Commons Sitting of 13 November 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
London United Tramways Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

SCOTTISH WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of the Second Annual Report of the Committee, 1st July, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (WALES).
Copy presented of Order, dated 6th November, 1918, made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the County Borough of Swansea (Insurance Committee) Order, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report on the working of Small Holdings acquired under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NITRATE OF SODA (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 22, 1918).
Copy presented of Memorandum of Agreement between the Chilean Government and the Nitrate of Soda Executive for the Sale and Purchase of Nitrate of Soda. (Signed also in Spanish by the
2646
Chilean Minister in London, 3rd October, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SESSIONAL RETURNS.
The following Sessional Returns were ordered, on the Motion of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Donald Maclean):
SESSIONAL RETURNS.
  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10.
  Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1918 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 181, of Session 1917–18).
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return showing, with reference to Session 1918, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 182, of Session 1917–18).

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1918, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gag and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and other County Buildings; In-closure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; and Miscellaneous:
  Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1918 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each

  2647
  Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1918, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.4798, of Session 1917–18).

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1918; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.254, of Session 1917–18).
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1918; with the total number of signatures in that Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper. No. 0.331, of Session 1917–18).

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1918 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry;
  2648
  the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.309, of Session 1917–18).

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return of the days on which the House sat in Session, 1918, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings.
  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Return for the Session of 1918, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of Sittings at which he was present and the number of Divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days, on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.123, of Session 1917–18).

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Copy ordered of "Return respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Sessions 1914–16, 1916, 1917–18, and 1918 (1) in the House and in Committee of the Whole House, under the following heads:

  (a) Closure.

  Date when Closure moved, and by whom.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 427, of Session 1914).—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    LIQUOR LICENCES (BOMBAY).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the auctioning of licences for the sale of intoxicants has been re-introduced in Bombay; whether the effect of this has been to increase the Excise revenue and the consumption of liquor; whether he is aware that the Excise Committee of 1905 recommended the abandonment of the auction system; and whether, in view of this recommendation and of the opposition of Indian opinion to this method of licensing, inquiry will be made into the operation of the system with a view to its discontinuance and the adoption of alternative measures of restriction?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The fixed fee system was introduced experimentally in Bombay in 1907–08 and throughout the Presidency in
    2650
    1911. In a Press note of 13th December, 1917, the Bombay Government stated the reasons which had led them to revert to the auction system. They had found that the fixed fee system had not reduced consumption, that it had failed to secure a better and more honest class of licensees, and that it had led to illicit profits and corruption. I shall be happy to let my hon. Friend have a copy of the note, should he so desire.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, 6TH (POONA) DIVISION.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the question of a grant of a special decoration in recognition of the heroic achievements of the 6th (Poona) Division of the Indian Army in Mesopotamia from the time of the occupation of Busrah in November, 1914, up to the time of the battle of Ctesiphon and the subsequent siege of Kut-el-Amarah?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I share my hon. and gallant Friend's appreciation of the admirable work of the 6th (Poona)

    2651
    Division in Mesopotamia. But, as he is no doubt aware, the grant of a special decoration to a division or regiment would not be in accordance with the present practice of the British Army, and the moment is hardly convenient for raising a discussion about such an innovation, nor am I the right person to initiate it.

    OFFICERS' WIVES (ALLOWANCES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the allowance of Rs. 200 per mensem, granted by the Government of India to the wives of officers of the British Army stranded in India during the absence of their husbands, is also granted to the wives of British officers of the Indian Army who are similarly stranded in India during the absence of their husbands on service or owing to having been invalided home in consequence of injury, dysentery, or other disease contracted on service; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative. The allowance in question was given to meet the case of officers of the British Army who, when ordered on service out of India, reverted from the Indian to the British rate of pay. An officer of the Indian Army in similar circumstances retains his Indian rate of pay.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the very great hardships suffered by these wives of British officers of the Indian Army, detained in India?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am considering the matter now, but my hon. and gallant Friend will see that there is no analogy between the two cases, although there is a considerable hardship.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that hardship?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am considering it.

  GENERAL ELECTION.

    NAVAL CANDIDATES.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers, petty officers, and men of the Royal Navy who are candidates for Parliament at the coming General Election will be granted the same leave as has been promised to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Army during the Election?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Officers or men invited to stand as Parliamentary candidates must obtain the permission of the Admiralty to do so through the usual Service channel. The granting of such permission must depend upon the exigencies of the Service.
    In cases in which such permission has been granted to an officer or man, he will be granted leave of absence to appear before the duly accredited committee or association of the recognised party, or any other body of persons proposing to adopt him. The leave would commence eight days before the issue of the Writs. Should the candidate be adopted, this eight days will be extended so as to cover the additional nine days of the Election, plus a period of seven to ten days, representing the period which must elapse between the opening and declaration of the poll.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Why should an officer have to ask permission of the Admiralty to stand for Parliament?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Because the exigencies of the Service compel the Board of Admiralty to have the matter in their discretion. My right hon. Friend has been a member of the Board, and he will consider the case of an officer in charge of a battleship, the engineer in charge of machinery of a great ship, submarine or destroyer coxswain, or the higher gunnery or torpedo ratings. All these men are indispensable. The fighting efficiency of the Fleet is the only ground on which the Admiralty withhold permission.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Admiralty, as a matter of fact, already received requests for permission to accept an invitation, and have any been refused?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There has been a request, but I cannot say if there has been a refusal, because these rules have only just been completed. But a decision will be taken, and if my hon. Friend would like to see the whole Admiralty Order, I shall be glad to let him see it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will officers and men of the Navy who have been already adopted require now afresh to apply for special permission from the Board of Admiralty to present themselves?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; unless it has been already granted.

  SENIOR NAVAL OFFICER'S STAFF, INVERNESS.
  Mr. HOLTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number, respectively, of the male and female clerical staff of the senior naval officer at Inverness; and what is the nature of the premises in which this staff is housed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would repeat his question to-morrow. I am awaiting certain information by wire, which is essential to a reply.

  PASSPORTS FOR CANADA (WOMEN).
  Mr. DENMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether passports can now be granted to women desiring to go to Canada to be married?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The whole question of the restrictions on travelling by sea is at present under the immediate consideration of the Government Departments concerned.
  Mr. DENMAN: Meanwhile, if there are boats going with available space, will passengers be allowed to go in them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that offhand. I must consult the Shipping Controller.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    RE-EMPLOYED OFFICERS (PAY).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that pensioned lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders, Royal Navy, promoted from the lower deck before the War and called up for the War are not receiving the pensions they have earned but are being given 25 per cent. of the full pay in addition in lieu thereof; and if he will see into this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under Orders in Council 8th March, 1895, 5th March, 1910, and 3rd February, 1915, retired and pensioned officers when re-employed in war or emergency, receive the pay and emoluments of their corresponding ranks on the active list, or, if greater, their retired pay, together with a bonus of 25 per cent. calculated on their full pay or retired pay as the case may be. The Rule
    2654
    is one which applies to all retired and pensioned naval officers re-employed during war, and not only to officers promoted from the lower deck.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two First Lords of the Admiralty have said these gentlemen are entitled to their pensions and have earned them and, as a matter of fact, these gentlemen are serving their country at the rate of 5s. 6d. a day?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot imagine any First Lord saying anything in violation of the Order. These gentlemen, promoted from the lower deck, are in absolutely the same position as other commissioned officers in this respect, and there is no discrimination.

    ENGINEER OVERSEERS (SERVANT'S ALLOWANCE).
    Major Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the reason why engineer officers appointed as overseers are not to be given servant's allowance, seeing that they comply with paragraph 1 of A. W. O. 607, they do not form part of the authorised complement of any recognised civil establishment, they are borne for fleet duties-living on shore without the service of a naval servant and are in receipt of the full pay of their rank, lodging, and provision allowances at the ordinary rates; and whether he is aware that, with the exception of engineer-overseers, all naval officers employed on shore billets, whether Royal Naval, Royal Naval Reserve, or Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, receive this allowance, and that this is also granted to a few engineer overseers employed on repair duties, and the engineer overseer and his assistant at Messrs. Whitehead's works, Weymouth, receive it as do all officers on the staff of the captain superintendent of leaders and destroyers building?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reason for the differentiation in the case of engineer officers appointed as overseers is that these officers, equally with those who form part of the authorised complement of a civil establishment, live practically under civilian conditions. The allowance had, however, been granted in a few cases before this decision was reached. These are no doubt the cases referred to in the latter part of the question. So far as is known, there are only two cases in which engineer overseers have been granted the allowance.

