTERS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. GULLANDasked the-Secretary for Scotland if he will say what arrangements he has made for ensuring that women who are eligible as voters in Midlothian shall have their names put on the register; and whether he has satisfied himself that in all other constituencies Form A contains spaces for the names of women?
  Mr. MUNRO: I am informed that the register is being compiled in Midlothian from information obtained through forms, issued to householders and occupiers, supplemented by a house-to-house inquiry. The forms originally sent out by the registration officer referred to men only, but information is now being obtained in the prescribed form which should ensure that women duly qualified are placed upon the electors' lists. As regards the last part of the question, the form which I pre scribed contains full provision for the return of the names of women electors. The use of this particular form is not compulsory, but I have no reason to suppose that the forms in use in Scotland generally are defective in this respect.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that local committees have no direct power to grant allowances to guardians of motherless children whose fathers have died either whilst serving in the Navy or Army, or as a result of wounds or sickness attributable to such service, but have only power to continue for twenty-six weeks any allowance previously granted, and after the expiration of that period can only recommend the Special Grants Committee to make temporary allowances; if he will state whether any steps are being taken to enable the allowances to guardians in such cases to be of a more permanent nature; and, if so. what arrangements are being made?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The facts are as stated. In the case of a serving soldier whose children become motherless, the special allowance is only paid where some person enters the home with the object of keeping it together against the soldier's return. If the soldier also dies, that object can no longer be achieved, and the allowance is then only continued in suitable cases until permanent arrangements for the future care of the children can be made. These permanent arrangements have to be within the limits of the very liberal scale provided for motherless children by the new Warrant.
  Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the War Office is considering the effect of the increasing cost of living upon the existing scale of separation allowances; and whether there is any intention of increasing those allowances, especially as regards children?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The answer is in the negative. The Government has already made provision for extra assistance, where it is necessary, through the local War Pensions Committee.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the great unwillingness of self-respecting women to make personal appeal to the Committee, and make it possible for them to live on the separation allowance?
  Mr. FORSTER: I entirely sympathise with the difficulties of these women, but, in the interests of public economy, I am afraid I cannot see my way to adopt the suggestion at present, at any rate.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the right hon. Gentleman made representations to the Government, and asked them to consider the advisability of raising the allowance to these women, having regard to the fact that the prices of commodities have nearly trebled in the past two years?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not convinced that the increase in the cost of living has been so great.
  Mr. WING: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that the powers of the committees are so limited that the whole extent of the relief makes it practically no relief at all?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.

  SHAMROCK FUND.
  General McCALMONTasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention have been called to an appeal to America, under the title of the Shamrock Fund, which represents that maimed and disabled Irish soldiers are in urgent need of assistance, and which has been issued together with a schedule of alleged serious cases of neglect; whether this appeal has the sanction of the Ministry; and whether the necessity for such an appeal to another country is admitted?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am making inquiries.
  General McCALMONT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take immediate action to prevent the publication of this very scandalous appeal in America at the very earliest possible moment?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am afraid that I have not got power to stop the publication of a document in America.
  General McCALMONT: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman not got power to publish replies to statements as to cases of alleged neglect?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will take care that if misstatements are made suitable replies shall be published.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the fact that this is not the only fund which is being raised for the same purpose, and that there are at least a half-dozen in this country?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes; but they are not, as I gather from the question raised, under the same pretext as this fund.
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes; they are!
  Sir J. DOUGHERTY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Shamrock Fund has been in existence for some years under the presidency of the Countess of Kingston, who has herself spent several months in America working in the interests of the fund, and can he say whether the proceeds which she collects are being administered by a representative committee for the benefit of maimed and disabled Irish soldiers?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am prepared to make full inquiry into this matter. Until I have the information it is impossible to make any further statement.
  General McCALMONT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I made no reflection whatever on the fund or its collectors, but merely on the appeal that has been made for money in America?

  KEIGHLEY ELECTION (WAR AIMS LITERATURE).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, as Chairman of the War Aims Propaganda Committee, if he will state what quantity of literature and how many wall posters and cinema films were sent into the Keighley Parliamentary Division during the month of April; and what quantity was sent to the address of the committee room of the Government candidate?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): There has been a general distribution of certain publications of the War Aims Committee throughout the country, and the Keighley Parliamentary Division was not excluded. No wall posters or cinema films were sent, nor were any publications addressed to the committee room of the Government candidate.

  ANTHRAX. SCAB, AND SWINE FEVER.
  Sir J. SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number of cases of anthrax in cattle, scab in sheep, and swine fever in pigs, which were reported during the six months prior to 25th March last, and the reports of such cases received during the corresponding six months in the year 1917; and, in view of the scarcity of animal foods, is he satisfied that the most effective means are being used to combat these diseases?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The numbers of cases of anthrax, sheep scab, and swine fever in the period of twenty-six weeks ended the 23rd March last were, respectively, 162, 337, and 509. The corresponding figures for the same period of the previous year were 338, 539, and 1,302. The methods of dealing with disease of all kinds are constantly under consideration by the Board, and they have no more effective means to-employ at the present time.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that numbers of Royal Army Medical Corps men are being transferred to Infantry units, resulting in dissatisfaction owing to the fact that many of them are over forty years of age, and joined the Army because- of their knowledge of ambulance work in civil life; and, in view of the fact that it was understood they were to be retained for that work, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on the 5th February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, of which I will send him a copy.
  Mr. WINGasked if the Royal Army Medical Corps units are all complete or is the Army still accepting recruits?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Recruits are still being accepted for the Royal Army Medical Corps subject to certain limitations as to age and medical fitness.
  Mr. WING: Is not the reply which has just been given an absolute contradiction to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Blackburn?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend will do me the honour of reading the reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn, he will see that there is no contradiction.

  GENERAL YERMOLOFF.
  83. Mr. KING: asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he will state the last date on which there were communications passing, or other relations, between the War Office and General Yermoloff, or any of General Yermoloff's staff; and whether he is aware that General Yermoloff has no commission and no authority under the present Russian Government?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There have been no communications between the War Office and General Yermoloff or any of his staff, except those relative to the winding-up of the affairs with which General Yermoloff was concerned and the disposal of the Russian officers for whom the latter was responsible. As regards the last part of the question, I am aware that General Yermoloff's position is analogous to that of other officials appointed by the late Russian Government.

  McGRIGOR BARRACKS, ALDERSHOT.
  Major NEWMANasked the Under secretary of State for War if he will state what accommodation there is at the McGrigor Barracks, Aldershot, for officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps; whether the temporary officers are forced to take apartments out side at their own expense; and will he provide sufficient accommodation for all officers within the barracks?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It is necessary to make inquiries of the local military authorities in this case. This is being done, and I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

  ARMY DENTAL SURGEONS (EGYPT AND SALONIKA).
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his
  2332
  attention has been drawn to a certain rest camp used by soldiers operating in Egypt and Salonika where the floating military population varies from 9,000 to 15,000; if so, will he state the number of qualified dental surgeons ordinarily stationed at that camp; how many hours it takes to obtain from the nearest available source of supply additional dental surgeons if required; and whether the employment of such additional dental surgeons reduces the efficiency of the dental service at thy camp from which they are withdrawn?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am making further inquiry, by telegraph, into this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  INFANTRY (TRANSFERS).
  Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of men who in response to advertisements have joined the Royal Air Force and the Royal Engineers, and who have at once been transferred to the Infantry; and whether he would state what action he proposes to take regarding such men?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has written to me regarding this question, and I am inquiring into the matter. I will communicate with him as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT (CASUALTIES).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the casualties suffered by the North Staffordshire Regiment on 21st March, the first day of the German offensive; whether this regiment had been sent to occupy a portion of the line recently taken over from the French; and, if so, can he state whether this operation was undertaken on the advice of General Sir William Robertson and Field-Marshal Sir Douglas Haig?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend is correct in stating that a North Staffordshire battalion suffered severe casualties in the fighting of 21st March. I cannot answer the remaining parts of the question.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has inquiry been made as to the general circumstances that led to this catastrophe?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a question on that point the other day. I have nothing to add.

  COMBATANT SERVICE (COURT MARTIAL).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he will have special inquiry made at once into the case of Private H. B. Johnson, S/4, No. 041752, 15th Field Bakery, British Expeditionary Force, who, though having strong conscientious objections against combatant service, nevertheless enlisted in the Army on the 31st December, 1914, on the condition that he was to be employed in the Army in his trade as a baker, and who, since July, 1915, has been working at that trade in France, and who, until 27th April last, had a record free from sickness or misconduct, but who has now refused to obey an order requiring him to be equipped for Infantry; and, seeing that on 14th March last, when it was suggested that he should join the Infantry, he made an application under the Army instruction governing such matters to be transferred to a non - combatant corps on account of his conscientious objection to combatant service, whether the court-martial proceedings which have been taken against him for refusing to obey the order mentioned will be quashed and an opportunity given him to apply to continue with the field bakery regiment or to be transferred to a non-combatant corps?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No court-martial proceedings in this case have yet been received from France, and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's question. I understand, however, that Johnson enlisted for general service.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGISTERS.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the unrepresentative character of many town and district councils, and the need of completing the local government registers; when will local government and
  2334
  municipal elections be held; and whether it is intended that all elected and co-opted members should retire before elections are held?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am aware that the local government elections have been postponed by the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, and subsequent enactments, but I am not prepared to say that the town and district councils are necessarily unrepresentative in character. The new registers of local government electors are in course of preparation, and in the absence of further legislation the ordinary elections for town councils and Metropoltan borough councils would be held in November next, and other local government elections in March, 1919. As regards the last part of the question, I may say that in the case of those bodies whose members retire triennially all the members will go out of office at the next election. In other cases the members will retire in the ordinary rotation.

  HOUSING PROPOSALS.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether a further opportunity will be given at an early date to the House to express its opinion upon the unsatisfactory character of the Government's housing proposals?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not accept the statement of my hon. Friend that the proposals are unsatisfactory, and I cannot promise any special opportunity for the discussion of this subject, which has very recently been raised.

  GENERAL TOWNSHEND.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War in what part of Turkey General Townshend is now interned; and whether every effort will be made to procure the return of this officer to England under the recently concluded Berne Agreement?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: General Townshend is, it is understood, still interned near Constantinople. The exchange of prisoners of war with Turkey is based solely on grounds of health, and as no report has been received as to General

  2335
  Townshend's health being bad there appears to be nothing on which to base a representation to the Turkish Government.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is there any assurance that he will be sent to, England.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid not, at the moment.

  GATWICK RACES (TRAIN FACILITIES).
  Mr. G. LAMBERT(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway are advertising to run two special trains confined to passengers to the Gatwick races on Saturday next, besides stopping seven trains specially for race-goers; and whether he will, after his statement yesterday, prohibit such special facilities for the Gatwick race meeting?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I understand that arrangements have been made for the provision of the facilities referred to, but the whole question of racing has not yet been decided by the War Cabinet, and I do not think that I could at this late period take the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the railway company that these special facilities are repugnant to the feelings of all decent Englishmen?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I have already indicated to the Railway Executive that no relief trains are to be run except under very special circumstances.
  Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand whether these trains will be allowed to run or will not be allowed to run? Surely the Government can make up their mind?

  INDIA.

    HIGH COURTS (TEMPORARY JUDGES).
    Mr. SNOW DENasked the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the policy of the British Parliament in establishing the High Courts in India by the Act of 1861, as judicially noticed by Sir John Edge in 16 All. 149, and also of the speeches of the Under-Secretary of State for India in 1911, that the experiment of
    2336
    appointing temporary judges was with a view to get rid of the temporary congestion of work brought about by protracted trials, will the Government obtain the opinion of their legal advisers as to whether there has been a departure in the policy of the appointment of High Court judges since the amendment of 1911; if this has been the case, whether the appointment of two and four temporary judges, first for a period of two years and then for a further period of two years, then for six months, then for a year, and then for another six months, from 1912–17, is a violation of statutory power; and will he also explain the principles guiding the Government of India in exercising the powers vested in them to appoint temporary judges?
    Lieutenant-Commander DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): The opinions expressed in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court related only to the terms of the Act of 1861. By the Act of 1911 the Government of India were given a power, that they did not before possess, to appoint additional temporary judges for periods not exceeding two years. It was stated in this House when the Bill was before it that the power would be used to enable the Courts to deal with arrears of work, and to settle by experiment the number of permanent judges really needed. The Secretary of State for India is satisfied that the temporary appointments made in the Madras High Court, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, are within the statutory powers conferred in 1911, and are consistent with the policy of the Statute. The temporary appointments in question were, made for the purpose of reducing arrears, and of testing the permanent requirements of the Court. The permanent strength of the Court has since been raised by three judges. There are now only two additional temporary judges. Before any further change is made in the permanent strength of the Court more experience of the amount of litigation likely to come before it in the future is required.

  Cruelty to Animals in Mines.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions for cruelty to animals employed in mines were undertaken during 1917 by His Majesty's inspector of mines, colliery officials, and outside agencies, respectively?
  Sir G. CAVE: Prosecutions for offences involving, or likely to involve, cruelty to animals in mines were undertaken on behalf of the Home Office in seven cases in 1917. Complete information as to the number of prosecutions instituted by colliery managements has not yet been received, but I will forward the figures, when ready, to the hon. Member. I have no information as to the cases, if any, undertaken by outside agencies.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  SMALL. HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL,—"to authorise an increase in the amount of land which may be acquired for the purposes of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916," presented by Mr. PROTHERO; to be read a second time upon Monday next,' and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Charles Thornton Pulley, Esquire, for the County of Hereford (Southern or Ross Division).
  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Londonderry Corporation Bill—reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman now make a statement as to the business for next week, and as to the Adjournment?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we propose to take the Resolution on proportional representation, and if time permit to take the Post Office Vote, and other measures;
  On Tuesday, the Finance Bill—Second Reading;
  On Wednesday, Supply—the Board of Trade Vote.
  As regards the Adjournment, as I stated yesterday, we had hoped it would have been possible to introduce a Home Rule Bill before the Adjournment. We find, partly owing to the difficulty of the question and partly owing to our being so much occupied with other matters, that it is not possible, and we have decided to propose to the. House that we Adjourn on Thursday next until Tuesday, the 28th instant.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: Will my right hon. Friend say what stages of the Finance Bill will be taken on Tuesday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Only Second Reading.
  Mr. HOLT: Can my right hon. Friend explain what will be the nature of the proceedings on Monday on the Resolution relating to the Representation of the People Bill?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question. I understand the course of the proceedings will be as follows: The Motion on the Paper will be moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, in his private capacity. It is very likely, I understand, that that Motion will be of a general nature on which a general Debate may take place, and, of course, the nature of further proceedings will depend on the decision of the House.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: When will the terms of the Resolution be placed on the Paper?
  Sir G. CAVE: They are on the Paper already.
  Mr. PRINGLE: When will the Order in Council for Conscription in Ireland be put before the House, or is it to be postponed till the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The intention of the Government, as has already been explained to the House, is that the Order in Council will not be laid until the Home Rule Bill has been introduced. That is still our intention.
  Mr. BILLING: Is this House to understand that the Home Rule Bill will be the first business after the reassembling of Parliament?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will announce next week what the first business will be after the Recess.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say before the Recess when the Home Rule Bill will be taken?
  Mr. KING: Can he say definitely that it is the intention of the Government to introduce at the same time both the Home Rule Bill and the draft Order in Council?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing further to say than I have already said on that matter.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask the Leader of the House, arising out of the business on Monday, with regard to proportional representation, whether the Government will state its proposals then with regard to election expenses?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Whatever proposals will be necessary will, I think, be dependent upon the carrying of this Resolution. Until a decision is taken it is not possible to say.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Will it not be necessary to have a new Act of Parliament to alter the scale of expenses if the Resolution is carried?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe such an Act will be necessary, but the question will not arise until the House has arrived at a decision on this Resolution.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Motion relative to Ministerial Statements, on the Post Office (No. 2) Bill, on Horse Breeding [Expenses] (No. 2) Report, and on the Horse Breeding Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Bonar Law]

  GENERAL MAURICE'S LETTER.