  SECONDED OFFICERS (GRATUITY).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether officers of the Imperial Army seconded for duty under the Colonial Office will receive a gratuity at the end of the War; and, if so, whether this will take into account the whole period of their service under both the Colonial Office and the War Office?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The matter is receiving careful consideration, but I regret that I am unable to make a statement with regard to it at present.
  Colonel YATE: When will a statement be made?
  Mr. HEWINS: I advise the hon. and gallant Member to address his question to whoever may occupy my office in the next Parliament.

  COAST WATCHERS, IRELAND.
  Colonel McCALMONTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that only 3 per cent. of the coast watchers in Ireland have ever served either in the forces of the Crown or in the Mercantile Marine during the present War, he will state how many of these men are of military age; whether he is aware that many ex-Service men are qualified and anxious for such work; and whether immediate steps will be taken to ensure that they are not kept out of employment by men who have never served although eligible?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The total number of civilian coast watchers employed in Ireland at the present time is 438, and out of this number 252 are of military age. My hon. and gallant Friend should observe, however, that out of this 252, 159 are between the ages of forty-one and fifty-two, having been engaged at the time when the maximum age for compulsory military service was forty-one. As regards the second part of the question, the total number of ex-Service men who have applied for engagement as civilian coast watchers in Ireland is twenty-eight, and of this number seventeen have been engaged. Wherever we can we would desire to give preference to ex-Service men, all other things being equal.
  Colonel McCALMONT: May we take it that when it comes to a question of permanent
  2656
  coast-watchers and coastguards, no fresh men will be taken on who have not served in the forces of the Crown?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that, but preference will certainly be given, other things being equal, to ex-Service men.

  RUSSIA.

    MILITARY OFFICERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, during the last six months, any Russian officers have been sent to Vladivostock at the expense of the British Government or the Allies; if so sent, whether they are under military orders to take part in any operations against the Soviet Government of Russia; and who are the Russian military authorities from whom Russian officers in this country receive orders?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is in the negative: With regard to the third part of the question, Russian officers in this country receive orders from the Military Attaché at the Russian Embassy.
    Mr. KING: Can we have the name of that officer, and what is the Russian Embassy; is there one still in this country?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend must put that question to the Foreign Office.
    Mr. KING: What is the name of the officer?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no idea.

  INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC.

    BRITISH ARMY (ENGLAND AND FRANCE).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) how many cases of influenza in the British Army in France and England were reported during the months of September and October, 1918; what hospital accommodation was there to cope with these cases; whether any fresh hospital accommodation was provided; if so, how many beds; (2) how many officers and men of the British Army died in England and

    2657
    France, respectively, from influenza or pneumonia during the months of September and October, 1918?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that the figures for the United Kingdom for the month of October are not yet available. The figures for September are:

    Admissions.

    Deaths.

    Influenza—

    Officers

    110

    nil

    Other Ranks

    2,791

    18

    Pneumonia—

    Officers

    20

    nil

    Other Ranks

    361

    75

    I cannot give the figures in the detailed form desired in the case of France. In September there were 92 admissions to hospital on account of pneumonia and 24 deaths. The figures for October are: 2,702 admissions to hospital and 1,044 deaths due to pneumonia, and 24,894 admissions to hospital and 421 deaths due to influenza.
    As regards hospital accommodation, on 1st September there were 96,000 vacant beds in hospitals in the United Kingdom, and since that date an additional 8,000 beds have been provided.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to have the mortality statistics of the Army compared with the civilian statistics?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say whether we are doing that now, but I will see that it is done.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has received complaints in regard to the overcrowding of hospitals; and whether steps have been taken in all those hospitals in which influenza or pneumonia cases are numerous to reduce the number of inmates?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No complaints have been received regarding overcrowding in hospitals. It is impossible in every case to reduce the number of inmates owing to the widespread and very extensive nature of the outbreak, and the fact that the hospitals are at present strained to the utmost by the arrival of wounded from overseas.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many cubic feet of air space per patient is considered necessary by the military authorities for patients in military hospitals suffering from influenza and pneumonia?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: At present 600 cubic feet of air space has been provided as a minimum in every hospital, and with adequate ventilation and efficient warming there is no evidence that this is insufficient for ordinary cases. It is recognised that cases of influenza and pneumonia require additional air space, and this is given whenever practicable.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much extra allowance is given for influenza and pneumonia cases?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say offhand, but I shall be delighted to make inquiries and inform my hon. Friend.
    Colonel McCALMONT: Is it not the case that in many districts where there has been this epidemic the figures have been very much lower for the troops than for the civilian population?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICK BENEFIT).
    Major EDWARD WOODasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced by many persons in country districts owing to the shortage of medical officers during the present epidemic of influenza in securing the certificate of a medical officer necessary to obtain sick benefit under the National Insurance Act; and whether he can make provision by which money to which such persons are entitled may be more easily and expeditiously obtained?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I am aware of, and am giving careful attention to, the serious difficulties under which the medical profession are striving to carry out their duties just now, with their numbers so depleted by the demands of the Army for medical men, and the great aggravation of these difficulties by the present epidemic; and I trust that Approved Societies generally are showing all possible consideration for these conditions in their dealing with sickness benefit claims from their members. But I am advised that a general relaxation of the requirement of periodical medical certificates as evidence of incapacity for work would be open to grave objection, as tending to destroy the administrative basis requisite for financial

    2659
    stability. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any individual case in view where a needlessly rigid insistence on a complete fulfilment of some rule in the present abnormal circumstances has occasioned injustice, I will look into the matter and communicate with the various parties concerned.
    Sir S. COLLINS: Now that the Armistice is in progress, will medical men be brought home as quickly as possible?
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Negotiations are being carried on with a view to the bringing of medical men back to this country as rapidly as possible.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SHELL-FILLING FACTORY, CHILWELL.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether H. A. Gather was employed by the Ministry of Munitions at the shell-filling factory, Chilwell, up to June, 1916; that while in such employment he contracted T.N.T. poisoning and was granted compensation at £l per week; that on 5th October, 1916, he received his calling-up papers to join on the 9th, and was passed into the Army on 13th October after examination before two medical boards at Derby and Normanton barracks and several hospital doctors, and posted to the 2/6th Highland Light Infantry, No. 61699, on 14th October, was taken before the medical officer on 15th October, who passed him for discharge; that his commanding officer refused to sign his discharge and he was placed in Category E and remained in the Army for 165 days, doing neither duties or parades; that he was discharged on 23rd March, 1917, from the 104th Training Reserve, Edinburgh, without pension or allowance; that his pension for poisoning was stopped immediately on his joining the Army; that he is unable to work owing to the poisoning or to earn his livelihood; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and take the necessary action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiry made into the third and fourth parts of my hon. Friend's question and will acquaint him of the result as soon as possible.
    2660
    The remaining part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is there a difference of opinion between the War Office and the Ministry as to which Department is responsible?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure about that, but I will make inquiries.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Col. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that two-thirds of the alternative pensions of non-commissioned officers and men are payable to their widows, he will consider the desirability of granting the same proportion of the officers' alternative pensions to officers' widows?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): It has been decided that the alternative pensions of officers' widows should be assessed on the basis of two-thirds of the maximum alternative retired pay, instead of one-half as hitherto.

    CHIPPING SODBURY PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the Chipping Sodbury Pensions Committee has only just elected, under pressure of the Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers, discharged men on their committee, and have as yet placed no war widow on their committee; what is the cause of the delay; and will the Ministry use its powers to secure the carrying out of the law in this matter?
    Mr. HODGE: I am making inquiries into the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, and will take whatever action is necessary on receipt of full information. I may point out, however, that the Chipping Sodbury Committee is a sub-committee of the local committee of Gloucestershire, and that the Naval and Military War Pensions (Committees) Act, 1917, does not require the appointment of the widow or dependant of a man who has died in military service to membership of a sub-committee.
    Mr. RENDALL: Having in view the Bill now under consideration, will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that women should be put on?
    Mr. HODGE: I am afraid I cannot promise to do that as far as the new Bill is concerned.

    WOTTON-UNDER-EDGE PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that, on the the resignation of one of the discharged soldiers on the Wotton-under-Edge Pensions Committee, Mr. C. A. Pearce was, by a majority of ninety-two, selected by the local branch of the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers for the local pensions committee on 6th September; whether one week later he was selected by the local pensions committee; whether he attended meetings on 24th September and other dates, but had been told that he had no standing as his appointment had to be ratified by the county committee on 19th October: whether he has heard nothing to date of his ratification; that his appeals to the local chairman of the pensions committee, his letter's to the clerk to the county pensions committee and to the Ministry of Pensions have not even been acknowledged; and whether he can take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HODGE: I received from Mr. Pearce a representation on the 6th instant (which was acknowledged within a day of its receipt) regarding the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, and I have called for a report on the facts of the case from the inspector, and from the Gloucestershire County Committee. I am informed that Mr. Pearce has now been duly notified of his appointment.

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (DRIVER LE BERTRAND).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that E. T. Le Bertrand, of Les Merrienne, St. Martin's, Guernsey, No. 91600, Driver, Royal Field Artillery, has been medically examined since the date of the Minister's letter of the 9th October to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Thornbury); whether this man has a completely shattered right arm possessing no strength, and is receiving a pension of only 8s. 3d. a week; and what action he proposes taking?
    Mr. HODGE: This soldier has now been re-examined by a medical board, and in view of their report he has been granted an increased pension of 13s. 9d. a week for twenty-six weeks from 7th May, 1918, and then 11s. a week for twenty-six weeks, at the end of which period he will again be medically examined.

    WORCESTERSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE HEMBRY).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he has now made inquiry into the case of Private L. Hembry, No. 202128, 3/7th Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment; whether the War Office definitely stated that this man had been classified as fit only for permanent base in November, 1916, but he was in the following year sent in a fighting unit to Italy, where his health and mind completely gave way, and he was finally discharged on 22nd May, 1918; whether he has since been taken to the Gloucester County Asylum and is expected to be permanently insane; if the medical referee, after examination for pension allowance, agreed that his condition resulted from his war service; if an allowance of only 5s. 6d. has been granted, though it has not been paid for three months, because the Ministry will not grant permission to the father to draw it; if the asylum authorities are now pressing this man's father to pay £3 11s., the cost of taking him to the asylum, and 13s. weekly towards the son's maintenance; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. HODGE: Private Hembry, at the time of his discharge, was not certifiable, and the medical opinion was that his earning capacity was not much impaired. He was consequently awarded a conditional pension of 5s. 6d. a week. Since his discharge he appears to have become worse, and he is now in the Gloucester County Asylum, where he is classed as a "Service patient." So long as he remains there no necessity arises for a re-examination, as the conditional award is in abeyance and he is regarded as totally disabled. I am making inquiries as to the further statements made in the question.

    PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the system of partial commutation of pensions of retired officers has been entirely suspended in the Army for about three years, but is still operative in the Navy, the Treasury, as the controlling authority under Section 7 of the Pensions Communtation Act, 1871, will take steps to reopen the system and so enable retired Army officers, who are likely to be leaving the Service soon in largo numbers, to obtain the necessary

    2663
    capital sums to make it possible for them to start again in commercial and other pursuits.
    Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am glad to be able to inform my Noble Friend that what he desires has already been done. My attention was first directed to the diversity of practice between the War Office and the Admiralty in this matter by a question in this House on 22nd February last. I caused inquiries to be made at once, and the restriction imposed by the War Office has now been removed.

    SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Sir M. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that 302 Members of Parliament of all parties have signified in writing their approval of the proposal that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should be constituted of all parties to deal with pensions; and whether he can take steps to see that such a Select Committee of this House be forthwith constituted to deal with pensions and allowances and similar matters, or to grant a day for the discussion of the proposal?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I regret that it will not be possible to arrange for this discussion before the end of the Session.
    Sir M. BARLOW: In view of the possible approach of an election, cannot we have some statement of Government policy in regard to this before an election takes place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I recognise the importance of it, but it really is impossible to find a day. Perhaps my hon. Friend may raise it on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    CIVIL POSITIONS (PRIORITY OF RELEASE).
    Mr. DENMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether in the process of demobilisation priority will be given to those men whose civil positions have been kept open for them; if so, whether employers should make any application; and whether any priority will be given to volunteers over conscripts?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Provision has been made in the demobilisation scheme that those men whose civil positions have been kept open for them shall receive priority of release within their several industrial groups. Instructions will be issued in due course, but no application should be made by employers until public notification is given. While it is not proposed to differentiate between volunteers and conscripts as such, the object aimed at will be achieved by including in early drafts a certain proportion of those men who have served longest in a theatre of active operations.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when these particulars or instructions will be issued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am trying to issue them as soon as possible, but I cannot name the date.
    Mr. DIXON: Will men who have served in Mesopotamia be released early?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I dealt with distant theatres in the last part of my answer. I am hopeful that those men who have borne the heat of the day in a climate like that will be released as early as possible.
    Sir M. BARLOW: Can special priority be given to the staffs of local authorities, in view of the possible forthcoming election?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so.

    INFORMATION FROM EMPLOYEES.
    Major WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with demobilisation, steps have been or are being taken to obtain from employers of labour a nominal roll of their former employés to whom they could undertake to offer definite employment as soon as they could be spared from military service?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. G. Roberts): In order to assist the working of the schemes by which men with definite employment awaiting them can be released early, action in the direction indicated by the hon. and gallant Member is being taken. Letters are being issued to employers suggesting that they should prepare particulars of men now with the Forces, whom they wish to engage immediately upon dispersal. The particulars required will be the men's names, the nature of the employment and the rate of wages offered, and also, if possible, the

    2665
    unit, regimental number and home address. It is not desired that these particulars should be supplied to the Ministry of Labour at present, but employers will be asked in due course to send the particulars to the Employment Exchanges on special cards which will be supplied.
    Mr. TERRELL: Are arrangements being made so that these releases are granted promptly, or will there be any great delay?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am anxious that the releases should be expedited as far as practicable, and we are pursuing our course with due regard to that fact.
    Major WOOD: Do I understand that these forms are now being issued to employers and that employers will take no further action until they receive public notification?
    Mr. ROBERTS: We will request employers to return them as from a given date.
    Colonel YATE: Whom are the employers to address? To whom are they to send the forms?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That will be stated on the forms. It will be to the Employment Exchanges.

  STRAW PRICES.
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what price is paid to the farmer for straw; and what is the price paid by the consumer in the county of Huntingdon?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The maximum prices payable to the producer at the stack are 75s. per ton for oat straw, and 60s. for wheat straw. The cost to the consumer depends on the services necessary to delivery, but the wholesale dealer is limited to 5s. per ton, and the distributing dealer to 6s. per ton to cover establishment charges and profit.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the Government is making an enormous profit out of the difference between what is paid to the farmer and what the consumer pays?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. That is not so at all.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that in August last wheat straw near Huntingdon—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    GRASS LAND (PLOUGHING-UP NOTICES).
    Mr. DENMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Cumbrian farmers are to be required to plough out an additional 12,000 acres of grass land; whether some of these farmers are conscious how much the food supply of the country has been decreased, and they themselves have lost by the substitution of crops which it has not been possible to harvest for valuable grass; whether he will refrain from adding to their troubles by fresh demands and be content with the adequate cultivation of existing arable land?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The need for an increased production of food continues to be a matter of urgent national importance. The existing arable acreage must be cultivated to the full. But no substantial increase can be obtained without adding to the present arable area. Cumberland has been asked to aim at securing an additional 12,000 acres, so far as labour is available. In putting forward this figure to the War Executive Committee the special climatic conditions of the county were taken into account. I may remind my hon. Friend that any occupier who is ordered to plough up grass land has a statutory right of appeal.
    Mr. DENMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the harvest in Cumberland and Westmorland was very largely ruined by the bad weather, and that therefore the farmers have had special sufferings there; further, that the ground is now so wet that ploughing operations have been seriously delayed?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am aware of both, those facts.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman then tell us where the increase of food production comes in if the harvest is ruined?
    Mr. PROTHERO: The increase of food production amounts to something like 35 per cent. upon the production of 1917

    2667
    in respect of the four corn crops, and although a very considerable proportion of the cereal crops in the North have been injured, there is a very large quantity available for human food and also available for animals.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government to let as many agricultural labourers as possible return in order to promote food production?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Certainly, I am doing so.
    Major WOOD: Is not the policy apparent in this question a reversal of the policy previously declared in this House, under which we understood that no further ploughing-up notices were to be served, except that farmers who had refused to plough under the notices served earlier?
    Mr. PROTHERO: What I said in this House was that we should not resort to legal prosecutions to enforce orders to plough up. Wherever the Executive Committee finds an area of land which can be made available for corn production, and the farmer has the labour available, there an Order will be issued. The farmer can then appeal to the legal tribunal, and if in those circumstances the legal tribunal finds that the Order ought to be carried out, it will be enforced, but those cases will be relatively rare.