    Mb. ASQUITH'S MOTION.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I beg to move, "That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the allegations of incorrectness in certain Statements of Ministers of the Crown to this House, contained in a letter of Major-General Maurice, late Director of Military Operations, published in the Press on the 7th day of May."
    A good deal of misconception seems to prevail with regard to what is really a very simple matter. I think it right, first of all, to state what the Motion standing in my name, and which I am about to make, is not, before I proceed, as I shall, to give reasons which, I think, ought to secure its adoption by the Government and by the House. I am one of those who hold very strongly the opinion that it is not the business of Parliament during a war such as that in which we are engaged to be constantly inquiring by Committees, or by any other instrument of investigation, into the conduct of successive phases of the War. I am not sure that we have not had more than enough of such inquiries already. I know that our neighbours and Allies in France take a different view. According to their procedure—it is not for us to criticise—there is—I do not like to use the word coordination—a concomitance of Parliamentary inquiry, with administrative action which constantly goes on. It may be suited to their special conditions, but I for one am strongly of opinion that it is not desirable to introduce it into the procedure of the British Parliament. Still less do I think that this House should occupy its time by investigations into the truth or falsehood of statements often made by ill-informed and irresponsible persons, and reflecting, as they have done from the very first days of the War, either upon the good faith or upon the competence of those who are for the time being charged with its prosecution. Nor, again, is the Motion which I am about to make, either in intention or in effect, as I have seen it rather absurdly described, a Vote of Censure upon the Government.
    An HON. MEMBER: The Irish are not here!
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I have, since I occupied this Beat, now, I think, for nearly eighteen
    2348
    months, never so far as my memory serves me given an adverse vote on any question that has proceeded from the Government. I have done all that I could—all that it was in my power to do—not only in this House but outside, without withholding what I consider to be legitimate and helpful criticism—I have done everything that I could to assist the Government in the prosecution of the War, and in particular in the definition and the propagation of the great purposes, both of war and of peace, for which we and our Allies are contending. Some of my Friends I know—some of those I see around me—think that I have been in those matters unduly faint-hearted and mealy-mouthed. I am quite content to submit to that criticism. I know that there are people—not, I think, in this House, but outside—gifted with more imagination that charity, and with more stupidity than either, who think of me as a person who is gnawed with a hungry ambition to resume the cares and responsibilities of office. I am quite content to leave foolish imaginations of that kind to the judgment of my colleagues in this House and of my countrymen outside. If I did feel it my duty—if I were to find it my duty to ask the House to censure the Government, I hope I should have the courage and the candour to do so in a direct and an unequivocal form. I certainly should not have selected for that purpose a Motion like this, limited to suggesting the desirability of an inquiry which only two days ago was admitted from that bench to be appropriate and expedient, which, as far as its scope is concerned, would be confined to the examination of two or three very simple issues of fact, and from which the Government, as I am sure they think they would—I do not want in any way to prejudge that matter—emerge not with diminished, but with enhanced authority and prestige. Perhaps I may tell the House this. It may be that although I am more advanced in Parliamentary experience, I was still more innocent of guile than those who are younger when I putdown this Resolution. I honestly thought that the Government were prepared to accept and to adopt it.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
    Mr. ASQUITH: That observation seems to excite a certain amount of surprise and incredulity on the part of some of

    2349
    my right hon. Friends opposite, but I think I shall be able in a few moments to show the House that I had ample ground for that belief. How does this matter arise? It arises, as we all know, from the publication two days ago in the Press of a letter from a distinguished General who, I think now for two years, has occupied at the War Office a most important and responsible post—that of Director of Military Operations. In that letter the writer, in temperate language, but very directly and explicitly, impugns the accuracy of statements on very serious matters which have been made to this House, in the course of the last few months, by Ministers of the Crown. I hope it is not necessary for me to assert—but from what I am told is stated outside, I think I ought to say it—that neither I nor, so far as my knowledge goes, any of my political friends had any privity of any kind either in the composition or in the publication or in knowledge of that letter. It was a letter written by a general who must have known when he wrote it that he was committing a serious breach of the King's Regulation, and that he was really putting in jeopardy the whole of his military future. He, therefore, presumably, would not have taken a course so obviously fraught with possible and even probable disaster to his own prospects unless he was writing under a grave sense of responsibility and of public duty. That is not only an unusual, but I think I may say it is an unique, incident in the history of the War. I am speaking now in the recollection of the House, and I think it was so regarded and so treated by representatives of the Government. I put a question personally on the subject on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer used language in reply to me as follows:
    "Inasmuch as these allegations affect the honour of Ministers the Government propose to invite two of His Majesty's judges to act as a Court of Honour to inquire into the charge of misstatements alleged to have been made by Ministers, and to report as quickly as possible."
    In reply to a further question, my right hon. Friend said:
    "I would remind the House that in order to examine this question the most secret documents have to be gone into, and it would obviously be a very difficult, and, I think, a very unsuitable tribunal to appoint a Select Committee of the House for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1918, col. 1983.]
    In reply to a further question, put by the
    2350
    right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
    "It must,"—
    that is the Inquiry—the necessity for which he had already admitted—
    "I should think, obviously be held in private, for the reason I have given—that it involves examination of the most secret documents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1918, col. 1983.]
    That was the position taken by the Government forty-eight hours ago—that is, on Tuesday last. The House will observe that, briefly stated and summarised, it came to this: First of all, that a case had been made out for an inquiry; and, next, that the subject matter was of such a kind not only that it could not properly be discussed on the floor of this House, but could not even property be discussed before a Select Committee. The production of secret and confidential documents of a kind which could not safely be divulged was so essential an element in the Inquiry, that it must be held before a tribunal consisting of, as was suggested, two of His Majesty's judges. Has the situation changed since Tuesday?
    I must put two questions to the Government. Do they still think, as they said on Tuesday, that an inquiry is called for? Secondly, do they still think that, for the purpose of making that Inquiry efficient and adequate, it would involve the examination of secret documents which cannot be disclosed to the public advantage These are important questions. I should like to hear them answered. I shall assume, until I hear the Government have receded from their position, that they still think an inquiry necessary—an Inquiry conducted under safeguards such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down as absolutely indispensable. Upon that assumption the only question is: What form the Inquiry should assume, and by what machinery it should be conducted? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested two of His Majesty's judges. We are not without experience of inquiries so conducted into matters of public and political importance. I suppose I am the only man here—do not see anybody else—who not only took part in the discussions in the House of Commons on the appointment of a judicial tribunal to inquire into the allegations made by a newspaper against the members of the Irish party, but, in

    2351
    addition to that experience, sat as advocate and counsel for no less than nine months before the tribunal which was then set up.
    My memory is still very fresh about these events. Although I agree that this is not in all respects, or perhaps in many respects, analogous to that inquiry, I think everybody whose memory goes back to those times, and who had, I will not say the intimate knowledge that I have, but a general knowledge of what took place, will agree that they all came out—no matter what were our respective parts—with the conviction that it was an extremely unsatisfactory experiment. I am not, of course, making any kind of suggestion against the competence of His Majesty's judges in their own proper sphere. But when it is a plain issue, as is this, a pure matter of fact, with every respect to the judges, before whom I have practised for the greater part of my life, I do not think they are better judges—I doubt whether they are such good judges—as men of experience and men of the world. In addition to this, such a tribunal as was suggested, unless we are to equip it by Act of Parliament, as we did in the case of the Parnell Commission, is not the best for the purpose. It has no compulsory powers; it cannot summon witnesses; it cannot administer the oath; it cannot compel the production of documents; it is an impotent tribunal, except and in so far as it is fortified by statutory powers. Therefore, if it was admitted, and indeed asserted—as it was by the Government—that an inquiry was necessary, it appeared to me at the moment—and upon further reflection I was confirmed in that opinion—that it would be far better for a prompt, an authoritative, and a respected decision, that we should adopt the, to us, familiar machinery of a Committee of this House.
    An HON. MEMBER: Marconi!
    Mr. ASQUITH: I did not catch what the hon. Member said.
    An HON. MEMBER: He said "Marconi"!
    Mr. ASQUITH: Well, I do not know what the hon. Member meant. I do not see the relevance of the observation. I suggested a Committee of this House. What I have in contemplation is not a large, but a small Committee. I think five members would be quite sufficient for the
    2352
    purpose. We can easily select, from among the benches which I see so well crowded around me, five or more Members if necessary of this House, chosen without any regard to their party affiliation, whose judgment upon a matter of fact—and this is a pure question of fact—will be respected by this House and by the country. They will have all the powers latent and inherent in the House of Commons, which the suggested tribunal of judges would not have. They can compel the ' attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. They can administer the oath. What is more important— they can sit in secret. There is nothing whatever to prevent them closing their doors, and conducting their investigation—which, we are told, is of a most confidential kind—under conditions which would make publicity impossible. I need hardly say that I would as soon trust, and the House would as soon trust, five Members of this House to respect the obligations of secrecy as I would trust any of His Majesty's judges. Further, let me add this. I think an inquiry so conducted would be much quicker, and would arrive much more easily at a decision, than one that has to be preceded, if it were to be effective at all, by an Act of Parliament. I do not see why more than two or three days at the outside should be. occupied in the investigation. Finally let me say—and it is not unimportant—that this is a matter that peculiarly concerns the House of Commons. The statements which are impugned were made on the floor of this House by Ministers of the - Crown, addressed to Members of this House and accepted, and, as far as it was necessary, acted upon, by Members of this House. As an old Parliamentarian, I should be very jealous, if the question does arise, as unfortunately it has arisen, of the correctness and accuracy of such statements, of submitting it to any other tribunal than a Parliamentary tribunal. That shortly is the case which I have to put before the House. What is the alternative?
    Mr. STANTON: Get on with the War.
    Mr. ASQUITH: A very irrelevant interruption. If you want to get on with the War, the first thing is to clear away misconceptions and misunderstanding, which may have no foundation whatever, but which create doubt in the minds both of civilians and of military men. The hon.

    2353
    Member says, "Why not get on with the War?" Let me remind him of what I said a moment ago, that, as lately as Tuesday last, the Government agreed that this was a necessary or, at any rate, an expedient step.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I never said it was necessary.
    Mr. ASQUITH: It was suggested by them. It was not suggested by me; it was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government.
    It would, in my opinion, be most undesirable and unfair to prejudice in any way the conclusions at which any tribunal, be it Parliamentary or be it judicial, would arrive. I have seen it stated, I think, in some organs of the Press, which appear "to have a certain amount of anticipatory inspiration, that it is proposed—I do not know whether it be true or not—on the part of the Government, to make a statement in the House to-day as to their view of the facts. Of course, they are quite entitled to do it if they wish, but let me point out that if that course be adopted, it means that if a tribunal of any kind is going to be erected, you are already anticipating its conclusions. Such a statement—I do not care what it is—would of necessity be an ex parte statement—a statement made in the absence of, or without any representation of, those who are impugning the accuracy of what has been said. And if, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, it is absolutely essential to an effective inquiry into the matter that secret documents of a confidential kind should be produced at the Inquiry, it is quite obvious that an essential ingredient of the ascertainment of the truth will not be provided. As I have said—and I hope I shall carry with me here the united judgment of the House—we are not in a position to discuss, and still less to prejudge, the conclusions in this House. I say most emphatically that in this House we are accustomed to accept—we are bound to accept—statements made by Ministers of the Crown upon their authority as accurate and true, unless and until the contrary be proved, and I hope we-shall always uphold that well-founded Parliamentary tradition.
    It is not necessary for me to say that, as far as I am personally concerned, I hold no brief of any sort or kind for military as distinguished from civilian and, what is
    2354
    called, politicians' opinion. Nothing of the sort; but, in view of this situation, which. I have said, and the Government have themselves acknowledged, is in many ways unexampled; in view of their own deliberate statement, made only two days ago, that an inquiry was, I will not say necessary, but expedient and desirable; in view of the limitations and conditions which they themselves, of their own motion and upon their own initiative, prescribed for such an inquiry, I do suggest to the House that, in the interests of the Government, in the interests of the Army, in the interests of the State, in the interests of the Allies, in the supreme interest of all, namely, the unhampered prosecution of the War itself, it is our duty to setup a tribunal of inquiry which, from its constitution and from its powers, will be able to give to Parliament and to the country a prompt, a decisive, and an authoritative judgment. I will say only one word more. I hope—I more than hope, I believe—that in regard to some of these matters there has been genuine and honest misunderstanding. It is quite possible. But the clearer the case—and I am speaking upon the assumption that it is a clear case—that His Majesty's Ministers have for asserting and reasserting, establishing, and proving to demonstration, the accuracy of the statements which have been impugned, the more cogent seems to me the argument that an inquiry should take place under conditions which no one can suspect of partiality or prejudice.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Select Committee !
    Mr. ASQUITH: Well, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest that a Select Committee is not an un suspect tribunal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I could not name a single Member of this House who is not either friendly or opposed to the Government, and who must, therefore, start with a certain amount of prejudice.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh! and Shame!
    Mr. ASQUITH: I am very sorry to hear that from the Leader of the House of Commons—the custodian and trustee of its great traditions. Is it right, or is it even decent, to suggest that you cannot get five men in this House not so steeped in party prejudices that, upon a pure issue of fact, they cannot be trusted to give a true decision? I will say no more.

  PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The demand put forward in the Motion which has been read by you, Mr. Speaker, from the Chair is absolutely without precedent, as far as I can see, in the history of this House. Statements made by Ministers in this House have been challenged times without number—I do not mean statements made by members of the present Ministry, but by members of all Ministries. My right hon. Friend's statements during this War have been challenged seriously once or twice. It is customary that the accuracy and correctness of statements made by Ministers are challenged, sometimes by their political opponents, sometimes by important persons outside this House, but this is the first time, as far as I can discover, that it has ever been suggested—even in a period of peace, when there is more time —that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should examine the question whether a Minister has made a correct statement or not in the course of a speech. What is the present demand? A general, a distinguished general, who, for good or for bad reasons, has ceased to hold an office which he has occupied for two years challenges, after he has left office, statements made by two Ministers during the time he was in that office. During the time he was in such office he never challenged those statements, when he had not merely access to official information, but when he had access to the Ministers themselves.
  General Maurice was in office for weeks after I delivered that speech in the House of Commons. He attended a meeting of the Cabinet, in the absence of the Chief of the Staff, the very day after I delivered the speech. He never called attention to it; he never asked me to correct it. It may be said, perhaps, that at that time he had had no time to read it. He was there the following day, but he never called my attention to the fact that these statements were inaccurate. Supposing he did not care to do it in the presence of the whole Cabinet, I was in daily contact with General Maurice on the business of the War. I was under the impression, in fact, that he was a great friend of mine. We were constantly discussing these questions of figures, because, as the Director of Military Operations, he was the authority. Was it not his business to come to me—especially if he thought that
  2356
  this was so important that it justified a great general in breaking the King's Regulations and setting an example of indiscipline—was it not his business, first of all, to come to the Cabinet, or, at any rate, to come to the Minister whom he impugned, and say to him, "You made a mistake in the House of Commons on a most important question of fact"? He might have put it quite nicely. He could have said, "I dare say you were misled, but you can put it right." Never a word was said to me! Never a syllable until I saw it in the newspapers!
  I say that I have been treated unfairly. I will say more than that. I thought that probably General Maurice had not talked to me about it, because he thought that it was his business to talk to his immediate Chief first of all—either to the Secretary of State for War or perhaps to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Perhaps he thought that it was not his business to talk to me. I therefore inquired; but until he left office, during the whole of the time that these questions were being discussed, he never made any representations to his Chief on the subject. And this is on a question which is so important that you must set up a Select Committee to inquire into it! [HON. MEMBERS: "Two judges!"] I am coming to the question of judges. I am not going to shirk anything. Let me deal with one thing at a time. This question is so important as to justify a great and distinguished general, who has held one of the most confidential positions at the War Office, trampling upon the Regulations of the King, and setting an example of indiscipline to the whole Army. I want the House of Commons, first of all, to grasp that fact. I propose, before I sit down, to give the whole of the sources of information upon which I and my right hon. Friend made these statements to the House, and to justify them, and to invite the House of Commons—here I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a question for the House of Commons—and I propose to ask the House of Commons to judge, and to judge to-day.
  Mr. ALDEN: What is the use if we are all partial?
  The PRIME MINISTER: When the honour of Ministers is impugned, the hon. Gentleman must at least listen to their case.
  Mr. ALDEN: Your own Friend has said that we are all partial.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am going to state the reasons why we proposed a Committee of judges. I am going to put the reasons why we oppose a Select Committee. I am going to give the reasons why we are taking the course which I propose to take to-day, but I must ask for the patience of the House. When statements of this kind were made challenging, not the action of Ministers, but statements made by Ministers—a letter was written by a distinguished officer that my right hon. Friend and I had made statements misleading the House of Commons—we were anxious to give an opportunity for an examination of these statements by a perfectly impartial tribunal. One reason was that there is a mass of confidential information which would be relevant, and for which any Committee would have a right to call. We were anxious to place all these, documents at the disposal of an impartial Committee, because we knew perfectly well that once the documents were placed at their disposal, there could be absolutely no doubt in the mind of any tribunal as to the veracity of the statements which have been made. The second reason was that in the most important statement of all—with regard to the extension of the Front—our Allies were involved. It is very difficult to discuss it here to-day without making some statement which may offend their susceptibilities, and that is one reason why I am exceedingly sorry that the controversy should ever have been raised.
  When we had to consider whether it should be a Select Committee or a judicial tribunal, we felt that a Committee of the House of Commons, adapted undoubtedly for certain investigations, was not the best tribunal for investigating facts when passions were aroused. It is no use saying that this is bringing a charge against the House of Commons. The House of Commons, as a matter of fact, came to that conclusion long ago on a question, say, like election petitions. Why? Because it considered that, when party passions, or when any passions, were roused, a Committee of the House of Commons was not the tribunal that was best adapted for the examination of facts. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Asquith) came to that conclusion himself with regard to the Mesopotamia Inquiry. It was suggested at the time, and he deprecated it, and gave his reasons. 'I think that he was right.
  2358
  Whether the best tribunal was then set up or not, is another matter. This is no reflection on the House of Commons. Judges are accustomed to examine facts, and, after all, it was only a question of fact.
  Another point was that it was very important, if there were to be an investigation, that it should be short and sharp, and that you should get a decision immediately. I felt no doubt at all, if there were an investigation by judges, that that would be the result. But what has since happened? My right hon. Friend says, "What has happened since Tuesday?" I know what has happened since Tuesday. Since Tuesday, it has become clear, from the statements of the Press which support my right hon. Friend—he talks as if the Press were supporting the Government, but he has a Press too—and if he does not mind my saying so, he seems to think that all the violence, all the virulence, is with the Press that does not agree with him. Why, for the last two or three years, since I have thrown myself into the vigorous prosecution of the War, according to my view, I have been drenched with cocoa slop!
  Mr. PR INGLE: Whose money you took!
  The PRIME MINISTER: But since Tuesday it is perfectly clear, from the action of the Press, which is egging on my right hon. Friend, prodding him, and suggesting that he ought to do this and the other to embarrass the Government, that no statement, no decision of any secret tribunal, would ever be accepted, but that this would go on exactly the same as before. We have therefore decided to give the facts in public and to let the public judge.
  I will proceed at once to the examination of the statements made by General Maurice. I will take the last two first, inasmuch as they deal with figures, and because, probably, the statement with regard to the extension of the front is the more important one, and I would like to get those dealing with figures out of the way. With regard to my statement about figures, there have been two challenges given to the Government, and I am going to deal with both. One of them is in General Maurice's letter, and the other is rather implied in the letter. After all, this is only part of the sort of thing that has been going on outside, and although I deprecate

  2359
  the method in which it is raised, I am glad of the opportunity of clearing it out of the way. Two challenges have been made as to figures. One is on the comparison which I made of the British Forces in France on 1st January, 1918, and on 1st January, 1917. The other is the comparison which I drew between enemy and Allied Forces on the Western Front—both of vast importance, and both practically part of the same question. Let me read the statement made by General Maurice:
  "On 9th April, the Prime Minister said: ' What was the position at the beginning of the battle? Notwithstanding the heavy casualties of 1917, the Army in Prance was considerably stronger on the 1st January, 1918, than on the 1st January, 1917.'"
  This is his comment:
  "That statement implies that Sir Douglas Haig's fighting strength on the eve of the great battle which began on 21st March had not been diminished. That is not correct."
  The issue is a very clear one. I said that the fighting strength of the Army had increased. General Maurice says that it had diminished, as compared with the previous year. The figures that I gave were taken from the official records of the War Office, for which I sent before I made the statement. If they were incorrect, General Maurice was as responsible as anyone else. But they were not inaccurate. I have made inquiries since. I am not sure what he quite means. There is absolutely no doubt that there was a very considerable addition to the man-power of the Army in France at the beginning of 1918 as compared with the man-power at the beginning of 1917. There was a great increase in the man-power of the British Army throughout the world in 1918, as compared with 1917, but the increase of the man-power in France in 1918, as compared with 1917 was greater than the average throughout the whole area. I do not know whether General Maurice has in his mind that, when he talks about fighting strength, you must draw a distinction between what are known as "combatants" and "non-combatants." I am going to take that later on as well, but before I do so, let me say at once I do not accept that distinction. When you talk about "fighting strength," Who are the combatants and who are the non-combatants? [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh! "] I going to take the non-combatants as well. My hon. Friend need not be afraid that I am going to shirk it.
  2360
  Let me first of all deal with the question, Who are the combatants? Are those men who stopped the advance of the German Army to Amiens the other day combatants? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] They are not, if you begin to make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants—I am speaking of General Carey's force—they would not be treated as combatants. Are the men who are under fire every day, making and repairing roads and tramroads and railways, and who suffer severe casualties, combatants or non-combatants? In most lists that have been drafted they would foe non-combatants. Does anyone mean to tell me that they are not part of the "fighting strength" of the Army? Take the men who, when the British Army retreated, and had to abandon trenches which took months to prepare, and who had to improvise defences under shell fire to relieve the Infantry—are those men no part of the fighting strength of the Army? When you have not got them, you have to take Infantry out, and set them to that work. As a matter of fact, one of the things I came back with from France was a demand for more of them, and they are not part of the "fighting strength" of the Army! I decline absolutely to accept that interpretation.
  But I will leave that. Take the ordinary technical distinction between combatants and non-combatants. A question was put in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Barnstaple on 18th April, eight or nine days after I delivered my speech—I delivered the speech on 9th April, and this question was put:
  "Sir Godfrey Baring: To ask the Prime Minister whether when he said that the British Army in France was considerably stronger on the 1st January, 1918, than on the 1st January, 1917, he was including the Labour battalion and other non-combatant units, and whether the combatant strength of the British Army was greater or less at the beginning of this year than at the beginning of last year?"
  My hon. Friend (Mr. Macpherson), whose duty it was to answer this question on behalf of the War Office, sent that question to General Maurice to be answered. I am not gong to read the answer which he gave, because that is on the records of the House, but I will give the note that came from General Maurice's Department. This is the actual document from General Maurice's Department.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Is it initialled?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is initialled by his deputy! [Laughter.] My right hon. Friend is going to draw that distinction, is he? That shows what sort of impartiality you get! This is the note. First of all we have the figures inside. I cannot give those to the House, but this note is a summary of them:
  "From the statement included, it will be seen that the combatant strength—"
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is reading from an official paper. I quite understand his motive for not disclosing the whole of it, but is it not contrary to the Rules of Order to read part of a document and not to disclose the whole of it to the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lord is not very helpful. On the question of order, if the House wants this from which I am reading I am perfectly pre pared to put it on the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] I am not going to put the note which I am not going to read on the Table—for that is the document which is inside, and gives the actual details.. That, of course, I cannot give—but the document I am reading from I am perfectly prepared to put on the Table of the House—
  "From the statement included, it will be seen that the combatant strength of the British Army was greater on the 1st of January, 1918, than on the 1st January, 1917."
  This comes from General Maurice's Department, nine days after I made that, statement! I am not depending on the fact that all these men who were ruled out as "non-combatants" are an essential part of the strength of the British Army in France. I have this statement, that, as regards those who were technically treated as combatants, we were better off on the 1st of January, 1918, than on the 1st of January, 1917. As a matter of fact, there was an increase as between the 1st of January, and March, 1918, but it just happened that I thought I would take the first month of the year.
  There is another very important question—that of the comparison of the Allied and enemy forces. I have been charged in General Maurice's letter—and it has a bearing upon the question which comes later of the extension of the front—with misleading the public, and leading them to believe that at the time when the attack took place, the Allied position on the Western Front was that we had a slight superiority in Infantry,
  2362
  a considerable superiority, I think, in Cavalry, and a superiority in Artillery, and I also said a superiority in the air. With the exception of the air—I did not get that from General Maurice—the whole of the figures upon which I based that statement came from General Maurice's Department, and I have them here. I asked for it, and I have no doubt he turned his Department on to it. I do not suggest that he was the man who worked out these figures, but he was responsible for the document issued. And may I add that General Maurice has made two statements himself on this subject since the battle began, and I believe they have been published in America. But I do not depend upon the American publication. I took the trouble to see whether General Maurice had really said this, and I find that he had. This is what he said on 27th March:
  "There is one cardinal fact to keep in mind, and that is that the forces on the whole front are as nearly equal as they can be."
  On the 3rd of April he made this statement, which also, I believe, appeared in the American Press, but I have verified it:
  "As regards our side of the picture, I need only repeat what I have already said, that on the whole front, the opposing forces at the beginning of the battle were approximately equal, and therefore the readjustment of the balance on the battlefield is only a matter of time."
  If there was anything wrong in these figures, I got them from official sources, for which General Maurice himself is responsible, and I think he might have said that in his letter when he was impugning the honour of Ministers.
  5.0 P.M.
  Now I come to the other statement in regard to the figures:
  "In Mesopotamia there is only one white division at all, and in Egypt and in Palestine there are only three white divisions; the rest are either Indians or mixed with a very, very small proportion of British troops in these divisions—I am referring to the Infantry divisions."
  This is official. I will give the source of my information. The statement about the one British division in Mesopotamia is in the official War Office record, and I do not understand that it is challenged. With regard to Egypt, the statement was made at a Cabinet meeting which was examining the position. It was made by a member of the staff, who said there were three British Divisions in Egypt. General Maurice was present. It is the custom of the Secretary to the War Cabinet to send these statements to all those who are present for correction, and I

  2363
  want the House to bear in mind that General Maurice is the official who was primarily responsible for the question of the number of Divisions in the various theatres of war. This statement was sent to General Maurice, among other statements made that day, for correction if there were any to make. He telephoned to the Secretary, and this is the note which I have had from Sir Maurice Hankey, that General Maurice "had no remarks." So this statement, about there being three British Divisions in Egypt, was made in the presence of General Maurice, who made no corrections, and I have had no corrections, either from him or from anybody else on the subject. What really happened was this: Orders had been given for the change to take place at that time, and the change was not complete. I was not informed of that. The statement was an official statement, made in the presence of General Maurice, who never corrected it, and it is there in print to this very day without any correction from him. I come now to the next point—that is the statement made about the extension of the front—
  "This is not the place to enter into discussion as to all the facts. Hansard's Report of the incident concludes:
  'Mr. Pringle: Was this matter entered into at the Versailles War Council at any time?
  Mr. Bonar Law: This particular matter was not dealt with at all by the Versailles War Council.' "
  Then General Maurice says:
  "I was at Versailles when the question was decided by the Supreme War Council, to whom it had been referred."
  In the first place, I think, anyone reading that would say that General Maurice was present at the meeting. He was at Versailles, it is true, but the implication is that he was in the Council Chamber. He was not there. I have looked at the Official Record since. He was at Versailles—he was in a building with several others, who were there assisting the various generals, but he was not in the Council Chamber when the question to which he refers was discussed. As a matter of fact, the extension of the front of General Gough's Army—the extension to which allusion has been made, the extension which is supposed to be responsible by some people for the disaster, though I do not accept that—was never discussed at that Council at all. There was a demand for a further extension.
  2364
  That particular extension—to which reference was made in my right hon. Friend's answer—had taken place before the Council ever met. It had been agreed to between Field-Marshal Haig and General Petain, and the extension was an accomplished fact before the Council ever met, and was reported, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) reminds me, by the Field-Marshal to the Council —he reported to the Council that the extension had taken place. There was not a single yard taken over as the result of the Versailles Conference—not a single yard. And then General Maurice, who says he was there, but was not, when the decision had taken place—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Well, he implied it—ventures to suggest that the extension of the front of General Gough's Army was decided at Versailles, when, as a matter of fact, it had taken place before the meeting was held. And it is upon this ground that we are to be arraigned!
  I cannot leave it there. Although General Maurice docs not say so, the real point of this is, and it is the one which was put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Lambert) with characteristic bluntness and straightforwardness,
  "Is it the fact that this portion of the line—"
  and then he says—the portion of the line is the one which was held by General Gough's Army—
  "was taken over after the War Cabinet had ordered it to be taken over, and that, therefore, the objections of Sir William Robertson and Sir Douglas Haig were thereby overruled?"
  That is the real point. There is not a word of truth in it. I am going to give the House of Commons the facts, because I think it is tune it should be cleared up, if I may get the indulgence of the House for the time being. Of course the Field-Marshal was not anxious to extend his line. No one would be, having regard to the great accumulation of strength against him. Of course he was reluctant to extend his line, and so was the War Cabinet—we were just as reluctant. There was not a single meeting between the French Ministers and ourselves at which we did not state the facts against extension. But the pressure from the French Government and the French Army was enormous, and what was done was not in response to pressure from the War Cabinet, as I shall point out as I go along, because I am going to

  2365
  quote documents which certainly I shall not object to lay on the Table of the House—the documents I am going to quote—though there are some documents I could not lay, because they refer to other matters. It was done in response to very great pressure, which Sir Douglas Haig could not resist, and which we could not resist.
  What was happening? I have to state this very carefully, because one must be careful to state the facts in such a way that our French Allies will not feel that we are suggesting they acted unfairly, because that certainly is not my suggestion—not in the least. I want that to be made quite clear. There was considerable ferment in France during the summer of last year on the subject of the length of line held by the French Army, as compared with that of our Army. The French losses had been enormous—that is common ground. They had practically sustained the great flame of the fire for three years. There was a larger proportion of their young manhood put into the line than any belligerent country in the world, without exception. They held a front of 326 miles. We held a line of 100 miles. That is not the whole statement, because the Germans were massed much more densely in front of our lines. Not only that, as part of the line which we held was much more vulnerable. Practically the defence of Paris was left to us, as well as the defence of some of the most important centres. Still, there was the fact that you had this enormous frontage held by the French Army, as compared with what looked a comparatively small frontage for ours. In addition to that—I want the House to get the whole of the facts—the French Army at the time was holding, I think it was, a two-division front on our left, in order to enable us to accumulate the necessary reserves for the purpose of the attack in Flanders. That was a part of the line which I believe was held before by the British, and the French had taken that, in addition to the line they held before.
  The French were pressing us, in order to withdraw men from the Army for the purposes of agriculture, because I ought to explain that the agricultural output in France had fallen enormously, owing to the fact that they had withdrawn such a very large proportion of the men from the cultivation of the fields. They felt it essential that they should withdraw part of their Army, for the purpose of cultivat-
  2366
  ing the soil, and they were pressing us upon these topics. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir William Robertson, and the Cabinet felt it was inevitable that during the winter months there should be some extension. We acknowledged that something ought to be done to meet the French demands, and to that extent we accepted in principle that there must be an extension of the line. There was no doubt in the minds of anyone, for instance, that "we would have to take over that part of the line which was held by General Anthoine's Army. How fax beyond that? What further extension? That was the matter which was in doubt. I will tell the House what were the general principles laid down by Sir William Robertson, and accepted by the Cabinet. We accepted in principle that there must be an extension, that the time and extent must be left to the two Commanders-in-Chief to settle together, that no extension was possible until the offensive was over, and that the line to be taken over must depend upon the military policy for 1918, and upon the rôle assigned to each Army. I think everyone will admit that these were perfectly sound propositions.
  The Cabinet accepted them without any demur, and we never departed from those principles during the whole of these negotiations. I have examined the Minutes of the War Cabinet and of the meetings between French and British Ministers. I have had the advantage of examining the papers loft by the late Chief of the Imperial General Staff on this topic at the War Office, and I say without any hesitation that the Cabinet never swerved one iota from those principles laid down by Sir William Robertson. At one time the Field-Marshal—and I want to state this, because one part of the story has been told, and not the other—the Field-Marshal was under the impression that the Cabinet had taken a decision without his consent. The Chief of the Imperial Staff upon that sent the following memorandum to the War Cabinet, and I will read it, but I had better say first what was the Boulogne Conference. That was the first time we had a formal discussion with the French Ministers on the subject. It was held, I think, in the latter part of September. It was a Conference we had summoned to discuss a question which affected the Foreign Office—a rather important Foreign Office question; It was not summoned in the least to discuss the exten-