    CATTLE FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister whether a copy of an unanimous resolution of the Central Advisory Agricultural Council, asking as a matter of extreme urgency that concentrated cattle-feeding-stuffs be given absolute priority of any tonnage rendered available by the cessation or abatement of enemy submarine attacks, and that such resolution be brought to the attention of the War Cabinet, has yet been brought to the attention of that body; and, if so, whether it has been decided to take any, and what, action with reference thereto?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply. The resolution has been received but the Food Controller had already discussed the allocation of further tonnage for the importation of feeding-stuffs with the inter-Allied Food Council, the Allied Maritime Transport
    2668
    Council, and the Shipping Controller in view of the substitution of armistice for war conditions.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is this resolution to be carried into effect, and when will the tonnage be released for the conveyance of the food-stuffs to this country?
    Major ASTOR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait until this afternoon when the Food Controller hopes to deal fully with, this matter.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Food Controller whether Mr. Tidmarsh holds a responsible position in the Bacon Section of the Ministry of Food; whether that gentleman is connected in business with the firm of Messrs. R. H. Thompson and Company, of Tooley Street; and whether that firm is the agent for an American firm of meat packers?
    Major ASTOR: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Messrs. R. H. Thompson and Company are not the agents for any American firm of meat packers.

    FLOUR.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Food Controller whether, in view of the fact that the supplies of flour now available from abroad are increasing, he can see his way to allow the millers in this country to mix a larger proportion of American flour in the G.R. flour supplied to bakers in order to liberate a portion, if not the whole, of the barley, maize, oats, and beans at present mixed in the G.R. flour to be consumed as feeding-stuffs for stock?
    Major ASTOR: In view of the improved tonnage situation the question of increasing the supply of feeding-stuffs in the manner suggested has been considered by the War Cabinet, and the Food Controller hopes to make a full statement on the subject. I may, however, point out that no beans and insignificant quantities of maize and oats are now being mixed with G.R. flour.

    MILK, COFFEE, AND TEA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Food Controller (1) with regard to the price to be paid to the producer for milk, whether the rate applies to all parts of the United Kingdom; if it is a maximum rate and obligatory on producers; and whether any penalty is incurred by selling at a lower rate?

    2669
    (2) whether he is aware that coffee bought at the lowest price now ruling on the London market costs 1s. 7d. per pound, whereas he has fixed a compulsory retail price of 1s. 6d. in all shops throughout the Kingdom; whether his Department was approached by the home trade section of the London Coffee Association some six months since and asked to fix a wholesale price for superior Santos which would allow retail sales to continue at the price he had fixed; why he did not adopt this course; and whether he will now fix such a price for superior Santos coffee, giving the legitimate trade an adequate notice, seeng that there are forty weeks' stock available for the requirements of the country, and that the high prices have been mainly caused through outside speculation; and
    (3) whether his Department have issued a notice that the existing control of the tea trade will be continued until the 25th January, when a new system will be introduced for the succeeding six months; and whether the trade is to understand from this notice that the Government have decided that the importation and distribution of tea is to remain in the hands of the Food Controller until this period terminates, irrespective of whether the War is concluded?
    Major ASTOR: The answers to these questions were printed in Tuesday's OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LOUGH: Cannot I have the answer made verbally, seeing that proper notice has been given in the House?
    Major ASTOR: I could add nothing to the answer given.

    NURSING AND EXPECTANT MOTHERS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that nursing mothers and expectant mothers who are in prison in many cases receive no extra food ration; and whether, as the present ration provides a bare minimum for the health of one person, steps will be taken to ensure that pregnant women and nursing mothers receive in all cases an additional food ration without waiting for the prison doctor to order it on medical grounds?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on the 17th October. Such cases are always under the special
    2670
    observation and care of the medical officer and there is no danger of their not having suitable nourishment.
    Mr. HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman not answer the first part of the question? Is it not a fact that there are cases in which no extra allowance is given, and would it not be a humane thing in all cases to provide an extra allowance?
    Mr. BRACE: It is left in the hands of the medical staff, whom surely we can trust.
    Mr. HARVEY: How can it be right that nursing mothers and expectant mothers should not have an extra allowance?
    Mr. BRACE: I hope that my hon. Friend does not assume that I admit that they do not receive it. It is in the hands of the medical staff.
    Mr. HARVEY: I have asked my right hon. Friend whether there are not cases in which they do not receive the extra allowance, and he has not given an answer to that.
    Mr. BRACE: I have no knowledge of any such cases. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any such cases I will inquire into them.
    Mr. HARVEY: I have asked if it is true?
    Mr. BRACE: According to my information, no.

  SOCIALIST PRESS, GLASGOW.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now received the names of the persons owning and controlling the Socialist Press, Glasgow; and whether he will allow the printing work of the press to be continued?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have received a letter from my hon. Friend in which several names are given as those of the parties owning or controlling the Socialist Labour Press. I have communicated the contents of the letter to the Lord Advocate, who, I understand, in consultation with the criminal authorities in Glasgow, has the matter under consideration.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman now redeem his promise? His promise was quite explicit that if the names were furnished to him he would restore liberty of printing?
  Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. My undertaking was that if the names were given the whole question should be reconsidered.
  Mr. KING: Is that being done so that the Press may be available for the General Election, or will it be deferred indefinitely till after the election?
  Mr. MUNRO: If my hon. Friend will put down a question on Friday or Monday, I will endeavour to ascertain.
  Mr. WATT: Does my right hon. Friend think it fair to permanently punish the printers of these articles while the authors of them are only temporarily punished?
  Mr. MUNRO: That is not my concern. The whole matter is rather one for the consideration of the Lord Advocate, and he now has it under consideration.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS BOARDED OUT.
  Major E. WOODasked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the 17s. 6d. per week charged for men boarded out in hostels or lodgings, while undergoing treatment in a hospital, to the same amount that is deducted for the maintenance of men actually in hospital undergoing treatment as in-patients; or, alternatively, whether he will make provision to make up the difference to the former class?
  Mr. HODGE: This matter is now under consideration.
  Major WOOD: In view of the very strong feeling which has been aroused by this obvious injustice and in view of the fact that it must have been under the right hon. Gentleman's consideration for some time past, will he be able to make a statement at an early date before the House is dissolved?
  Mr. HODGE: Whether the House is in session or out of session will make no difference to the decision.

  DISABLED SOLDIERS.

    TRAINING AND TREATMENT.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that the voluntary association
    2672
    formed for the purpose of giving combined training and treatment to disabled soldiers on a farm colony at Enham, in Hampshire, has been refused the appropriate Grants by the Pensions Ministry; and whether he will state the grounds for this refusal?
    Mr. HODGE: It is not the case that the appropriate Grants have been refused by the Ministry, the fact being that the scheme has not yet reached the stage of development at which the Grants appropriate to it can be ascertained. The promoters of the scheme appear to have gained the impression that the Ministry has committed itself in advance to the payment of full-treatment fees (as though for in-patient hospital treatment), combined with full training fees, but for this misunderstanding neither I personally nor my Department can accept responsibility.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: if both training and treatment have to be given, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he should give Grants for both training and treatment?
    Mr. HODGE: I do not agree. We must first have a scheme before we can say what the payment shall be.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that a scheme has been before the right hon. Gentleman for nearly a year and we cannot got an answer from him?
    Mr. HODGE: A nebulous scheme has been before me.

  JOHN M'LEAN (RELEASE).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he received in Glasgow last week a deputation urging on him that John M'Lean should be released; and what his reply was to this request?
  Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Mr. KING: Why was it not received? Was it because the Secretary for Scotland, having promised to attend the meeting, was afraid to attend it, knowing it would be made a demonstration?
  Mr. MUNRO: That is quite an unworthy suggestion which my hon. Friend has no right to make. I have already received a deputation in London on the same subject, and I heard what they had to say at length. I do not see what advantage could be gained by receiving a second.

  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to give any further information as to the way in which the Government hope to apply the principles of the Whitley Report to the Post Office or other Government Departments?
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: This answer was given yesterday in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will repeat it:
  National Joint Industrial Councils have been established and have held one or more full council meetings in the following seventeen industries: namely, baking, bedsteads, bobbins, building, chemical trade, china clay, furniture, gold, silver, horological and allied trades, hosiery, leather goods, matches, paint and varnish, pottery, rubber, silk, vehicle building, woollen and worsted (Scottish section). In the case of each of these councils the members are showing considerable eagerness to get to grips with the important reconstruction and other problems which are facing their industries, and very satisfactory progress has already been made in many directions. In four other industries, namely, municipalities (non-trading services), waterworks, sawmilling, and surgical instruments, the dates for the first meeting of these councils have been fixes. Twelve other industries, namely, boot and shoe, cable-making, commercial road transport, electrical contracting, electricity (power and supply), needles and fish-hooks, newspapers, paper-making, printing, roller engraving, tin mining, woollen and worsted, have already established provisional committees to draw up constitutions for joint industrial councils, and the proceedings have reached an advanced stage in many of these, cases. In a number of other industries the Ministry of Labour is giving assistance in setting up councils. The Government have approved a scheme dealing with the application of the Whitley Report to the industrial establishments of the Government, and immediate steps are being taken to place the scheme before the trade unions and Departments concerned. A Sub-committee of the Inter-departmental Committee on the application of the Whitley Report to Government establishments is considering the question of its application to the clerical and administrative classes of the Civil Service. Arrangements have been made for hearing evidence from representatives of Civil
  2674
  Service Associations, and the first meeting for this purpose will take place on Thursday, 14th November, 1918.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: Will it be possible to see the scheme shortly, and will that suggested for the Post Office be made public?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will consider that. It is now before the Department and the various parties concerned.

  POST OFFICE TYPISTS AND LEARNERS (EXAMINATIONS).
  Sir JAMES DOUGHERTYasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the difficulty, expense, and risk of the cross-Channel journey at present, he will ask the Civil Service Commissioners to make arrangements for holding the next examination for General Post Office typists and learners simultaneously in Ireland and in England; and whether, in this event, he will advise that an examination centre should be established in Derry or Belfast for candidates from the North of Ireland?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The competitions for appointments as typists are already held in Dublin at the same time as in London. I see no ground for asking the Civil Service Commissioners to extend them to other towns either in Ireland or in England. Competitions for learnerships are held at the towns at which vacancies exist.

  IRISH MAILS (DELIVERY IN LONDON).
  Mr. FIELDasked if arrangements have been made enabling a more punctual delivery of Irish mails in London, and obviating the inconvenience to passengers arising from two hours' delay at Holyhead, causing arrival in Euston when tube trains and taxi-cabs are not available?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: So far as the postal service is concerned, no inconvenience arises from the present hour of arrival at Euston of the up night mail train from Holyhead. So far as passengers are concerned, I have been repeatedly assured that with the present time of departure of the boat from Kingstown a convenient time of arrival at Euston is not attainable,

  2675
  though in pursuance of a promise made to a deputation I am making further inquiry on this point.
  In view of the suspension of hostilities. I am now also inquiring what is the earliest date at which a return can be made to the timing of the trains and boats which existed before daylight sailings were adopted.
  Mr. LOUGH: Was there not an understanding that this matter should be arranged by the first of this month, and can the right hon. Gentleman say why that understanding was not carried out?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am not aware of anything of the sort.
  Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not state what is the reason for the delay of three hours at Holyhead before the mail train leaves after the boat arrives, and whether it has not been brought to his notice that although it may not inconvenience the Post Office, it is a terrible inconvenience to travellers from Ireland?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid it would take too long by way of answer to a question, but I explained the matter to a deputation the other day, and if the hon. Member wishes I will send him a written statement.
  Mr. DILLON: Thank you!

  POST OFFICE PENSIONERS.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the state of distress existing amongst pensioners of the Post Office owing to the low rate of pensions they are receiving and the increased cost of living; whether representations have reached him to the effect that a number of them are trying to eke out an existence on pensions of 10s. per week; and if he will consider the claims of this deserving body of ex-Civil servants, with a view to granting them increases of pensions or a bonus to enable them to tide over the period of distress through which they are passing?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As I have previously stated, Post Office pensioners are in the same position as other retired Civil servants, and I am not in a position to take independent action in the matter.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the very unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the first opportunity.

  IRELAND.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have been made to ensure that a fair ratio of coal shall be available in Ireland for domestic and manufacturing purposes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Arrangements exist for Ireland to receive her proportionate share of available coal, both for domestic and industrial purposes, subject to shipping tonnage being provided. As regards domestic coal for the poorer classes, bellmen and hucksters are to receive as nearly as possible their 1917 quantities.
    Mr. DILLON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ireland is not receiving anything like her due proportion of coal for domestic purposes?
    Mr. WARDLE: It is a question of shipping facilities.
    Mr. DILLON: Oh!
    Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to secure for Dublin a fair share of coal; if he is aware that, owing to the shortage and distribution of the supplies, lighting restrictions are now in force in Dublin which are causing loss of trade to shopkeepers; and if he will take steps to prevent Dublin's share of coal going to other parts of Ireland?
    Mr. WARDLE: Arrangements have recently been made with a view to ensuring equal distribution of the coal available for Ireland, special measures being taken to provide Dublin with its due proportion, subject to shipping facilities.

    MUNICIPAL KITCHENS, DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Food Controller what arrangements have been or are being made to enable Dublin city to carry on municipal kitchens as are operating in many English cities?
    Major ASTOR: The Food Control Committee for Ireland by letter dated 22nd October, 1918, communicated to the Lord

    2677
    Mayor of Dublin particulars as to the arrangements existing in Great Britain for the establishment of national kitchens by municipal authorities and stated that the Committee would afford every assistance in its power if it was desired to extend the scheme to Ireland.

    INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (BONUS).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will cause inquiries to be made into the delay of the payment of the 5s. bonus of 1st July last to the temporary employés of the Inland Revenue Department?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Treasury Circular of 7th September, 1918, authorised improvements in remuneration which should apply only to London Headquarters' Offices, and the arrangement is in process of application subject to the necessary adjustments. As regards staff employed elsewhere, the Circular stated that the Treasury would be prepared to consider the grant of an increase in war bonus (not exceeding 5s.) "in so far as such increases may be shown to be justified by local conditions."
    The Inland Revenue Department has offices in every part of the United Kingdom, and it will be realised that the enquiries necessitated by the Treasury Circular must take a considerable time.

    PRISON WARDERS, BELFAST.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state when the Government will give the grant recommended by the General Prisons Board to the six warders transferred from Armagh to Belfast in April last, when those officers could not procure houses in Belfast; and, as distress prevails in their families, will the grant be paid immediately, and so allay the discontent amongst those officers?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): The matter is at present before the Treasury, and a decision may be expected very shortly.

  GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE.

    SINKING OF STEAMSHIP "LEINSTER."
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to have an immediate sworn inquiry into the loss of the Royal Mail steamship "Leinster"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the previous answers on this subject.
    Mr. BYRNE: Am I to understand that is a refusal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That would be perfectly obvious from the previous answers.

  GALLIPOLI EXPEDITION (DECORATION).
  Mr. SUTTONasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the arrangements made with our self-governing Dominions as to whether it is proposed to grant a special medal, or some other form of recognition, to the troops who took part in the Gallipoli Expedition; and whether he is aware that the men who took part in the expedition are dissatisfied at the way in which they have been treated?
  Sir M. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received replies from the Colonial authorities with regard to the award of the Gallipoli decoration; and, if not, can he say what is causing the delay?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject to-morrow.

  ARMISTICE WITH GERMANY.

    OVERSEAS DOMINIONS (REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister if the self-governing Dominions overseas were represented at and participated in the recent discussions in Paris with regard to an armistice; if so, who respectively represented these Dominions; and further, and in any event, if these Dominions will be fully consulted in regard to the terms of peace and their representatives duly summoned to attend the Conference and to participate in the discussions previous to the signing of the peace or to the making of any arrangements for the security of the Empire and the preservation of the peace of the world?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to similar questions on this subject yesterday, and in particular to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend, when I said that the Dominions would have their full share in settling the terms of peace.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government will insist, as a preliminary condition of entering into any peace conference, on the immediate release and return of all prisoners of war or interned persons now detained in Germany or under German control elsewhere; and, in the alternative, will he say whether provision has been made for the fulfilment of this condition in connection with the armistice itself?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of the armistice which were read to the House on Monday.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to discontinue during the period of the armistice the calling up of men for military service; and what instructions are being issued to tribunals to provide for a uniform standard being adopted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question by the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. The tribunals have been officially informed that recruiting is to be suspended, and that all outstanding cases are to be suspended likewise.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether boys in secondary and other schools in Officers' Training Corps will be left to continue their time at school or to go on to college, or will they have to do military service?
    Mr. WALSH: That is rather a comprehensive question. It is a matter for the War Office.
    Mr. ROBERTS: Is the hon. Member aware that I have inquired at the War Office, and I am told that it is not a question for them?
    Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member will perhaps put down a question.