  2367
  sion of the front. We never knew that that question was to be discussed. Sir William Robertson and I represented the British Government; M. Painlevé, the French Prime Minister, and General Foch the French Government. After we had disposed of the business for which we had gone over, M. Painlevé raised the question of the extension of the front. I was not in the least prepared for it, and I told Sir William Robertson that it was a matter with which he would have to deal, and the whole discussion was conducted by him. He then laid down these principles, of which I certainly heartily approved, and so did the whole of the Government. I am only saying that, in order to explain why Sir Douglas Haig was not present. It was because we never knew that the question of the extension of the front was to be raised at all. When Sir William Robertson discovered that Field-Marshal Haig was under the impression that we had come to a decision without his consent, because of this meeting at which he was not present, he sent the War Cabinet the following memorandum:
  "At the recent Boulogne Conference between the Prime Minister, M. Painlevé, General Foch, and myself, the question of extending our front was raied by the French representatives—"
  I want the House to take note of this. It is important, having regard to the suggestion that we were overruling the Commander-in-Chief and Sir William Roberston—
  "The reply given was that, while in principle we were of course ready to do whatever could be done, the matter was one which could not be discussed in the absence of Sir Douglas Haig, or during the continuance of the present operations, and that due regard must also be had to the plan of operations for next year. It was suggested that it would be best for the Field- Marshal to come to an arrangement with General Petain when this could be done. So far as I am aware"—
  that is Sir W. Robertson—"
  "no further formal discussion has taken place, and the matter therefore cannot be regarded as decided.' Further, I feel sure that the War Cabinet would not think of deciding such an important question, without first obtaining Sir Douglas Haig's views. I am replying to him in the above sense."
  The date of that, I think, was the 18th October. The War Cabinet fully approved that communication. Sir Douglas Haig at once communicated, and said that this threw "a new light" upon the Boulogne decision. I think we have a right to complain of the way in which has been rumoured abroad the statement that Sir
  2368
  Douglas Haig had "protested." That I have heard many times repeated. The fact that Sir William Roberston had explained, and that Sir Douglas Haig had said that that threw a new light on the subject, is never repeated. That is how the mischief is done! On the 24th October this question was first formally discussed by the War Cabinet. There was further pressure from the French Government, and Sir William Robertson gave his views as to the line which the British Government ought to take. This is the conclusion recorded in the Minutes of the War Cabinet. I will read it, because it is very important that the House should know that these things do not depend upon the memory of anyone. These are the records of the Cabinet itself. After hearing the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the following conclusion was recorded:
  "The War Cabinet approved the suggestion of the Chief of the Imperial Staff that he should reply to Field-Marshal Haig in the following sense—"
  We are supposed to have overruled the Chief of the Staff. We approved the suggestion of the Chief of the Imperial Staff in laying down our policy—
  "1. The War Cabinet are of opinion that, in deciding to what extent British troops can take over line from the French, regard must be had to the necessity for giving them reasonable opportunity for leave, rest and training during the winter months, and to the plan of operations for next year; and, further, that while the present offensive continues, it would not be possible to commence taking over more line.
  2. The general military policy for next year is now under consideration, and will subsequently form the subject of conference with Allied Governments. In these circumstances the War Cabinet fear that until this policy is settled, it will be premature to decide finally whether the British Front can be extended by four divisions or to a greater or less extent than this."
  That Resolution was communicated to Sir Douglas Haig by Sir William Roberston, and we never departed from it. Afterwards came the Cambrai incident and the Italian disaster, which necessitated our sending troops from France. That made it difficult for the Field-Marshal to carry out the promise which ho had made to General Pétain for a certain extension—an extension which was not so large as the one that subsequently took place. I am now bringing the thing almost to a close. Then the present French Prime Minister came in. He is not a very easy gentleman to refuse. He was very insistent that the British Army should take over line. We stood by the position

  2369
  that that was a matter to be discussed by the two Commanders-in-Chief. We never swerved from that position to the last. M. Clemenceau suggested that the question should be examined by the military representatives of Versailles, and that the Supreme Council should decide, should there be any difference of opinion. The military representatives at Versailles examined the question. The only interference, if it were an interference of the War Cabinet, was to this extent:
  We communicated with the Chief of Staff, who, I think, was in France at the time, and with Sir Douglas Haig, to urge upon them the importance of preparing their case for Versailles, so as to make the strongest possible case for the British view. That was the only interference as far as we were concerned. The military representatives at Versailles suggested a compromise between the French and the British view about extension, but they coupled it with recommendations as to the steps which ought to be taken by the French Army to assist the British if it were attacked, and by the British to assist the French if they were attacked, which, if I may venture to say was an even more important question than the extension of the front. That recommendation was to come up for discussion at the meeting of the Supreme Council at Versailles on the 1st February. Before that meeting, Field-Marshal Haig and General Pétain met. They entered into an agreement as to the extension of the front to Barisis. Field-Marshal Haig reported that to the Versailles Council, and when the discussion took place there, no further extension of the line was made at all as a result of that discussion. That is the whole story.
  I want to make it perfectly clear that, in the action which Sir Douglas Haig took for the extension of the line, he had the full approval of the British Cabinet. We are not in the least suggesting that he took some responsibility which he ought not to take. Having regard to the pressure—I need not go into what was the pressure; I think it is better not, but it was serious pressure—having regard to the pressure of the French Government and of the French military authorities, Sir Douglas Haig had no option except to make that extension. He was, in our judgment, absolutely right in the course which he took. Naturally he would have preferred not to have done it. But I do not believe he could have refused, and the
  2370
  British Government fully approved the action which he took on that occasion. I want to make that quite clear in the statement I am now making.
  Let me just say this to the House: Here I am not dealing with this point of General Maurice—that something was done at Versailles, that Sir Douglas Haig was ordered at Versailles by the Council, which met on the 1st February, to extend the line to Barisis. Of that I have disposed of. The extension to Barisis had been agreed to before we met. I am dealing with the other question—the sort of pernicious rumour which has been disseminated, full of mischief, full of harm as far as the British Army is concerned—that we, in spite of the remonstrances of Sir Douglas Haig and Sir William Robertson, forced them to take a risk which they ought never to have taken. Does anyone imagine that if that had been Sir Douglas Haig's view, he would have accepted the responsibility for one minute? Therefore I am sorry—I am sorry for the way in which it was done, and I shall have something to say about it—that this opportunity has been given to read out the actual conclusions of the War Cabinet, in order to dispose once and for all of these pestiferous rumours, which have been circulated for purposes of their own by men who, for one reason or another, do not like the present Chief of the Imperial Staff, or, perhaps, the present Chief of the British Ministry.
  The real lesson of the controversy—perhaps I should not call it a controversy, but a discussion about the extension of the line—is the one of the importance of unity of command. That question of the extension of the line would never have arisen had you had that unity. Instead of one Army and one commander responsible for one part of the line and another Army, and another commander responsible for another part of the line, one united Army—one united command—responsible for the whole and for every part was the only method of safety. I am glad we have got that at last. It was not so much a question of the length of the line held by one force, and the length of the line held by another. It was a question of the reserves which were massed behind. If we put two or three more divisions into the line, there were two or three fewer divisions which we could put into the reserves, but the French had two or three more divisions which they could put into the reserves. When you had a substantial

  2371
  equality with the Germans, with the same number of troops massing great reserves behind, the question was our massing great reserves as one great, united Army. That was the real question, and when discussions are simply fomented about questions of this kind, they are not the really important questions. We are not dealing with realities in dealing with controversies of this kind.
  Before I sit down, there are two general considerations which I must urge. I should like to say something about the effect of such action as General Maurice's on the discipline of the Army. It was a flagrant breach of discipline. The right hon. Gentleman admitted it. I wish he had deprecated it. May I say, quite respectfully, that I think he ought to have done so? He has been responsible for the conduct of this War for two years. If this Motion be carried, he will again be responsible for the conduct of the War. Make no mistake! This is a Vote of Censure upon the Government. If this Motion were carried, we could not possibly continue in office, and the right hon. Gentleman, as the one who is responsible for the Motion, would have to be responsible for the Government.
  I think, if I may say so respectfully, it is essential, having regard to his great position, that he should deprecate action like General Maurice's. What does it mean? It is not merely a flagrant breach of the King's Regulations. He avows it. He says, "I know what I am doing." He is a general in a high position. Supposing a regimental officer had done this. After all, they have their views about their superiors. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong, but they disagree as to the wisdom of certain actions. They might even challenge the accuracy of statements made by their superiors. Are they to write to the papers and say, "Grave statements have been made. It is my duty, not as a soldier, but as a citizen, because I am a democrat, and because my grandfather was a democrat, to forget the King's Regulations"? I wonder what would be said if a poor, ordinary soldier acted in that way! And this is a New Army! That must not be forgotten. It is an Army where you cannot possibly give the time which was given in the Old Regular Army to harden their fibres in discipline. If a high, distinguished officer says, "Although I am a soldier, I am first of all a citizen,
  2372
  and therefore I am going to break the King's Regulations," that means that it is for him to judge the importance of the occasion. That is fatal to discipline. Each man naturally thinks his own grievance far more important than anything else. That is human nature, and every soldier, every regimental officer, will say, "My case is a much stronger one than General Maurice's." General Maurice thinks he is as good a democrat as I am. We have before us an example of a democracy which has been humiliated and trampled upon, because it has forgotten discipline in the Army. Is this the time for such an example by a distinguished soldier, who has held some of the most confidential positions in the Army? At any rate, he ought to have tried everything before he did this. Did he? Did he ever come to the person whom he wanted to correct? Never! He was a friend of mine. He was in this House the other day when I made a speech. He was the officer to whom I alluded and I returned to him. I was almost hours, certainly every week, and almost every day with him. Surely, before setting an example of indiscipline, he might first of all have tried to correct me, and said, "Would you mind putting that right; it is doing harm?" He might, had I been obdurate, have said, "Here I am sitting at the War Cabinet, and, in spite of the fact that it is not my business to do it, I will talk here." There would not have been much mischief in that. He ought to have done that first. He ought to have moved his chief to do it. Before trampling down discipline, which is the life of an Army, he ought to have exhausted everything else. But not a word of deprecation of that from the right hon. Gentleman! I have had communications from the Army—from officers and from soldiers. I have had to-day on this subject communications from Australian soldiers who met informally, and repudiated in the strongest manner this sort of action. When you talk about the Army, the Army is not two or three men who may be disgruntled with the Government. The Army is 2,000,000 of men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Five millions! "]—I am referring to the Army in France, and it is vitally important that discipline should be maintained. There is a quotation from a very respected French newspaper, which appears in one of the papers to-day, and although I have no doubt several hon. Members have seen it, it is worth while

  2373
  quoting as showing how France, a purely democratic country, regards action of this kind:
  "France is more than any other a democratic country. Well, we declare roundly that no one in France will understand General Maurice's action"—
  An HON. MEMBER: What paper?
  The PRIME MINISTER: "La Liberté "—
  "no more on the Left than on the Right—still less on. the Left than on the Right. No French party would admit that in the midst of a war a General on active service should permit himself to raise his voice in public to contradict the Government or to lecture it. With all respect to the British General, what is calculated to diminish the moral of the troops is not that a Minister should in good faith have stated what is not exact, whether in regard to the extension of the British front or the number of effectives, but that a chief, hitherto respected, should have thought it his duty to commit an act of indiscipline so glaring that in our democratic country it would be considered a veritable scandal. It is not for an officer to ask himself if he should place his duty as a citizen before his duty as a Soldier."
  That is the view of a democratic country like France.
  I wonder whether it is worth my while to make another appeal to all sections of the House and to all sections of the country. These controversies are distracting, they are paralysing, they are rending, and I beg that they should come to an end. It is difficult enough for Ministers to do their work in this War. We had a controversy which lasted practically for months over the unity of command. This is really a sort of remnant of it. The national unity is threatened—the Army unity is threatened—by this controversy. Days have been occupied in hunting up records and minutes and letters and proès verbaux, in interviews, and in raking up what happened during a whole twelve months in the War Cabinet. And this at such a moment! I have just come back from France. I met some generals, and they were telling me how now the German are silently, silently, preparing perhaps the biggest blow of the War, under a shroud of mist, and they asked me for certain help. I brought home a list of the things they wanted done, and I wished to attend to them. I really beg and implore, for our common country, the fate of which is in the balance now and in the next few weeks, that there should be an end of this sniping.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We have heard a defence of the War Cabinet by the Prime Minister, which is not an unusual thing for him, because it is in answer to an attack which has become increasingly frequent in recent months. The right hon. Gentleman has stated his case with all his accustomed dexterity, and he has made an appeal to the emotions of the House, an appeal which no man is able to make with greater skill and greater irrelevance than himself. It is necessary now that an issue has been put before the House of Commons that we who are Members of this House, and have a deep sense of our responsibilities, as deep a sense of our responsibilities as the right hon. Gentleman, should direct our minds to that issue and clear it of the irrelevancies with which it has been surrounded; to examine ourselves in detail, as one of the right hon. Gentleman's newspapers last night suggested, and see that we give a judgment on this issue which is not only just to the Government, but just and fair to the Government's accuser, who is not here, and one also which is in the best interests of this country in the conduct of the War. What is the situation? The right hon. Gentleman, with an irrelevance which I believe has never been surpassed in any Debate in this House, has described the Motion which the right hon. Member for East Fife has proposed as a Vote of Censure. We all heard the calm, moderate, dispassionate, and judicial speech of the right hon. Member for East Fife. He disclaimed, and I think he disclaimed with justice, any intention of putting forward a Vote of Censure in the Motion now before the House. Such Motions have been before the House at other times in the course of this War. I have moved, and some of my Friends have moved them both in reference to this Government and to the past Government, and not until to-day, when the Prime Minister wishes to obscure the issue and to get a verdict on a false issue, has one of these Motions for a Select Committee been treated as a Vote of Confidence in the Government. Why is it so treated? It is treated as a Vote of Confidence because for reasons which, I think, must be obvious, the Government are not prepared to have that impartial investigation on this subject which the House of Commons ought to demand, which it is its duty to demand, and which, if it does not demand it, it will fail in its trust to the country.

  2375
  The Prime Minister said it was an unexampled thing to ask for an inquiry into Ministerial statements. The right hon. Gentleman has a singularly short memory. If he had consulted his neighbour in that bench, the present Leader of the House, he would have found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was himself responsible for such a proposal:
  "That in view of the serious nature of naval and military movements recently contemplated by the Government against Ulster, and of the incompleteness and inaccuracy in material points of the statements made by Ministers there should be a full and impartial inquiry."
  What became of that Motion? It was defeated. Papers were laid regarding the whole matter, and the right hon. Member for the City was able to exercise all his dialetic acumen on what is known as a peccant paragraph of the Cabinet's decision. All the facts were put on the Table, and that Motion was put forward as a Vote of Censure. The Motion to-day has not been brought forward as a Vote of Censure. It is merely a method of inquiry suggested as an alternative to the method proposed by the Government themselves. The Leader of the House told us that the Government were going to propose a Court of Honour. Now the Court of Honour is unnecessary. We have a right to ask, as the late Prime Minister asked, what has occurred in the last forty-eight hours? The Prime Minister told us that he was going to let us into the secret of what had occurred in the last forty-eight hours. I would invite any hon. Member to tell us what is the secret which the Prime Minister let us into. He discovered, for the first time, that he had been subject to attacks by the cocoa Press. Cocoa slops, I understand, he says it is—an element Which used to be very congenial to him. It was grateful and comforting in the days of the land campaign, and even more grateful and comforting when the light hon. Gentleman had to answer before a Select Committee of this House, and before Gentlemen who now cheer him with such impartiality. It occurs to me that this may account for the right hon. Gentleman's objection to Select Committees. He has had a Select Committee into his veracity before. He has had a Report written upon it by his colleague the Minister for Blockade. It is on the records of this House.
  An HON. MEMBER: Are we at war?
  Mr. PR INGLE: Yes, and I am discussing an alternative method to a proposal which the Government itself put forward for getting on with the War.
  Mr. STANTON: Leave the abuse alone and get on with the business.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman has failed entirely to put forward a single reason in the whole course of his speech this afternoon to show that a Committee of this House is not an appropriate body for an inquiry of this kind.
  Captain STANLEY WILSONmade an observation which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. PRINGLE: My hon. and gallant Friend has had a Court of Inquiry himself, at which he was heard, as well as the other people, although he was not represented by counsel. I know that is a grievance of his. The gentleman interested in this case is not here to be heard, and is not represented by counsel. Although the hon. Member complains of the Army Council methods, he is apparently willing to condemn General Maurice. I am not concerned with the personality of General Maurice. I am not concerned whether General Maurice's grandfather was a better democrat than the grandfather of the Prime Minister. All these things are perfectly irrelevant. After all, General Maurice is a distinguished gentleman who has rendered great service to his country in the course of this War. He has committed a breach of discipline, not unexampled in the history of the Army.
  An HON. MEMBER: That does not make it any better. We arc at war.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not say it does. General Maurice, at any rate, is prepared to take the consequences.
  Mr. STANTON: How do you know?
  Mr. PRINGLE: He has said so. Ha has, with his eyes open, committed this breach because he believes it his duty to take the action he did in the interests of his country. He may be mistaken. At any rate, the Government thought his statements were so serious that they proposed an inquiry, and now, because the right hon. Member for East Fife proposes a Select Committee the inquiry which they suggested is withdrawn, and they are content to leave it to a vote of the House of Commons. What is the