  BUILDINGS AND PREMISES (ADMIRALTY OCCUPATION).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the termination
  2680
  of hostilities, he will take such steps as may be necessary to give firms in the City of London and elsewhere whose works and warehouses are being commandeered by the Admiralty a right of appeal?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to answer this question. Any buildings and premises occupied by the Admiralty under the Defence of the Realm Act will be released as soon as the necessity for their use by the Crown disappears, but it will be clear to my hon. Friend that the cessation of hostilities does not permit of the immediate termination of many of the activities of the Admiralty. While occupation under the Defence of the Realm Act continues, the compensation to owners will continue to be settled by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, unless otherwise agreed.
  Mr. TERRELL: Does my right hon. Friend understand that he has not answered my question at all? Is he aware that the Admiralty are still commandeering property? To-day they are taking proceedings to commandeer, now that hostilities have ceased.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That may very well be. I do not know the case. Of course, we do not commandeer in any case except in the public interest.
  Mr. TERRELL: Will my right hon. Friend agree to owners of this property having the right of appeal to some independent party as to whether the property is really necessary?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like the case where commandeering is really taking place; perhaps my hon. Friend will give me that. Even from the point of view of our own convenience we want to get under our own roof as soon as possible.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Have the schemes been before the Cabinet Committee on Office Accommodation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand all schemes have to be submitted to the Committee.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the altered War position and of the urgent necessity and importance of increasing the home

    2681
    production of food, he will give directions that all agricultural labourers and other agriculturists now serving in the Army should be forthwith returned to their civil occupations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to questions by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) and the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherhithe (Captain Carr-Gomm).
    Mr. TERRELL: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to make a clean-cut and grant complete release of agriculturists, can he at any rate make a clean-cut of all men who have been recruited in the last three months, which he must know are the hardest cases?
    Mr. BECK: The answer I gave yesterday showed that machinery has been set up under the Ministry of Labour and is now in existence which will immediately deal with all these difficult problems.
    Mr. TERRELL: When will this machinery be put into operation—when shall we have a definite statement?
    Mr. BECK: That is not a question for me.

    WALSALL TRIBUNAL.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of National Service if his attention has been drawn to the action of the National Service representative, Lieutenant Letts, in threatening the Walsall Tribunal on Tuesday, 20th October, that he would appeal against its decision in the case of eight men before the decision of the tribunal was given; and, in view of previous cases in which this officer's action has reflected on the dignity of the Walsall Tribunal, will he remove him to a more suitable sphere?
    Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question, and I will inform him of the result as soon as I receive the necessary information. I am afraid there may be a little delay as, unfortunately, the National Service representative is ill with influenza.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of National Service whether it is possible, in view of the present situation and the
    2682
    progress towards peace, to relax the restrictions in respect of men carrying on what is known as a one-man business, especially in view of the fact that the War must come to a termination before the one-man business men could be trained for service, and that in the meantime the businesses of such men, which involves making purchases and contracts in advance, are both obstructed and paralysed by the uncertainty which prevails?
    Mr. BECK: If my hon. Friend has in mind the calling up of proprietors of one-man businesses, I would refer him to the announcement made by the Government to the effect that recruiting is suspended.

  SHIPYARD LABOUR (INCOME TAX).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that to speed up the output of shipping and munitions, workmen are encouraged, after their ordinary day's work, to work two or three nights a week overtime; if he is aware of the discontent amongst the men caused by the Government assessing Income Tax for night work without making any allowance for the trouble and inconvenience to the worker; and if, in order to encourage the men to work night shifts, he will exempt them from Income Tax on wages earned for night work?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. Income tax must be charged on income.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  Sir M. BARLOWasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry with regard to the case of Mrs. Tunner, of 88, Halliwell Street, off Trafford Road, Salford, whether he is aware that her son, William Tunner, No. 251938, A Squadron, Royal Air Force, No. 2 School of Navigation, Andover, Hants, joined up with the Royal Air Force on the 4th March, 1918; that he allotted his mother 7s. and applied for the Government allowance and filled up the proper form, but, in spite of continued correspondence with the paymaster, no Government allowance has, after nine months, yet come through; and whether he can give directions to have the matter at once attended to?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE to the AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): This case is being fully investigated, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.
  Sir M. BARLOW: After nine months' delay, surely it is possible to give an answer?

  MINISTRIES OF HEALTH (POWERS).
  Mr. THOMASasked the Minister for Reconstruction whether the power of compulsory medical examination of the whole population is to be conferred upon the new Ministry of Health, in addition to the powers already announced; and, if so, on what grounds the Government consider it expedient to attempt in the new Department this policy?
  The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. WATT: Is it intended to proceed with this Bill this Session?
  Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend, I think, knows that it is not.

  OVERSEAS TRADE (COMMERCIAL ATTACHES).
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what pension rights are to be attached to the appointments of commercial attaches under the Overseas Trade Department which he stated to be under consideration in his reply to a question on Monday, 13th May, 1918?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): It has been decided to apply to these officers the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914 and of the Order in Council of the 10th January, 1910.
  I take the opportunity of stating that it has been decided to alter the designation of the officers referred to by the hon. Member. A commercial attaché of the first grade will in future bear the title of "Commercial Counsellor of Embassy," and the designation of commercial attaches of lower grades has been altered to "Commercial Secretary of Embassy."

  ALIENS RESTRICTION ORDER.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Home Secretary of State how many persons have been required to resume their original name since the Aliens Restriction Order in Council became absolute on 4th March, 1918; and in how many cases has he granted exemption under Clause 4 of this order?
  Mr. BRACE: Article 25 A of the Aliens Restriction Order, which prohibits alien enemies from changing their names, was enacted, not on the 4th March, 1918, but on the 8th October, 1914, and covered all changes since the beginning of the War. Exemptions have been granted in thirty cases, of which twenty-six relate to British-born women who had married alien enemies. If there is any other alien enemy using a name other than that by which he was known before the war he is liable to prosecution.
  Sir. R. COOPER: Have any alien enemies resumed their original names?
  Mr. BRACE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice.

  LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way, in view of the termination of hostilities, to forthwith withdraw all restrictions as to lights, and particularly motor headlights?
  Mr. BRACE: With regard to street lights, and lights in houses and shops, I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to questions on the same subject. The relaxations which I announced apply not only to the Metropolitan police district but generally throughout the country, except that the naval authorities desire that the restrictions on lights visible from the sea should not be withdrawn at present on certain parts of the coast. The question of lights on vehicles is under consideration, and for the present the restrictions remain in force.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    WAR LEGISLATION.
    Mr. DILLON (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to abandon the Defence of the Realm Act

    2685
    and war legislation of a similar character; whether he will undertake to suspend in Great Britain, during the period from now until after the election is over, all Orders under the Defence of the Realm Act interfering with personal liberty with the right of meeting and publication; and whether the censorship will be suspended during the same period.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a Private Notice Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland yesterday, to which I have nothing to add, except that a small Committee is being set up to consider the subject.
    Mr. DILLON (by Private Notice)asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether all the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act interfering with freedom of meeting or freedom of speech or writing will be suspended during the coming election; whether the censorship will be abolished during that period; and when he proposes to release the prisoners now detained under an administration order under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. SHORTT: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject on the 4th instant. The other matters mentioned in the question are under consideration.
    Mr. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not now state whether he proposes to release the prisoners held under the Defence of the Realm Act, or whether he has decided not to release them? Surely he has had time to consider the matter and ought to let us know before the Session ends?
    Mr. SHORTT: No. I am sorry that I cannot make any statement to-day.
    Mr. KING: As at last the leader of the Irish party has come in on behalf of the release of the prisoners, is not that a very remarkable event showing that the whole Irish people are united on this subject?

IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) BILL.
Mr. DILLON: May I ask the Leader of the House a question as to the Order Paper—Whether he can now state whether the Government propose to go on with the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill during the present Session?
Mr. BONAR LAW: No. It is impossible to proceed with it and carry it this Session, but we intend that it shall be one of the first things undertaken in the new Session.

POLICE (PENSIONS) BILL.
Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it the intention of the Government, following the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, to take the Police (Pensions) Bill?
Mr. BONAR LAW: No. What we propose to take are Orders Nos. 1 to 5, and No. 7.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
General CROFT: I would ask the House to permit me to make a very short personal statement, arising out of the Debate on the prisoners of war, which owing to the force of circumstances and the conclusion of peace I have been unable to make during the last few days. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Macpherson) quoted last week in this House the following remarks which were made by me:
"Not only have they, the Government, kept, the truth from the people, but I believe I am right in saying that the War Office, or some other authority, has compelled escapers and exchanged prisoners to promise that they will not tell the truth about this question on the platform or in the newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I have been told that by at least a score.
Sir E. Carson: Is it true or is it not?
Mr Macpherson: I am informed that it is not true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 29th October, 1918, col. 1360.]
The last thing which I should have desired to do would be to appear discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, who has always been extremely courteous in his dealings with myself and with everyone else. After five days I did write to the newspapers stating that I was going to ask the question on Thursday in order to get a definite reply, and I was not of the opinion that that was in any way discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, as it seemed to me that he had the same right of reply in the newspapers; but in this matter the charge was very definite—that the statement which I had made was not correct either in substance or in fact. Now the right hon. Gentleman in the

2687
Debate said—and I am not going to make any debating point, but merely to quote his remarks—that Lord Kitchener had issued such an order which had the effect of preventing escaped officers and prisoners from stating these facts. That policy may have been wise or unwise, but that was the effect of Lord Kitchener's order, unless they had the permission of the War Office. But I want to point out that I was not referring to this order of Lord Kitchener's. I was referring to a very much later order, from a copy of which the right hon. Gentleman quoted in this House. He quoted the first two paragraphs, but he did not quote the third paragraph, which I think the House is entitled to have. It reads:
"The communication by interviews, correspondence, or otherwise, of information to the Press on any military subject is contrary to the provisions of paragraph 453 of the King's Regulations. The procedure laid down in that paragraph must be strictly followed in reference to accounts of treatment experienced while in the hands of the enemy."
That was the paragraph which I had in mind when I made this suggestion, and I think that the House will agree that it does convey to any officer or soldier who is an escaped or exchanged prisoner that he must not state these facts unless he first gets the permission of the Army Council as required in the previous paragraph. I hope that under those circumstances the House will exonerate me from having in any way deliberately tried to misinform it, because I merely quoted those facts, which I think it is now perfectly evident had that effect. The right hon. Gentleman also stated in his personal statement that there were no restrictions on the Press, but so long as that order remains I submit that I was not incorrect in saying that there were.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I said that the Press was unrestricted in practice.
General CROFT: Yes; but the Press cannot be unrestricted in practice so long as no single witness is permitted to give information to the Press. I have in my pocket a large amount of evidence, which I can use in debate, which shows that whenever the Press have appealed to prisoners the prisoners have felt that they were bound by this order, which I hold in my hand, not to give any information to it. I thank the House for the courtesy with which it has heard me.

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

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill, without Amendment.

Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill,

Commercial Gas Bill, with an Amendment.

Petroleum Production Bill,

Education (Scotland) Bill,

Lancaster Corporation Bill,

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation) Bill,

South Suburban Gas Bill, with Amendments.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Tenth Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 132.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL,—"to extend the maximum period which may be allowed to elapse at elections during the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter between the close of the poll and the counting of the votes and to exclude from the operation of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, Orders in Council made under the Representation of the People Act, 1918," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. Shortt and Mr. Brace; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
TERMINATION OF THE WAR BILL,—"to make provision for determining the date of the termination of the present War; and

2689
for purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. ADDISON; supported by Mr. Munro and Mr. Macpherson; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  SUPPLY.— [12TH NOVEMBER] SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.
  Resolution reported,
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £700,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 3lst day of March, 1919, for General Navy, Army, and Air Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants oil Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I think I may safely say that there is no place in England or in Scotland where there is not much agricultural discontent and dissatisfaction, and more discontent and more dissatisfaction than those interested in agriculture have ever known. Although I shall have to criticise the Food Controller, I desire at the outset to state definitely that I do not criticise him in any part of his work relating to rationing or the distribution of human food or the fixing of prices of human food. But I shall deal solely with his dealing and management of the farms of Great Britain, which in my opinion he has improperly usurped from the Board of Agriculture. Speaking as a farmer and for farmers, I desire to dwell this afternoon more particularly on the national loss of food that has been caused by the various Orders he has made for the administration of our farms, rather than on the personal loss to farmers, although
  2698
  they are heavy enough. Some hon. Members may think the Armistice having taken place that things may be better in the future than they have been in the past, but for my part I do not take that view. Having regard to the fact that the large population of the Central Powers are now coming into immediate competition with the Western world for the world's food supplies, in my opinion the shortage of meats and fats, which was very serious, and which was likely to be more serious in February and March, may be considerably accentuated rather than diminished. Before coming to the main question with which I wish to deal, let me refer to one point of administration By the Food Controller which particularly affects my own Constituents. I refer to the appointment of an official called a super-grader of cattle, or I think the Food Controller calls him a sub-commissioner of grading. The House—or, at least, those who take an interest in the subject—may recollect that under the Cattle Sales Order, made by the Food Controller, all cattle sold for slaughter have to be sold in a market, and they have to be graded by a person authorised by the Food Controller, and they then have to be sold to a person authorised by the Food Controller, and the farmer and owner of the cattle has no other way of disposing of them. The Order goes on in terms to say that after they have been graded by the person so authorised by the Food Controller his determination as to the value and as to the grading or weight of such animal shall be conclusive.
  4.0 P.M.
  The House may further recollect that there was an attempt made by the Food Controller to foist on the agricultural population a system by which the only means of sale was to be by dead-weight. That was strongly opposed by agriculturists all over the country, and it was ultimately settled by the system of grading to which I have referred. The system brought into being was this, that the grading or quality of the cattle—that is to say, the percentage of meat contained in a live beast—had to be ascertained by a committee consisting of one appointed by the Butchers' Association of the markets and one by the Farmers' Association of the market, and one by the auctioneer, who was called in if the other two could not agree. That system—and I defy the Food Controller to bring any instance to the contrary—worked well. There were cases undoubtedly where, perhaps, the farmer got the better of the matter, and

  2699
  other cases where the butcher got the better of the transaction, as there must be in all valuations and in all estimates. But, on the whole, the ups and downs balanced, and farmers were satisfied and butchers were satisfied. But whether that were so or not, by the Order under which they were appointed, as soon as their determination was declared it was conclusive, and the Order in Council has the effect of a Statute. I am going to put it to the House that the Food Controller has been guilty of gross illegality; and, furthermore, if not of illegality, as I am firmly convinced he has, that he has adopted a system of gross inexpediency. I think the best way of showing what he has done will be to give a concrete case. A farmer in my own Division sent a cow to the Haywards Heath market. It was graded by the Grading Commission appointed by the right hon. Gentleman in the third class at the price of 53s. per cwt. It weighed 9 cwt., and the farmer ought to have received nine times 53s. To his surprise he received only nine times 50s.—in other words, 27s. less than he anticipated. On application to the auctioneer he was told that, alter the Grading Commission had done its work, the sub-commissioner, or super-grader, came round and reduced the price to 50s. Application was made to the auctioneer for the balance of the 27s., and it was referred to the right hon. Gentleman's office. The farmer was told that Mr. Godfrey was a super-grader appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and that he had reduced the price. The Food Controller was applied to for information as to the business of Mr. Godfrey and the terms of his appointment. The Food Controller—and I have his letter in my hand—refused to give either Mr. Godfrey's business or the terms of his appointment. Would the House be surprised to hear that Mr. Godfrey is a butcher, having a large butcher's shop at Eastbourne, and formerly the manager of a business within one mile of Haywards Heath market. He is a friend of all the butchers in the district. I do not know anything about him except that; but I do appeal to the House, what would be said by any man of business in the country if the spinner were compelled to sell his weft to the weaver at the weaver's price? What would the right hon. Gentleman himself say if that were done in Lancashire;
  2700
  if the manufacturer had to sell at the merchant's price, or if the shopkeeper had to sell at the chance customer's price?
  Yet this is the position in which agriculture is placed under the right hon. Gentleman's administration. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer the legal question to the Law Officers of the Crown; but I would suggest that if it is found that the action is illegal, the right hon. Gentleman should be asked to repay to the farmers all over the country the money of which they have thus been improperly deprived. I made such inquiries as I could at the Haywards Heath market. I found that the gentleman appointed in this way goes round after the Grading Commission has done its work. He ascertains the prices fixed by the Committee. He never puts one up; he only pulls them down. And in other markets in Sussex where I have applied for information I do not think a case is to be found—except, perhaps one solitary instance at Lewes—where this gentleman has ever put up a single price.
  Let me now turn to a more general question than the one to which I have just referred. I have already stated that under the Cattle Sales Order—and the same applies to sheep—the farmer who has any cattle or sheep for slaughter is bound to sell in the market, and is not entitled to sell to anybody but a Government agent. I suggest that that should cast, I will not say a legal obligation, for I do not think it comes to that, but at any rate it casts an obligation, in the view of the ordinary man in the street, on the Government to provide purchasers for these cattle and sheep when they come to the market, more especially when we remember that the Food Controller issued an invitation to all farmers to hold their stocks in July. It hardly needs me to inform the House that the grazing season for cattle comes to an end in or about October. Anybody with the smallest knowledge of agriculture knows that in October cattle have to be taken from the grass, which has lost its feeding properties, and those that are ready for the slaughter have to be slaughtered; or, if they are not ready for slaughter—if they are only three-parts fat and gradually getting fit for the market—they have to be taken into the yard and fed on concentrated foods and roots. There are, roughly speaking, three classes of grazing farms for fat cattle in this