  2377
  House of Commons? The House of Commons, according to its Leader, is a body from which cannot be selected five impartial men. It is a vote of this body, in the heat of Debate, without the documents, without the facts, without the evidence, which is being asked. We are fond of talking of English justice. We are understood to be fighting for justice, but there has never been a greater perversion of that English justice within these four walls than that which the Prime Minister invites the House to perpetrate to-day. And, with the Government Whips on. It is not a free vote.
  Mr. ANDERSON: A hundred paid men.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am coming to that. I am prepared to say something. With very few exceptions, Members of this House who have been appointed to act on Select Committees have acted with impartiality, in spite of the views they may hold on political questions. I am probably as keen and as biassed a partisan as there is in this House, but I have acted honestly. I have acted with men who have been life-long opponents of mine, men who regard me as an unfair opponent, but I am prepared to say that not one man who has sat with me on a Select Committee would state that I have acted in other than a judicial spirit, and I believe that what I can claim for myself, I can claim for every one of my colleagues. I believe that if a Member of the House of Commons is placed upon a Committee to decide a matter of fact, that, irrespective of the consequences to himself, and irrespective of his personal predelictions to the Prime Minister or anybody else he would bring a judicial mind to bear upon the facts. I believe that any Member of the House of Commons who was appointed to discharge this function would do it with a conscientious desire to arrive at the truth, and to make a report in the best interests of this country. What is this tribunal? It is not a tribunal on the facts; it is a tribunal on a vote of confidence in the Government, which is a deliberate evasion of the issue. What is this tribunal? A tribunal of 100 place men. They will get other Liberals into the Lobby—yes, Liberals who will not have Unionist opposition at the next election if they go into the Lobby.
  Mr. HOGGE: They have promised it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, they have promised it. I am quite willing to have a Committee of two judges on that. For the purpose of this vote to-night the Government Whips are on. There are no Whips in a Select Committee. I thought the Foreign Secretary would have known that. He knows the considerations which enter into a Division in this House as well as any man, because he is probably the oldest man here. You have the Unionist party solid for the Government, not on the merits of the question—[An HON. MEMBER: "On the War ! "]—I would like to know how many Members of the Unionist War Committee believe in the Government's case on the merits. How many of them will stand up and say in this House that they believe in the justice of the Government's case?
  Mr. FABER: I do.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: We have had two Gentlemen giving vocal approbation. It is not on the merits that they are voting. It is because they are afraid to see the right hon. Member for East Fife Prime Minister, and that is why the Prime Minister has made this a vote of confidence. To make it a matter of confidence whether you are to have a tribunal of two judges or a tribunal of this House cannot be justified on any other grounds. The Prime Minister knows the grounds upon which he can appeal to the Tory phalanx who now support him. He knows that rightly or wrongly they distrust the late Prime Minister. He knows that. Let ministerial declarations be what they will, even if it be known to them that these declarations are inaccurate and untrue; he knows also that even if it can be proved to them that the Prime Minister has been concerned in negotiating with the Emperor Karl, even let it be known that he was in favour of the Stockholm Conference last year, let it be known that above all he has failed, failed miserably, in the promises which he made in December, 1916, when, with a loyalty which commands general admiration, he was able to oust his predecessor from 10, Downing Street—he will meet all these things because he knows that the alternative in the minds of Unionists is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, and he will get his vote from the Unionist party. That is the situation. It is a travesty of justice. It is a denial of justice. It is a deliberate attempt to break a gallant soldier, who has indeed

  2379
  broken the discipline of the Army, and to trample upon him in his absence. That is what the House is being asked to do. I do not think that, when the storm of this small controversy has passed over, and when the records which are now undisclosed become public property, the men who are going into the Lobby against this Motion to-night will feel an easy conscience. They may indeed preserve a Government, but it is a Government which has reduced this country to the lowest extremity in which it has ever stood at any period of its history, and to preserve such a Government they are denying justice.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: I only rise for the purpose of making a very few observations and, if I may respectfully do so, making an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife. When I came down to the House to-day I thought that the question which we would have to decide would be the alternative between two of His Majesty's judges inquiring into the question of the allegations of General Maurice or a Select Committee of this House. For my own part, as my Friends who left me yesterday will know, I determined to deprecate either course, but if I had to decide between an inquiry by two judges and an inquiry before a Select Committee of this House in relation to a matter affecting Ministers and the conduct of business in this House, I would prefer the Select Committee. I cannot conceive anything more ridiculous than submitting to the decision of His Majesty's judges the question whether the Prime Minister was or was not an honourable man. But I should like now, after the statement which we have heard, to ask the House to take stock of where we stand and to ask ourselves, are we really doing a service to this country and to the Alliance by continuing this Debate and getting into a heated atmosphere and a heated controversy?
  I was astonished the day before yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government proposed to submit the questions of fact arising upon General Maurice's letter to any tribunal. Where does all that lead to? Look at the precedents you would be creating by having any such inquiry as this. If the Prime Minister and if Ministers are not able themselves to come down and assert their own veracity and be believed by this
  2380
  House, there is no longer a possibility of carrying on government or of having anything else but chaos in the administration of the government of this country. I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, that if he were himself impeaching the veracity of Ministers it would be his duty to do so openly and boldly by a vote of censure and not by the side-wind of a tribunal alternative to the tribunal put forward by the Prime Minister. But now that the question of an inquiry by the judges is gone—and I am glad that it is gone—I appeal to my right hon. Friend, Does he really mean to go on and insist on an inquiry before a Committee of this House? Anything more disastrous I cannot contemplate. Are we in the middle of this War, are we on the eve of probably the greatest battle of the War, solemnly to summon up generals to give evidence against our Ministers and Ministers to give evidence against our generals? Are we to summon back, at a moment of the greatest gravity, the late Secretary of State for War, now our Ambassador in Paris to tell us his accounts of these things? Are we to set into confusion the whole relations between the civil Government and the military, organisation who are fighting our battles at the Front? It is impossible, and if you enter upon an inquiry of this kind, where are you to end?
  We had something of it from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as to the pressure, the proper pressure, from their point of view, brought by the French about our taking over their lines. I remember these matters in the Cabinet. They raised very delicate and very difficult questions as between two democracies, each claiming according to its lights and according to its own pressure the rearrangement and regulation of the share to be taken by each in the conduct of the War. Is all that to be gone into? Are our relations in that respect with the French to be gone into? Are we to have gone into questions of who is to be believed on the civil side and who is to be believed on the military side? What is to be the end of it? Let us get rid of this question at once. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to whom, I think, the Government and everybody else have always given the credit of acting in an absolutely patriotic way upon every occasion, both when he was Prime Minister and since he became Leader of the Opposition. I appeal to him and ask,

  2381
  Does he really think—and I am sure that the House will be greatly guided by his advice—that anything is to be gained, now that we have the whole statement made, by persisting in going on with this Motion? How can you get on with it with any profit? We have got the statement of the Government. There is no way of bringing forward any other statement. We are bound to accept the statement of the Government, unless we are prepared to challenge them as a Government. Therefore, I say in the interests of the War, in the interests of the dignity of this House, in the interests of the relations between the civil and military powers, and above all things, as an example to the people of this country who are going through a very trying time, let us close up our ranks.
  Brigadier-General CROFT: I regret very much personally that I cannot agree that this Debate should end at this moment, although I agree with almost every word which has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Our great troubles arise from the fact that the Prime Minister speaks out too readily, and in consequence makes many statements which are not understood quite in the way that he means when he puts them forward. There are only three points in regard to General Maurice's letter which, it seems to me, we must consider. I will deal with a small point first—that of the divisions in Mesopotamia and Egypt. When the Prime Minister in this House told us that he was not dissipating the forces of the British Empire in the East he deliberately stated the number of divisions in Mesopotamia and Egypt in order to show that those white troops had not been sent to these distant theatres of war. I believe that he was absolutely accurate in that statement, but he was, in fact, bluffing the House of Commons. The divisions had either been moved or were in process of being moved, and he ought to have in-formed the House of the full facts instead of leaving the House to believe that only that number of divisions had ever been sent to these distant theatres of war. It has been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) that we are crushing General Maurice in this House. General Maurice must be crushed. He has taken a step which be knows perfectly well must be the absolute closing of his military career. He has done it with his eyes open. I have no doubt he did it honourably, thinking
  2382
  that it was his duty. He will be punished, but ho did it with his eyes open, and I believe that he would be the last to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we should refuse to go on with this discussion until we heard his case. He knew exactly where he stood, and he has to take the consequences; otherwise discipline in the Army would be impossible.
  Two points arise in connection with this matter for consideration. First of all, there is the question of superiority of manpower, and upon that I should like to know whether the Prime Minister took into account the German divisions in the interior and en route from the East? In making this statement to the House he referred to the two armies as being practically equally balanced in regard to the troops concentrated on the one side or the other in readiness. We all know that you cannot suddenly draw divisions from one part of the line to send to another part of the line, and the two opposing lines, ordinarily speaking, were taken to be about equal, with troops concentrated behind them ready to be immediately used where the enemy attacked—that is to say, the German Armies and our Armies were about equal in strength, and that we had to consider a great potential concentration of divisions which could be thrown against our Armies. I have not uttered one word of criticism of the Prime Minister since he became head of the Government, for it seems to me immaterial whether the present Prime Minister holds that position or anyone else. All we want is someone to go on with the War and to win the War. The Prime Minister has many great qualities for winning the War, but if he wishes to use those qualities to the greatest advantage he must not try to bluff the House of Commons, but must take us more fully into his confidence, and also the country more fully into his confidence. What could be the only reason for his coming here and suggesting that the British Army was only likely to contend with equal forces? It could only have been to exonerate himself from the fact that he had neglected to provide a greater force of man-power that was essential to meet the offensive, if and whenever that took place. I would ask the Leader of the House whether the military advisers of the Government failed to tell the Prime Minister that the loss of the Russian Armies from the Allied strength meant that there were

  2383
  1,000,000 or 2,000,000 of Germanic troops freed to be used against the Allies? We all know that the Prime Minister is busy. He has to consider a great many questions, such as the nationalisation of the liquor trade, education, Home Rule, franchise, reform of the House of Lords, and all those other questions; we know that he is very busy with all those things, but even if that be the case, he ought to have found time to consider this vital fact of the War, namely, that 5,000,000 Allied soldiers had gone out of the fight, and that 2,000,000 Germanic troops were freed and ready to come to the Western Front, making, to use Parliamentary phraseology, 7,000,000 on a division. The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not himself cover all those shortcomings, in trying to prove that the two Armies were equal, when he knew that this great avalanche from the East must inevitably be hurled against the Western Front.
  In regard to the strength of the British Army, I think the Prime Minister made an admirably technical speech, from the point of view of the House of Commons, but there arc one or two considerations which seem to me to have been entirely ignored. Is it not the fact that the British brigades were reduced from four to three battalions? Does not that mean, at any rate, that the British establishment was decreased by one-fourth, while, at the same time, a very large force was detached and sent to Italy? Is if seriously contended, therefore, that the British Army had an equality of fighting units in January, 1918, as compared with January, 1917? The Prime Minister talks about the strength of our Armies, but I wonder, when he makes a comparison between 1917 and 1918, it he remembered the fact that the British Army had taken over a large tract of country in the North as well as a very large tract of country in the South: in other words, that whilst our Armies were reduced in strength as a fighting force, they took over more ground? I quite agree that it is important to have a reserve of men for labour for the proper supply and equipment of our Armies, but we must also recollect that the Germans have got their reserves in the shape of the forced labour of enslaved people, and when while you say it is necessary to have more labour, and so forth, you should also bear in mind that so many more thousands of men are required—especially in view of
  2384
  the decreased battalions and the force sent to Italy—to meet the German bayonets coming from the East to the West Front. The situation was, at the time of the Prime Minister's statement, that our battalions had been reduced by one-fourth, whilst a large force had been dispatched to Italy, and yet at the same time reduced British forces were called upon to take over some 40 or 50 miles of extra frontage from the French. I submit that our Army, instead of being decreased by one-fourth should have been increased by one-fifth, in order to counterbalance the great and sudden accession of strength to the German armies.
  I next wish to deal with the extension of the British front. The Leader of the House told us that this particular matter was not dealt with at all by the Versailles War Council. The whole point is this, no alteration of this kind could possibly have taken place, involving as it did the distribution of such important Allied forces, without a decision being given by some higher authority. If the Versailles Council did not decide this extension of our front, it is clear that our War Cabinet must have decided the matter, or there must have been some high authority who did. On the face of it it seems to me that the decision must have come from some high authority. We have heard it said to-day that the change made was a question for the French. It is clear and obvious, I imagine, that Sir Douglas Haig was to talk over the adjustment of the line, and was told to fix up with the French Commander-in-Chief how much was to be taken, though I presume some guidance was given to him. It is perfectly obvious that he could not disobey; he had no alternative except resignation, and very likely that might have been the proper course for him to take. I do not know, I have not the remotest idea; all I can say is that I conceive that if he thought of resigning, he would reflect that another Commander-in-Chief would be put in his place who would only be appointed on his consenting to the change in the front, and that, therefore, his resignation could not have helped the Army very much at that time. Personally, I have no reason to be biassed in favour of the Army or the Commander-in-Chief, but, having heard the statements of the Prime Minister in this House, I think it is only fair that the facts should be made known, and, for that reason, I am going

  2385
  to make one or two statements on this subject, after having worked out on the map what I think actually happened.
  The Fifth Army already holding a two corps front took over the French frontage of two additional corps, and, from information I collected from those who took part in various engagements, that was some time before20th February, only one month before the 21st of March. It is our duty to remember that fact. Supposing the length of the French frontage taken over was 48,000 yards; that would have taken at least twelve divisions with two in reserve, fourteen divisions in all—the actual strength of the Fifth Army. How came it about that our Fifth Army had to take over this enormous extension of front? We must ask that question. Did the Commander-in-Chief protest, or did the General Officer Commanding the Army protest, and did that protest ever reach the Cabinet, or were they in any way overruled by a desire to maintain international courtesy. If the Fifth Army had to take over this largely increased front, it would have been, of course, impossible to have weakened our strength in any other part of the line; and I want to know who is responsible for giving the Fifth Army, with fourteen division, the longest line of all the British Armies and the smallest force? How did that situation come about? The whole question comes to one of general policy as between ourselves and our French Allies. I myself most readily appreciate what has been said with regard to the difficulty of discussing this question. One has to be as careful as it is possible to be, but at the same time you must remember that our first duty in this House is to our own country, and therefore we ought to look at this question finally from our own point of view. Germany has always been the strongest per mile frontage, as the Prime Minister to-night admitted, opposite the British Front. It is not really a comparison to say that the British have only 130 miles of front, whereas the French frontage is very much larger than that, apart altogether from the fact that the French have room to bend whilst we have no room at all. I give way to no man in ardent admiration of our French Allies. It was my great good fortune, for something like seven months, to be in the actual unit where the two Armies joined, and I have seen too much of them ever to forget what the comradeship of the French means to the
  2386
  British Army. But I have the impression, and others have the impression, that our Prime Minister has been too wont, in the past, always to give way to our Allies. I have no doubt it comes from great courtesy and politeness, but that idea does prevail. We have only to look all through history to see that human nature is human nature in this matter, and it is perfectly obvious, when two nations are fighting together, that one nation will always do all it possibly can, with a degree of fairness, to put the burden on to their Allies. It is historical, and, after all, it is human nature. But we have to remember' in this House that we are carrying additional burdens as well as this frontage in France. We have to remember also our sea power, without which our Allies could not go on at all: and one has no hesitation in speaking frankly on this subject for the simple reason that we can, thank God, say that there never has been any nation in the world whose sons have died in such great numbers on the soil of a friendly Power as has been the case with our men in France.
  The strategical fact is that, whereas the French can afford to retire on almost any single part of their front, with the exception possibly of Montdiddier, where the present line is—I do not include the question of Paris—if there is a retirement of the British to any extent, we retire into the sea, and then the calamity is just as great for our French Allies as for ourselves. Therefore I hope we shall try and remember that fact, and that it is not the length of front but the depth you have got in which to move which is really the decisive factor in this matter. The Germans know all about that. Did our War Cabinet? We know the Army cannot have asked to takeover a further front, and that the suggestion must have come from a higher quarter. We are entitled to ask, Is the Cabinet always taking the advice, so far as it possibly can, of those who really do realise the perils of any alteration in this system? I wish to make no criticism of the unity of command. It is an idea which is obviously sound. But if it means that the whole of the reserves of the two Armies are concentrated behind one Army, then we must admit that there is a danger. It is not good that there serves of both Armies should be concentrated on one part of the line. In other words, the two Armies ought to have their own reserves behind them. Neither is it good for British

  2387
  reserves to support the French Army, nor for French reserves to support the British Army. Right through the smallest formations, all our teaching tells us that it is troops of the same character which ought to be the reserves of the troops engaged in front; otherwise it must lead to confusion and misunderstanding, and it might even lead to mutual recrimination where, in the past, there has been such wonderful comradeship between British and French formations.
  It seems the sound policy that the French should hold a continuous line of their own, and that the British should hold a continuous line of their own; and that there should not be, unless it is impossible to avoid it, any mixing up of units. The reserves of each Army should be behind their own Army, ready to be concentrated under an Allied commander when the direction of the offensive of the enemy has been ascertained. If this policy had been pursued, I believe that the Fifth Army would not have had to have retired to such an extent. The reserves were a long time coming, and if the two Reserve Armies—French and British—had been rapidly converged under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the French Army, you must have stopped them before they got back to so many parts of the old Somme line. To suggest, with the increased frontage that we had to take over, that we had as many men in January, 1918, as we had in January, 1917, is surely absurd. To suggest that our Army, in view of its commitments with regard to this new frontage, was in any way comparable, and after this great force had gone to Italy, is surely ridiculous. If I might quote an old phrase, I do not think that all the country is going to be fooled all the time with this statement with regard to manpower. It is much better to confess our mistakes, and try to do more wisely in the future.
  Many of us have been placed in a very awkward predicament by the Debate to-day. If we vote for the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Fife we are really voting for something which might turn into a second Marconi farce. We cannot get away from that fact. It is no good howling at the Leader of the House because he suggested that possibly it might not be impartial. Members of the Liberal party and members of the Unionist
  2388
  party in this House are the most partial people in the world, because they are absolutely and fundamentally divided, and the man who sits on that bench is regarded as a very great hero, or there verse, as the case may be. Consequently, it is not the best tribunal before which to bring this matter. So far as a few of us are concerned, we could only support a Select Committee to inquire into the veracity of Ministers, if the reference were widened so as to include the statements of the late Prime Minister, at Newcastle in 1915, with regard to shells. We cannot demand veracity from one Prime Minister, without demanding it from all Prime Ministers. There ought to be the same standard in this House, and the right hon. Member for East Fife is quite the last person who ought to have tabled a Motion such as this. "Whosoever is without sin, let him throw the first stone." I think we might apply that to the right hon. Gentleman. To vote for the Government, on the other hand, on this question, so far as I am concerned, is absolutely impossible. I could not vote for the Government. I shall have to regard the case as not proven, and I walk out of the House.
  For all that, I hope the right hon. Member for East Fife is not going to proceed with this Motion because, if you are going to have the opinions of the country distracted by the kind of inquiry we naturally shall have with a Select Committee, I cannot see how it is going to help to win the War. Does not this Debate bring home to us the fact that the War Cabinet is so busy with every other question in the world that it really has not time to look after the affairs of the Army and the Fleet? Has the time not come when the Prime Minister realises that the faith of the country is very much shaken in him—and even the faith of men like myself, who have backed him from the start, and have never said one word against him? We cannot neglect the fact that the confidence of the country is shaken. Why not face that fact? Why not forget the old devices of parties, where you cannot shed a Minister for fear of hurting the party, and why not bring into the War Cabinet four independent men of experience, whom the country can trust, who can be relied on to keep their eyes solely on this one issue of victory, and who, if the Government neglect the major issues of the. War, can be relied to go out as one man? We may be told that by not supporting the Government we may be imperilling their fate. I think our answer

  2389
  must be that we are not afraid of a change of Government, and we refuse to believe that if the Prime Minister fell either the House or the country would tolerate his replacement as Prime Minister by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. The thing seems to me too monstrous. We stigmatise as ridiculous the suggestion that, in this great, wide Empire, there are only two men—one a Prime Minister who seems to be inclined to try and fall over a precipice, and the other a Prime Minister who has fallen over the precipice—when you have men like Sir Robert Borden, General Smuts, and Mr. Hughes—[Some laughter]—who has really understood the German danger from the start, and whose policy we have had to imitate in many ways. Mr. Hughes may not be a friend of the hon. Gentleman, but he has got a vigorous grasp of the German canker, and he has rooted out the German metal influence from Australia. You want men like that. If you can find someone else but the great Australian statesman, let him come. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not an Englishman?"] Yes, indeed, why not an Englishman? It is ridiculous to say that in the whole of England there is only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife and the present Prime Minister. It is absurd that you cannot look outside this House. We are too much inclined to think that we, the 670 Members of this House, are the only people in the British Empire fit to run the War. We did not come here to win the War; we were elected on every other issue. Cannot we look outside our ranks and find a man who really can—without always wondering what is going to happen over Home Rule, education, and other questions, with which we have no right to distract the country at present—find new vision, new ideas and determination to see the country through?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I am rather inclined to think that the speech which the hon. and gallant Member has just made is the most instructive and useful delivered in the course of this Debate. He, at any rate, appears to know a great deal about these matters, much more than I profess to do. He said, in a tone which was never that of a partisan, and always appeared to be governed by a desire to be perfectly fair, much that was very relevant, very instructive and interesting. I listened to the Prime Minister's very brilliant speech earlier in the afternoon, but I cannot help
  2390
  thinking that it was a much more effective speech as an attack on General Maurice than as a defence of the Government. He made several points, which were both weighty and important against General Maurice—that he did not go to the Government and raise the point privately, and the like. But, obviously, an attack on General Maurice was not quite what we wanted in this House, and what the great majority of Members and the great body of opinion outside wanted. What we want to know is not whether General Maurice has behaved well or badly—though that is of great interest to those personally concerned about him—but the facts about the transactions to which he drew attention in the course of his letter. The Prime Minister, so far as he dealt with that, assumed a bewildering variety of roles. Sometimes he was a prisoner on his defence, and made out a claim to our indulgence; sometimes he was the judge pronouncing on the case; sometimes he was prosecuting counsel prosecuting General Maurice; and then he was the principal witness in his own defence. We all recognise, what the right hon. Member for Trinity College said, with so much force, how difficult and how undesirable an inquiry would be. But, of all the forms of inquiry, the least desirable seems to me that of the Prime Minister, sitting alone in judgment upon himself, selecting the evidence, reviewing it, and ultimately pronouncing himself clear and acquitted from all blame. The Prime Minister's speech, taking the form of an attack on General Maurice, really puts the Government, I think, and the House, in a certain difficulty. My hon. and gallant Friend most truly said that, so far as the breach of discipline goes, there is no defence possible for General Maurice. Of course, the case against him in that respect is overwhelming, and, indeed; General Maurice admits it on the face of his letter. But the Prime Minister added a good many other things which are not breaches of the King's Regulations. It was, in short, as I say, an attack upon General Maurice. It does not seem to me a very desirable thing to make an attack upon a man who is necessarily not present, while, at the same time, you are refusing an inquiry. It seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman felt an inquiry was impossible and unreasonable, he ought to have assumed a strictly judicial tone in dealing with him, and only commented

  2391
  on his conduct in so far as it was necessary for making his defence. No one listening to his speech can say he eliminated himself to that degree.
  I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant Friend in the interesting review he gave of the military side. I hope it will be properly reported. I am sure it ought to be, and that it will be very valuable if his speech is read side by side with that of the Prime Minister, because he showed a considerable grasp of the subject, and what he said ought to be considered by the side of what the Prime Minister said. I should like to say one word as to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said in conclusion, and what the Prime Minister said at the conclusion of his speech. The Prime Minister made a very strong appeal to the House to stop what he called "sniping." The Prime Minister is an expert in the use of colloquial English for rhetorical purposes, but I understand by that he means we should not have perpetually recurring this sort of Parliamentary sensations, when the Government is supposed to be in danger, or, at any rate, is severely criticised outside, and there is an exciting Debate and a peroration about the great danger of a German attack, the critical nature of the moment, closing our ranks, and all the rest of it. We want to get rid of that atmosphere. We also certainly want to get rid of such a state of feeling, such a mental atmosphere that makes it possible for a distinguished general like General Maurice to break the King's Regulations in defiance of military discipline. We want to do that, but does it not all show that there is something amiss, something lying deeper than General Maurice's idiosyncrasies, or any particular circumstances arising out of the Debates in this House? Is it not, as the hon. and gallant Member indicated, that the Government are losing credit and the confidence of the country?
  I ventured in the columns of a newspaper earlier in the year to bring before the country, to the best of my ability, the suggestion that what we really wanted was a Government that had a larger measure of national confidence than the present Government, and I wanted it, as I said then, because if they took great decisions on military policy and quarrelled with some of their leading military advisers, they hardly had the strength to take such action. I think everything
  2392
  that has happened since shows I was right. It is very right and just to blame people for breaking the King's Regulations, but it does not happen in the case of a Government which has a great body of national opinion behind it. It would not have happened to this Government twelve months ago, or to the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite at the beginning of the War. At those periods there was a great body of national confidence behind the Government which rendered all such things out of the question. If we have these recurring crises, if we have what the Prime Minister called "sniping," those are external marks that the confidence of the House and the country is going away from the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not mean to say that the Government has lost confidence to an extent that not a single Member of the House will support it. I should not say anything so extravagant. But I say it has much less of the confidence of the House than it used to have, and to speak with absolute candour, I say that the principal thing that keeps the Government in office is the fear that if it went out of office we should have the right hon. Gentleman opposite and a partisan Liberal Ministry in power. I have not that fear myself, but there is not the least doubt that that is what really keeps the Government in office.
  Now, I am quite certain a Government that is in the position of encountering recurring crises of this kind, which has to have recourse—I am not complaining; is is the ordinary Parliamentary method—to all sorts of dexterous speaking, adroit manœuvring, preparations in the Press for the Debate and all the rest of it, and which is finally kept in power much less by its own merits than by the supposed defects of its own alternative—when the Government has got to that point, it is not capable of leading the country in time of war as the country ought to be led. I am quite sure, like my hon. and gallant Friend, that it is untrue to suppose there is only the choice between two right hon. Gentlemen in the whole country for the office of Prime Minister. But supposing I am wrong, and that there is only the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister or a partisan Liberal Ministry, evidently a partisan Ministry could not endure a week or a fortnight in this matter. Bodies of opinion are now broken up, but we can gauge for ourselves their strength, and it is quite certain that a Government abso-

  2393
  lutely dependent on Liberal support could not endure. But I put this to the Government. If they were in effect to say, "There is a great crisis coming on in the War, and for the moment we can think of nothing else," of course I would bow at once to that. They must be the judges while in office what the national requirements are, but I do earnestly appeal to them not to cling to office. I see in his place my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure he remembers the years 1904 and 1905. Do not let the Government in war-time repeat what was even in peace-time an error of judgment. Do not let them go on in office after they have lost the necessary amount of national support. Let them lay down their office, and let it be tried by a Government with a large measure of national support if it can be found. If it cannot—[An HON. MEMBER "It cannot!"]— then, of course, the present Prime Minister would be entitled to say, when the Sovereign called upon him to resume office, "If I am to resume office, I must have the assurance that I shall enjoy in future the support that is necessary." He would then come back to office with really that body of support which a Prime Minister ought to have in war-time. But if things are going on as they are now, it is no use the Prime Minister making appeals at the conclusion of his speeches or for the "Times" to say, "There must be an end of it." There will not be an end of it; it will happen over and over again. The Government are themselves demoralised by it. They are partly thinking of their own preservation when they should be wholly thinking of the conduct of the War. It injures the national unity, which must of all things be maintained if we are to carry the War to a victorious conclusion. I do, therefore, earnestly put it to the Government that the moment they become convinced in their own mind they have not that great body of national support, without which a Government is useless in time of war, that they will lay down their office and let it be tried whether a stronger Government cannot be formed.
  Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I only wish to offer a few remarks giving the reason why I do not intend to support the Government this afternoon. I think, so far as the accusations of General Maurice are concerned, the Prime Minister, as regards one allegation about the numbers of troops in Egypt and Palestine, has admitted, I think, that there bad been a mis-
  2394
  take, but he said that the fault was that of General Maurice. It was not very clear, from the statement of the Prime Minister, whether, in alluding to the question of the extension of our lines on the Western Front, he said that the whole of that extension had been carried out before the Versailles Council decided upon it or whether only part of it had been carried out. Of course, as the hon. and gallant Member said, there were 18,000 yards taken over in January from the French, and a further 30,000 yards taken over in February. The further extension, therefore, was after the date at which, as I understood the Prime Minister, he said the Council at Versailles had taken place. Whatever may be the exact truth of these allegations of General Maurice, I do not think that is the real question at issue. There are very few Members of this House who believe that Ministers intentionally made any false statement, but the cumulative effect of the statements of members of the War Cabinet since 9th April has been this, that they shouldered off the blame for the reverse which took place on the 21st March and put that blame upon the Army. They made a scapegoat of General Gough. They refuse to allow the Report upon the withdrawal of the Fifth Army to be expedited and published as soon as possible.
  7.0 P.M.
  It is for that reason, because they have, in my opinion, fixed the blame upon the Army and refused to take the blame themselves, that I, for one, do not intend to support them so long as the present War Cabinet is constituted as it is. The blame having been put on the Fifth Army, all our Allies and the whole world believe that the Fifth British Army withdrew under circumstances which were not, at any rate, altogether creditable. The War Cabinet, who had not provided the necessary reinforcements for the Army, have not shown the slightest sign of taking any sort of blame for that withdrawal. Nor have they even been generous enough to publish to the world what is known perfectly well to the Germans, what has been published even in the papers in this country, that that British Army was attacked by an overwhelming force—something like fifty-one German divisions to fourteen British divisions; further, that that Army had to withdraw in order to meet its reserves, which did not come forward for many days after the attack took place. Yet nothing has been done by any member of the War Cabinet, so far as I have seen,

  2395
  to take the blame off the Army and take some of that blame themselves. The result of that is that the stigma remains upon the Army in the eyes of our Allies and the whole world at the present time, when it should have been upon the War Cabinet, and I submit that the Prime Minister to-day has given conclusive proof, if any were wanted, that the War Cabinet are themselves to blame for the reverse which happened to the Fifth Army on the 21st March. It was said in September last—so long ago as that—that our Government was consulting with the French as to the extension of the line. The War Cabinet must have known of that extension, and that we should have to provide a greater reserve. Was any step taken? Not until the reverse took place. That shows, to my mind—what we did not know before—that as long ago as September, the Cabinet were contemplating an extension of the line, and when that extension took place what any soldier must have known took effect. There were no proper reserves available to support that extended line, with the result that when the heavy attack came we suffered a disaster, or, at any rate, if not a disaster, a very serious reverse the like of which we have never suffered in our history. For these reasons I, for one, do not intend to support the Government so long as the War Cabinet is constituted as it is.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: My Noble Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend who last spoke seemed to me to discuss points which are not really at the present time before the House. They have discussed various alterations in the Government. My Noble Friend appealed to the Government not to stay after they were convinced that they had not the confidence or support of this House. Several different questions have been put before the House—as to whether or not a primâ facie case had been made out by General Maurice for an inquiry into the statements of two of His Majesty's Ministers, and so on. I am not prepared as a Member of this House to grant an inquiry to every general who makes an accusation of any kind against His Majesty's Ministers. That of course, is perfectly clear. I think, also, it is quite clear that no officer in the Army is entitled to write such a letter as that written by General Maurice unless he had absolutely overwhelming proof of the correctness of his statements, and unless there was, in
  2396
  fact, very little to be said on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I came down to this House without any preconceived opinion on this matter. Those of my colleagues, members of the Unionist War Committee to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College referred, know quite well that yesterday afternoon I took no part in the Debate there, because I desired to hear what the Prime Minister had to say here. I thought it monstrous that I, or any other Member, should condemn unheard His Majesty's Ministers in a matter of this kind. I was almost overwhelmed when I read General Maurice's letter. I admit that I do not suppose for one moment that he would have written that letter except under a grave sense of responsibility, and that the letter would be such that there was practically no answer to it on the part of His Majesty's Ministers. I say at once that if the Prime Minister this afternoon had merely discussed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife as to whether there should be a Select Committee or two judges to inquire into that letter, I should, without hesitation, have voted for the Select Committee. On the other hand, the Prime Minister did what I think nearly every other Member of this House, and certainly most people outside this House, would be glad of—he took the bull by the horns, and, instead of giving his answer before two judges or a Select Committee, he gave his answer—where I think it ought to have been given—that is, to the House of Commons itself.
  I merely rose to say that I came down to the House with an open mind. The House knows that I have been, from time to time, a critic, and perhaps not a very friendly critic, of the Government. I listened to every word of the speech of the Prime Minister, and I say at once that the Prime Minister has made such an answer to General Maurice that the latter is not entitled to any further inquiry. General Maurice wrote not as a soldier, but as a citizen. He chose to come out into the political arena with a charge against the Government. It was a charge of a political character, not of a military character. That charge has been answered this afternoon by the Prime Minister. Speaking as a mere ordinary Member of this House, I say here, and I believe the public outside will agree with me, that the Prime Minister has answered the charge made by General Maurice, and that we in this House do say that any general who

  2397
  makes charges of this kind, unless he is able to make a very much stronger case than has been put forward in the letter, and in face of the overwhelming reply of the Prime Minister, is not entitled to any further inquiry. In conclusion, may I say one word? Might I say that I think if the Prime Minister and the Government realised that the House was open to hear their case it would be better? The country desire to hear their case. If in the future they treat the House with a little more candour and freedom, they will find their course much easier, and there will not be charges such as those made by General Maurice or any other disgruntled generals.
  Mr. SPENCER HUGHES and Colonel WEDGWOOD Mr. SPENCER HUGHES and Colonel WEDGWOOD rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide! "]
  Mr. HUGHES: I will not stand between hon. Members and a Division for more than a minute. I have listened to this Debate with very considerable interest. Some very remarkable statement have been made. For instance, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch has suggested that what the Government wanted was an addition to the War Cabinet of three or four military gentlemen. He is one Gentleman answering to that description The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University explained, with almost pathetic earnestness, that there were other hon. Members beside the Prime Minister and the late Prime Minister who could fill the important office of Prime Minister with advantage. He may have alluded to himself, and I am willing to welcome him there. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch also said that we ought to expect veracity from the Prime Minister and the late Prime Minister. He seemed to draw the line there. The rest of us, I suppose, have a free hand—or a free tongue. The only part of the question before the House that interests me is the question of truth. It is not the, military side of the matter, because I know nothing about military affairs, as to whether or not the line is too long or too short; that is a matter about which I express no. opinion whatever. When we are come to the point as to whether Ministers are, or should be, always expected to tell the absolute and the whole truth, I do not care which Minister it is, whether in this or any other Government—I have my own views. I say
  2398
  that if you can have a scientist inventing a machine, which might be called a Mental X-ray Machine, to discover what was in the mind of a man, apart from what he says, no Government and no political party would last for five minutes. I am certain of that! When you hear one distinguished man allude to another as his right hon. Friend, perhaps following this up with some eulogy, you can see, I think, or realise, what is in the mind of that man—and it is very illuminating indeed !
  What is truth? There are many different forms of truth. I have been mixed up with journalism for some quarter of a century, so naturally I have looked into the subject. The schoolmen, I think, recognise at least twelve distinct forms of truth. There may be a great many more. There is truth in its complex form, in its contingent form, gospel truth—which is perhaps not much known amongst many—material, subjective, physical, pure, transcendental, and so on. If we cannot tell the truth in one of these various ways—if we cannot blunder into it in some sort of fashion—the more's the pity. Official truth is not mentioned by the schoolmen. It is supposed to involve a contradiction in terms. Complex truth is often heard in this House—complex truth as it exists in the mind, as distinct from reality. Even so, there is a distinction between reality and a statement which may be honestly believed by the man who makes it. Contingent truth is another phase of the world of politics. It is truth that is not absolute but contingent on something else. We often hear a man accused of saying that black is white. When challenged he will reply, "I may have said that, but you must read what I have said in the light of the context." That truth is contingent on something else. Formal truth is another aspect. It is agreement with possibility, a possibility outreaching even formal truth. If one were to say that he could put a quart into a pint pot, that would be a formal untruth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] Some people seem to regret that. You may bring any charge you like against a public man in keeping with possibility and it would be formally true. I think we have had too many charges made against public men—about their truthfulness, and so forth. I say let us, so far as we can, back up any Government that will go on with winning the War. That has been my policy during the first Government, the second Government, and the third

  2399
  Government. I am prepared to follow that course. I do so without throwing any aspersions on those who used to hold office, and for whom I have a very high regard. While not in the least reflecting upon them, I say at the present moment that our duty is to see that this Government should have all the support it can have to keep it going right and to keep it from going wrong.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: In two or three words—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—I desire to second the appeal that has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University. I do hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife will not press this Motion to a division. I came down here with my mind absolutely unmade up on the question. I am bound to say, however, having read carefully the charges made by General Maurice, and having heard the answer of the Prime Minister, that I cannot conceive of anybody voting that-any public inquiry should be opened into the matter. I heard it stated by the Prime Minister that General Maurice, after leaving office, made these charges without ever having made a complaint to him personally. I think, therefore, while asking for a public inquiry into these charges, he has put himself absolutely out of court. When I find the Prime Minister bringing forward certain written evidence in support of his statements, I ask myself whether there is any primâ facie case here at all for a public inquiry "which would be at the present time not only an intolerable nuisance, but, in my opinion, a public danger. I resent what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about people in this House not being able to decide matters judicially. I do not believe there is any question you can find which five members of any party in this House are not prepared to give absolute judicial consideration to. I am bound to say that I think he approached this subject with some prejudice, because the right hon. Gentleman himself was attacked. Having been in this House a certain number of years with him, it would certainly have surprised me very much to have been asked to believe that he had ever wilfully made a false statement in this House. I say the same in relation to the Prime Minister. I cannot emulate the humours of other speakers, because I think this is a most serious occasion. Two men whose minds are absolutely given up to the War.
  2400
  and one of whom has suffered deeply in the War, are charged with a most odious offence—that of having misled the House of Commons. We are told by political friends of mine that we cannot support the Government to-day unless we are prepared to be opposed at the next General Election by busy Whips. I resent that sort of argument as an impertinence at all times, and I can only say that busy Whips never come near me on those occasions. Whatever my leaders do on the present occasion, I find it perfectly impossible under the circumstances to think that the general has made out any case for a public inquiry. If there were an inquiry, I should prefer the Committee of the House of Commons, but I do not think there is any need for an inquiry at the present time. I do not think that any real primâ facie case has been made out, so far as one can gather from the ex-parte statement of the Prime Minister—and you can often get a very fair idea from an ex-parte statement, if you have any notion of weighing evidence and gauging probabilities. In my opinion, to turn aside the Prime Minister's attention from the conduct of the War at its very crisis, unless we are absolutely certain that what has been done in defiance of all rule of military government has been done on overwhelming evidence, would be an act of folly and criminal madness.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hon. Members abjure us to divide, but the serried ranks of Conservative Members ought to have some little sympathy with unfortunate Members of the Liberal party. Here are we with our vote balancing first on one foot and then on the other. Three times to-day I have changed my mind as to how I should vote. I watched the Bench opposite with an agonised eye all the afternoon, hoping to see some of my former leaders rise and tell me what I ought to do. I do not want to have a special inquiry into the Prime Minister's conduct. It is the last thing I want. When it is a question of civilian against the military, the pressure of the public is always so largely directed against the unfortunate civilian that it becomes the duty of everyone who loves to be in a minority to support that civilian. But, however much I may be against the Motion that is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition to-day, however much I may regret, as on previous occasions, his backing-up the "red tabs"

  2401
  against the civilians, I must say when I hear from the other side, that is, from the Prime Minister, that a vote on this is going to be a Vote of Censure on the Government, I am strongly tempted to rejoin my old Friends on the bench opposite. I, like the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, have very little confidence, indeed, in the present Government, and I think that a change would be extremely desirable. I do not know whether I can add to any of the reasons given by the Noble Lord. I share all his reasons for thinking a change is desirable. I have others of my own. It seems to me the Ministry over which the Prime Minister presides is getting too strong for him, and it is becoming too strongly biassed in all those Conservative directions that I most seriously distrust. It is not merely my Friends on the Front Bench. It is the power behind the Front Bench. I am getting ever more terrified of round tables, with their agencies spreading out through the garden city. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] They are the danger spot at the present time. It comes to this—on the one hand I must vote against the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Fife, but, on the other hand, I am extremely desirous of registering a vote
  against the Government at the present time. Is it possible that we may have some little light or leading from the Front Bench opposite? I see there my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), and I hope he will give some light to Members like myself, who are sorry that the Liberal party has taken up this particular case, but who would be glad to see them in power once more.
  Mr. BILLING Mr. BILLING rose—
  Colonel ANSTRUTHER-GRAY Colonel ANSTRUTHER-GRAY rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put accordingly, "That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the allegations of incorrectness in certain Statements of Ministers of the Crown to this House, contained in a letter of Major-General Maurice, late Director of Military Operations, published in the Press on the 7th day of May."
  The House divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 293.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES.

  [7.21 p.m.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H,

  Robinson, Sidney

  Arnold, Sydney

  Hogge, James Myles

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Baker, Rt. Hon. Harold T. (Accrington)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Runciman, Rt, Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Barran, sir John N. (Hawick, Burghs)

  King, Joseph

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Bentham, G. J.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Smallwood, Edward

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Snowden, Philip

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burns, Rt. Hon John

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon Sir Albert

  Buxton, Noel

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Clough, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Morrell, Philip

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Parrott, Sir James Edward

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Falconer, James

  Partington, Hon. Oswald

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central).

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Geoffrey Howard

  Holme, Sir Norval Watson

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

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

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Anstruther-Gray, Lieut.-Col. William

  Fell, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Attar, Major Hon. Waldorf

  Finney, Samuel

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fisher, Rt. Hon H. A. L. (Hallam)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Baker, Maj. Sic Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

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

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. H. C. (Appleby)

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

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

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

  Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

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

  Geddes, Sir A. c. (Hants, North)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Beach, William F. H.

  Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bothell, Sir J. H.

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Bigland, Alfred

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Billing, Pemberton

  Gretton, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bird, Alfred

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Blair, Reginald

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hail, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

  Mills, Lieut. Hon. Arthur R.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hambro, Angus Valdemas

  Mitchell-Thomson, W.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Boyton, Sir James

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Hanson, Charles Augustine

  Morrison-Bell. Major E. F. (Ashburton)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

  Brookes, Warwick

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Mount, William Arthur

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Butcher, John George

  Haslam, Lewis

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Carew, C.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Norton-Griffiths, Sir John

  Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. Douglas G.

  Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cator, John

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Parkes, Sir Edward

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Suffolk, S.E.)

  Cheyne, Sir W. W.

  Hinds, John

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Clynes, John R.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'ampton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Compton Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

  Cory, Sir Clifford (St. Ives)

  Hudson, Walter

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Courthope, Major George Loyd

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Cowan, Sir W. H.

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Pulley, C. T.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

  Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Currie, George W.

  Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Jones, J, Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rothschild, Major Lionel de

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rowlands, James

  Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Royds, Major Edmund

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Kerry, Lieut.-Col. Earl of

  Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Keswick, Henry

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sanders. Col. Robert Arthur

  Du Pre, Major W. Baring

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool. Exchange)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  2404

  2405

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Tillett, B.

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

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Alton)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid.)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Stoker, R. B.

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Wood, S. Hill- (Derbyshire)

  Swift, Rigby

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

  Weston, John W.

  Younger, Sir George

  Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.

  Thynne, Lt.-Col. Lord Alexander

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Tickler, T. G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  POST OFFICE (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

  POST OFFICE (No. 2) BILL.

    Clause 1.—(Variation of Statutory Limits for Certain Rates of Postage.)
    Proviso (b) to Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Post Office Act, 1908 (which limits the rates of prepaid postage which may be fixed by the Treasury for certain classes of postal packets), shall have effect as though for the words "for an inland postcard shall not exceed one halfpenny" in paragraph (i) thereof there were substituted the words "for an inland postcard shall not exceed one penny," and as though for paragraph (ii) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph: —
    "(ii) for an inland book packet shall not exceed—
    if the packet is not over one ounce in weight, one halfpenny;
    if the packet is over one ounce and not over two ounces in weight, one penny;
    if the packet is over two ounces in weight, one penny for the first two ounces, and one halfpenny for every two ounces or fractional part of two ounces over and above the first or any additional two ounces."
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
    "Provided that transactions of any learned society, being a member of or recommended by the Conjoint Board of Scientific Societies, may be posted at the same rates as are applicable to registered newspapers."
    From the financial point of view, this is a very small concession that is required, but from the point of view of the societies to which it relates the effect of this Amendment is certainly important. I would remind the House that the learned societies throughout the whole of this country have been doing most important national work both as societies and through the individual efforts of their members. I think it required this War to bring us all to realise how much we owe to the efforts of individual societies
    2406
    to promote science in this country, because there is very little doubt that before the War science in this country had not received the support and recognition which it requires. Most of these societies are struggling, and dependent for all their expenses upon the subscriptions of their members. Many of them have already had to cut down the amount of literature which they send out to their members in consequence of various restrictions with regard to paper, and it is important on national grounds that no further restrictions than are absolutely needed should be placed upon them in their efforts to spread the literature of science as much as it can be spread among the classes who understand it. There is no question that the issue of their transactions promotes discussion. They contain suggestions of which advantage is taken by every speaker and they tend to promote invention. On all these grounds, I submit that no action should be taken by the Government which would tend to restrict and hamper this important national work. They would be hit very seriously if the postage on their transactions were increased. I therefore hope that the Government may see their way to accord to them the favourable treatment which is contemplated in this Amendment.
    It may be asked, What are learned societies? Is it possible to identify them? To-day that is a question to which an answer can very readily be given, because during the War, in order to enable science to speak with one voice, a very important body, which is in close touch with many of the Government Departments has been formed, called the Conjoint Board of Scientific Societies. It was formed at the suggestion and under the aegis of the Royal Society, and the President of the Royal Society, that distinguished physicist and mathematician, Sir Joseph Thomson, is president of the

    2407
    Conjoint Board. A very large number of the important scientific societies, including most of the technical societies, are members of it, and the work of all the societies and of all branches of science is studied by the Board. They are, therefore, in a position, if desired, to inform the Government to which societies this privilege, if it is given, should be accorded. That would make the task of the Post Office, which I presume would have the handling of this matter, comparatively easy. I do not think that I need say anything further on the question of finance. It is obvious that this concession would only be a very small one, but it may be suggested that the' machinery to work it would be difficult to set up and put in motion. So far as a private individual can, I have made inquiries on the point, and I am informed by people who should know what they are talking about that there would be no difficulty if the names of the societies to which the concession would apply were registered at the Post Office, just as newspapers are registered, and I hope that both the Treasury and the Post Office will be willing to accept the Amendment.
    Sir J. LARMOR: I am glad that the representatives of science in this House are moving in this matter, and my only objection to this Amendment is that it is too narrow. The learned societies which represent literature have the same right to have more freedom and less expense in the important service which they are rendering to this country in circulating literature and in developing the intellectual side of our national life as the representatives of scientific societies, and, as a university Member, I am very glad to be in a position to ask the Postmaster, in case he is able, as I hope he will be able, to make some remission of expense to the one group of societies, to make it to the other group also. I have known for many a year that even the old rates of postage came as a very heavy tax on a society which was not very wealthy and which had no funds at all except the subscriptions of its members. In addition to the members supplying the literature, which was an asset both to the instruction of the country and to its position in the international world, they had to pay hundreds of pounds a year for postage. If the publications which they issue could be registered as newspapers, they would get privileges which, not being registered as
    2408
    newspapers, they cannot get. I am not very certain, but I put this to the Postmaster, that in America the facilities for the mailing of the scientific and literary matter which is issued by societies of standing in the national life are much greater than they are here. The hon. Member who made the proposal suggested that the Royal Society might carry this out in the case of science. No doubt it would do so very well. The British Academy might do the same thing in the case of the literary societies. This is a case in which at very slight expense to the national funds the Postmaster might take steps which would encourage very much people who give their whole efforts towards the production of science and literature which stands to our credit and position among the great nations of the world.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I should like to be allowed to say a word or two in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I sincerely trust that the Postmaster, after having heard the speeches that have been already made, will see his way to grant this very small concession for which we ask. The loss to the revenue would be absolutely insignificant. I might say, in the mathematical language, that it would be an infinitesimal small quantity. One very important reason why this concession should be granted is that it would not form a precedent for a number of other bodies. The Postmaster-General might say, "If I grant this I shall have to grant a similar concession to a great many other bodies, and that would mean a considerable reduction in the revenues of the Post Office." May I point out that this is really a special case dealing with special societies which are well known, and which differ from a large number of other less important bodies. The Member for the University of Cambridge (Sir J. Larmor) has very rightly made an appeal on behalf of the literary societies, but may I state that it was the intention of my hon. Friend and myself in putting down this proposal that it should refer to the well known scientific and literary societies. Their number is not large and the quantity of transactions which they send round in the course of the year would be comparatively small, and there would be no difficulty in leaving to the Conjoint Board of Scientific Societies the determination, not only of the scientific societies which should be included, but also the few literary societies. The proposal is worded:

    2409
    "Provided that transactions of any learned society, being a member of or recommended by the Conjoint Board of Scientific Societies, may be posted at the same rates as are applicable to registered newspapers."
    I think we might safely trust this Conjoint Board to recommend the literary societies as well as the scientific societies to whom this privilege could be granted. This is a very opportune time for making this proposal and appealing to the Postmaster-General to grant it. We are endeavouring to pass through the Committee of this House and ultimately through the House itself an Education Bill which will improve the education of the whole people of this country. The higher branches of education, are dealt with by the scientific and literary societies, and even if it involves the loss of a small amount of revenue that small amount will be extremely well spent in enabling the members of those societies to receive the transactions, and the accounts of their proceedings. I know of nothing in any branch of education which affords so much opportunity for thought and encourages investigation, whether on the scientific or the literary side of learning, as the opportunity of reading extracts of the proceedings that take place at these learned societies, and it seems to me that by refusing to make this small concession and giving up this small amount of money you are thereby putting a tax on the highest grades of learning. For these reasons I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I hope the Postmaster-General will not accept this Amendment, and in saying that I am quite sure that we do not belittle the importance of the work of those societies, or underestimate their value. One part of this proposal will be to take out of the hands of the Postmaster-General altogether the rates applicable to certain transactions, and instead of being vested in the hands of the Postmaster-General they are to be placed in the hands of the Conjoint Board of Scientific Societies.
    Mr. WILSON-FOX: No!
    Mr. ANDERSON: Evidently the hon. Member has not read his own Amendment because it says in regard to any learned society. If it is recommended by this Conjoint Board, then these rates are going to apply so that as far as any learned society is concerned the rates to be applied to their communications are
    2410
    not going to be settled by the Postmaster-General but by the Conjoint Board. Important and invaluable as these societies are, there are any number of other societies that have an equal claim to special consideration of this kind, and once you allow this principle there are any number of other societies belonging to poor people who would put forward a similar claim, and they would want to know why you treat the learned societies upon a different level.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Because they are learned.
    Mr. BOOTH: Because they call themselves learned.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is that any reason for special treatment? There are any number of other societies carrying on important educational and trade union work, and they would have quite as strong a claim for special treatment. Therefore, I assure the Postmaster-General if he once opens this door he is going to lead to great difficulties, and he will have any number of other Amendments, and there would be a most unfair feeling on the part of other societies if he is going to allow special treatment in this case.
    Mr. BOOTH: I must offer a very strong opposition to this Amendment. We all have in mind hospitals and charities who make appeals for very good objects almost entirely on behalf of very poor people. These learned societies are largely composed of rich men.
    Sir J. LARMOR: No.
    Mr. BOOTH: Certainly they are, and the last thing they wish is to be considered poor. If this concession is made we shall very soon have the Notice Paper full of other Amendments. If the Postmaster-General grants this he will have to turn a sympathetic ear to every other case as deserving, and I am sure the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and myself could in a minute or two put down twelve or twenty more Amendments in regard to which we could rely on the Postmaster-General doing a good turn on the plea that the expense would be small. If we have any idea respecting the taxpayer I think we must draw the line here. There are a great many who will consider that certain businesses might be recognised. Take the case of a small business struggling with foreign competition. They are quite capable of coming here and

    2411
    saying, "The only way we can keep going is that we should have no postage to pay at all." If the Postmaster-General thinks of granting this concession I have many other persuasive arguments which I could use, but if he is going to remain firm there is no necessity for me to continue my remarks.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I am afraid if this concession were granted it would form a very dangerous precedent, and would lead to making many other concessions in other ways. There are plenty of other people not embraced in scientific societies who have many other interests which they are equally anxious to advance, and if it is granted in the one case it would have to be granted in many others. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox) said there would be no administrative difficulties in regard to this proposal, but I am afraid that there would be. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir J. Larmor) asked for an extension of this proposal in regard to other undertakings in which he was more particularly interested. I am afraid, however, that I cannot accept the Amendment, for these reasons.
    Mr. KING: I congratulate the Postmaster-General on his good sense and his courage. This is a very foolish Amendment, and therefore it is very sensible to turn it down. It is also very courageous of the right hon. Gentleman, because this proposal is evidently well supported by very prominent and powerful and wealthy persons, and I am very grateful to him for taking the right line. I should just like to point out what it really means. It means that the transactions of any learned society which were recommended by the Conjoint Board should be posted at the same rates as newspapers and not as book packages. Only this very day I have filled in a form, which I receive every year as a member of a learned society, to have sent to me the volume of transactions of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. That volume weighs generally about 5 lbs. or 6 lbs.; it is very large, and it is so heavy that they have been in the habit of sending it by railway parcel instead of by the parcels post, because it is cheaper to send it in that way. In future, under this proposal, they would be able to send it cheaper than ever, because it would come at the rate of
    2412
    newspapers. That only needs to be pointed out to show how foolish it is to put down an Amendment like this and then come forward and state that it is in the interests of science. It is only in the interests of members of wealthy societies. The Royal Society is extremely wealthy.
    Sir J. LARMOR: That statement is totally unfounded, for it is a poor society.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. KING: The hon. Gentleman is not in possession of the House, and he is very disorderly. At any rate, the Royal Society gives the appearance of being a very wealthy society; but there is no doubt about it that the societies which would benefit by this proposal are very wealthy. I will give another instance. There is the Royal Geographical Society, which publishes very voluminous transactions. That society has had large legacies recently, and quite in recent days they have gone into most beautiful premises in Kensington, with most elegant rooms and beautiful gardens. That is the sort of society you would benefit at the expense of the taxpayer at the present time.
    Sir J. LARMOR: No!
    Mr. KING: Yes, you would! It is a learned society, and I think it is connected with the Conjoint Board. I might give cases of other societies. There is the Zoological Society, which carries on the Zoological Gardens in Regent's Park. That would be entitled under this Clause to special advantages and privileges, a most undesirable proposal. I am afraid, in speaking against this Amendment after it has been refused by the Postmaster-General, I am only slaying the dead, but at any rate I wish it to be understood that the sense of sensible men is so much against it that it ought never to appear on any future occasion.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. KING: I think this is being taken rather rapidly. I do not know why the Third Reading should be taken now at all.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow the Bill to pass its Third Reading now, and go to the House of Lords.
    Mr. WATT: May I ask whether the principle of passing the Bill so rapidly is not a bad one for this House? It is not question—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) is in possession of the House.
    Mr. KING: Personally, I do not think this is at all a good Bill. I do not see why we should let it pass, and rushing it through in this way without proper consideration does not predispose me either favourably to the Government or to this Bill. I do not see any urgent necessity why we should take the Third Beading to-day. In fact, I am not quite sure that we can. I thought that the proceedings on the Post Office (No. 2) Bill meant only the Committee stage, because the Committee stage is the only stage that is down on the Paper. On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to put this to you: We are entitled to take before Supply to-day, according to the Resolution that has been passed, the proceedings on the Post Office (No. 2) Bill. The only proceedings down on the Order Paper marked in italics are the Committee stage, and not the Third Reading. I put it to you that the Third Reading cannot be taken, and is not authorised to be taken, by the Resolution we have passed.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Resolution just refers to proceedings on the Post Office (No. 2) Bill. I do not think that confines it to a particular stage.
    Mr. KING: "Proceedings," of course, must refer to the proceedings which are down as Orders of the Day, and the Order of the Day is the Committee stage. In fact, the first three Orders of the Day are printed in italics, so that it can be clearly and distinctly understood by hon. Members what they can take before Supply in the event of the Resolution being passed. I submit, with great respect, that we are not entitled to take this Order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All the stages of the Bill can be taken if the House think fit.
    Mr. BOOTH: On that point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have decided the point of Order.
    Mr. BOOTH: Having ruled that we can take it, may I suggest that it must be with the consent of the House, and that if the House refuse its consent—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I said if the House think fit.
    Mr. BOOTH: Then is it not the proper course for the Government to ask for our consent?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I hope the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) will not persist in his opposition. It is very necessary to get the Bill through, as it has to go to another place, and I want to give sufficiently long notice to the public so that it will be understood all over the country, and so that people will not be so liable to put on lesser rates of postage and have to pay a surcharge. The House will be getting up shortly, and it does not leave very much time. I want this to be operative on the 1st June. If it is not it means delay for a very long time, and the Exchequer will lose a very considerable sum of money in consequence. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his objection.
    Mr. KING: After the very courteous and full explanation of the Postmaster-General, I am very glad not to persist.
    Mr. WATT: The hon. Member does not stand alone in this respect. He has a body of followers. He has myself, and what I desire to ask is whether it is not a very bad principle for this House to pass a measure as speedily as is proposed in this case? It is not a question of the intrinsic merits or importance of the Bill but the principle of this House parting too rapidly with a measure which, having passed Committee a few minutes ago, is brought up for Third Reading immediately. I listened to my right hon. Friend, and if we could really take it seriously that there is this extreme pressure for getting this on the Statute Book.
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: There is.
    Mr. WATT: As I have the assurances of both my right hon. Friends I will not oppose this. As there is this extreme pressure to get this on the Statute Book, to give notice, and in order that the Revenue should not be lost I will not stand in their way, but I still wish to protest

    2415
    against the general principle of passing measures too rapidly through this House before it has had proper time to realise what it is passing.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES] (No. 2).
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to regulate the use of stallions for stud purposes provided that no more than £20,000 be paid in any one year."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. WATT: I have on one or two occasions spoken on this Resolution already, and I have sought to get some information from my hon. Friend (Sir R. Winfrey) as to the allocation of this particular sum between the three Kingdoms. The Bill, of which this is the basis, deals with the three Kingdoms, as I have again and again told my hon. Friend, and this is allocating the money to the Board of Agriculture of the three Kingdoms. But I have sought again and again to get some indication from my hon. Friend as to the amount of this money which will be given to Scotland and to England and Ireland. I have had no reply whatever from my hon. Friend, and I do not blame him, because he is in no way responsible to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. He is only responsible to the English Board of Agriculture. I blame most emphatically the Secretary for Scotland, who, although this measure has been up before this House on three or four occasions, has never, either by himself or by any of his deputies, put in an appearance here. He has allowed Scottish business to be taken in this House, and to be mismanaged, as it really was in the first instance, and then put right, without taking the slightest interest as to whether the proper sum was allocated to us or whether we
  2416
  should get any at all. I want to know what the Secretary for Scotland is paid for if it is not to attend to the interests of Scotland and to measures in this House which deal with Scottish matters! I wish, therefore, to say that I consider it is not right, and that the Secretary for Scotland and his Lord Advocate and his Solicitor-General are not doing their duty properly to Scotland when they are allowing Scottish matters again and again to come up in this House without putting in an attendance at all. I would conclude by again asking my hon. Friend, or his right hon. Chief, whether he can tell us how much of this £20,000 is to be devoted to England? No doubt he knows that, and we can infer what will be left to Scotland and Ireland between them. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to tell us the exact sum which will be given to Scotland and Ireland, but it is that I am desirous of knowing. Scottish Members are sent here to see that they get a share of the taxpayers' money, and the proper share to which Scotland is entitled, but as my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) told us last night, it is eleven-eightieths, or practically one-seventh, of the money. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that we will get the share that we are entitled to I shall be entirely satisfied. At the same time I would repeat my earlier observation, that the Secretary for Scotland should be in his place on such an occasion.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I should say, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Watt), that the Secretary for Scotland entrusted me and my Department with bringing in this Bill, and I think that is the explanation of why it is he has not been present during the discussions. I am very sorry it happened that an answer was given as to the sum required by the three countries which applied only to England. Originally, the sum mentioned as being the sum that England might require was £10,000. I think it was accepted as a suggestion from some Member in the House. That is a sum which is more than England is likely to require, and the sum that the three countries will require may safely be put at £20,000, though the exact proportion in which these sums will be allocated to Ireland and Scotland and England entirely depends upon the number of

  2417
  stallions which have to be registered, and the necessary expenses that have to be incurred. That is not a point which we can settle.
  It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES] (No. 2).
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. PROTHERO: That is the explanation of the difficulty of allocating any particular sum to any of the three countries. But I think my hon. Friend may rest quite assured that Scotland will under that Grant obtain all the money that is required for the efficient carrying out of the Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: Then we have arrived at this, that while £10,000 is ample for England, they also require a further £10,000 for Scotland and Ireland.
  Mr. PROTHERO: That is not quite accurate.
  Mr. BOOTH: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that £10,000 would be quite ample for England. If £10,000 is more than enough for England it means that Scotland and Ireland are responsible for the increase of this limit, which I think was moved by myself last night, to £20,000. How can it be justified that England should be so badly treated? It is all very well for poverty-stricken Scotland, as it always proclaims itself to be, to come here airing its grievances. I have no lack of sympathy with Scotland, especially on questions of money, in regard to which she is well able to take care
  2418
  of herself. Now the grievance is the other way round, and it is poor England that is not to receive her proper share. Is it due to something beyond the control of the Department? I presume it is dependent on the number of veterinary surgeons or the number of animals as to whether this money shall be spent? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us, what I did not gather from his speech, that it will simply be spent when it is needed, that it is no concern of his whether it is spent in England or Scotland. If it will be spent simply where it is required, nobody has any particular complaint. I understand that Scotland is entitled to eleven-eightieths of any vote of money. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh(Mr. Price), last night, tried to impress upon the Committee that they were entitled to £2,750, but according to this Resolution they are to have about £5,000. I suppose that Ireland will have £5,000 and Scotland £5,000, leaving £10,000 for England. That is another injustice to this country, but I suppose we shall have to bear it. If this money is going to benefit the country by way of new expenditure, I claim the right of England to get its proper proportion.
  Mr. PROTHERO: The explanation is that certain expenses have to be incurred for every stallion that is licensed, and the total expenditure, which, we think, we can put at an outside estimate, in the three countries, is £20,000. The amount which will be spent in each of the three countries really depends upon the number of stallions which are licensed in each of the three countries. It is not a division of £10,000 for England and £5,000 each to Scotland and Ireland; it is a division of £20,000 between the stallions in the three countries. That is the explanation.

  LUXURY DUTY.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th May; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]
  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."
  Sir J. D. REES: I only rise to say that, though I was waiting in the Central Library to vote, and was anxious to vote, I did not hear the bell. It might be possible to ascribe that to some extent to my over-immersion in the letters I was writing, or to some fault of hearing, but as other Members—I think two others—were left behind in the same way, it seems that there must be something defective in the manner of signifying to hon. Members that a Division is proceeding. I was absent a very short time, and when I came back I found that the Division
  2420
  was just over. There was no call from any quarter that I heard. It may be that does not generally happen in the Central Library. Perhaps that is natural, but the ringing of the bell, I submit, must have been imperfect if several Members were left out, and as one comes here for the purpose of voting, and this was an important Division, I take this opportunity of bringing the matter to the notice of the Chair.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I will direct that the bells be tested.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes after Eight o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February