  2701
  country. You have the grazing farm pure and simple for fat cattle during the summer months. There is no yard into which to put the beasts when the bad weather comes, and consequently they have to be sold to some other farmer who can make them fit for market in the yard. The second class of farm in this country has both grazing land and arable land, and these farmers at the end of October can put their cattle into their yards and fatten them there for market with cake and concentrated foods. Then you have a third class of farmer—the man who has a yard and requires the straw for manure for growing corn. He is the man who buys the lean stock from the first class of farmer and fattens the cattle up in the way I have mentioned. Owing to the fact that we have as Food Controller a Gentleman eminent in many ways, qualified for his office in many ways but disqualified by his sympathies and by his lack of knowledge of the management of farms in England, he does not make the slightest preparation for October and November, and he does not provide for the cattle those foodstuffs which anybody who has the slightest knowledge of agriculture is aware that they need. If they are fit to go on the market he does not provide the other alternative—that is, freezing plant and chilling plant necessary for their cold storage.
  Before the Food Controller stepped in, and took over the work, the Board of Agriculture had already taken steps to provide this freezing plant; but now nothing has been done, and the result is that the cattle unsold on the market have to be returned to the farmer, who has no food for them, and no means of getting food for them or of keeping them. As a result in the case of those cattle which are fit for slaughter the flesh is running off them, and I need hardly tell the House that the flesh runs off an animal if it is not properly fed much faster than it can be put on when the animal is properly fed. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, but if you send a fat animal ten miles to market and subject it to all the disturbing elements of the market and then return it to the farm from which it started it will take at least two or three weeks to get it back into the condition it was in when it was sent to market. It is impossible at the present time to keep an animal of that sort at a less cost than £1 a week, so the sending of the animals to
  2702
  market and returning them to the farm involves the farmer in a loss of at least £2 per head, and many men skilled in agriculture put it as high as £3 or £4 per head. These cattle have been returned to grazing farmers, who have no means of keeping them and nothing to feed them on. All the markets in the neighbourhood have been shut up for some weeks, and the loss of flesh is running into many, many tons, while the loss of money to the farmer is running into many thousands of pounds, and that is due entirely, I venture to submit to the House, to the want of foresight, knowledge, and capacity on the part of the Food Controller.
  The same argument applies to sheep. No provision was made for giving sheep even the smallest modicum of cake and concentrated food, things which are so necessary for them during the critical periods of their lives. In the East Riding of Yorkshire—on the Yorkshire Wolds-lambs have died by the hundreds. I do not want to exaggerate; I will therefore say they have died in large numbers, while the rest of the flock have been deteriorated in value. In the South of England, where sheep feeders and sheep breeders go in for early maturity and where corn is grown on the land, in the cases of the animals in the critical periods of their lives when they are lambing and when they have to be weaned, and when, therefore, there ought to be no paucity of feeding-stuffs, no provision has been made to supply them. When we come to the pig, of which I have some knowledge, we find that the Food Controller has first pulled its head and then its tail until it has practically disappeared. They decided, first of all, that it was not economic to put bread corn through a pig and to make it into bacon or pork. They decided that the bread corn would feed more human beings as cereals than if passed through a pig, and so made into bacon or pork. They did not learn, even from the Germans, that man cannot live by bread alone, but must have fat. But when they ascertained that simple fact, they realised that the pig was the most rapid means of making fat, and they suddenly reversed their policy, altered the whole thing, and everybody in the country was to be induced to keep pigs and make bacon. They entrusted that to the Board of Agriculture, and thousands of people, and very poor people, were induced to keep pigs to carry out that policy. Orders were made, by-laws were

  2703
  waived, and inducements were offered, by putting aside the Food Hoarding Orders of various kinds, to get people to keep pigs. Having induced the people to keep pigs, and because, as I venture to say, the American Food Controller comes over here and sees our Food Controller, the whole policy, in a night almost, is altered without a single consultation and without a single communication with the persons who have been asked to induce the people of this country to keep pigs. All that is sent round is practically an Order to put an end to their pigs before 25th January.
  That is the way in which our affairs are managed. What has caused it? We are told there are no feeding-stuffs. Why are there no feeding-stuffs? Why was not a proper allocation of shipping made for the greatest industry in this country? Because we have a gentleman at the head of our farms in England who cares nothing for agriculture, and because we have that gentleman assisted by another who cares nothing for agriculture, and they are unaware of the importance of this industry, and they play fast and loose with it in this way. The argument is that we can get the food from the United States. I do not wish anything that I say to be taken in any way as any offence to the United States. I rather admire the United States for having such an efficient negotiator and bargainer as their Food Controller, but the fault I find is that our Food Controller was no match for him, and the result has been that we have been handed over in our meat supplies to the greatest trust in the world to-day, that is, the American Meat Packers' Trust, not intentionally by the right hon. Gentleman—of course, I do not suggest that—but we are actually put in the same position, and suffer from the same grievances as the United States. I am perfectly well aware that this Meat Packers' Trust has been found by a committee of the House of Congress an illegal conspiracy, but I am afraid that even President Wilson will not be able to bust it with all its ramifications, which extend to the Argentine, and, I believe, has got its tentacles in Australia and New Zealand. The whole tendency of the administration of the Food Office has been, and is now, to hand over our meat supplies to this American trust.
  One would have thought in this country the proper people to look after our farms and animals were the Board of
  2704
  Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture are responsible for diseases and for counting the animals, but when it comes to feeding them, or distributing such food as there is in the country, the House will be surprised to hear that they have not a single voice, practically speaking, in either one or the other. The Food Controller works through three committees. He has the Home Cereals Committee, the Meat Committee, and the Feeding-stuffs Committee, and the charge I bring against him is that he is entirely in the hands of the retail trade. On his Meat Committee he has butchers, meat dealers, and meat sellers of all kinds. On his Home Cereals Committee he has corn merchants, corn dealers, and so on. When the farmer looks further and sees that, as the result of these various committees, every article of produce he has, whether of grain or meat, has to go through a market, and when he sees that every article of food, even down to his damaged grain, has to go through a market, and one of these middlemen takes his profit out of it, are you surprised at the unrest and dissatisfaction there are in the farming community?
  An instance occurs to me of the sort of thing we have to put up with through this ignorance of all farming matters of the Food Controller. I think it will rather amuse the House. In carrying out this policy of putting everything under the control of the middlemen, so that, as I say, the middleman's profit has to come out of it, they carried this recently to pigs as well as to cattle and to sheep. But the right hon. Gentleman—I am not surprised at it—forgot that the fat pig cannot walk to the market, but must go in its own carriage, and he actually provided by an Order that every single pig which was to go to slaughter had to go to a market, and if his Order had stood we should have had the spectacle of every small man in the country, every cottager, every workman, ten or fifteen miles, in some cases, from the market, when he wanted to sell his pig, having to hire a horse and cart, which he could not do in any part of the country under 15s. a day, and having to lose his day's wages to take his pig to market. It was by the merest accident I discovered that. At that time I was called Director of Pig Production, but I was the last person he thought of consulting. Fortunately, a chance copy of this scheme came into my possession, and at last I

  2705
  succeeded in inducing the Food Controller to exempt a man from the Order who sold only three pigs in one year. The Food Controller, not content with taking into his capacious maw the feeding of the whole population, assumed to himself the feeding of our animal population, and the feeding-stuffs for our animals are actually at this moment being carried on by a Feeding-stuffs Committee appointed entirely by the right hon. Gentleman, over which the Board of Agriculture has no control, and to whom it has nothing to say. When I tell the House that my experience in the last two months has been that half of my correspondence was complaints as to the administration of this Feeding-stuffs Committee, and that all I could do was to send a copy of these letters to the Food Controller or chairman of this Committee, without getting a single alteration, the House, I think, will understand what an impossible position it was.
  Having landed us into this difficult position by the Regulations he made, and by the incapacity of the Feeding-stuffs Committee to distribute such feedingstuffs as there were, he would not accept the slightest advice or slightest suggestion as to how that could be ameliorated. He had no sympathy with the farmer. It was urged on him by myself many times, and in this House, that there was one way in which to afford some amelioration, and in which he could have shown that he had some sympathy with the farmers. I pointed out it was a monstrous thing that the farmer should be deprived of the right he always had of using his damaged corn, his damaged grain, for feeding animals when the Food Controller deprived them of the right of feeding them with any other stuffs. He would not listen. He went further with his bureaucratic ways; and even to-day, although I have a field of barley which was only gathered last week, which is grown through and through, which cannot be threshed, which is good for nothing except to let pigs pick over, I am not entitled to give that to my pigs unless I go ten miles to Haywards Heath to persuade the officer there to come up and look at it, and to give, a licence to me to use it. Is not that bureaucracy? That is the position in which we are.
  There is one point on a fresh matter altogether to which I must draw the attention of the House. In addition to these powers which the right hon. Gentleman
  2706
  exercises in this way—bureaucracy, as I say, of the worst kind—he has taken to himself the power of taxing the agricultural community, and there are millions going into his office, instead of going into the Treasury, to hide the enormous expense and extravagance of which he is the author, of which the public have very little idea, and, I venture to say, the House of Commons has very little idea. I charge him not only with that, but also with being a profiteer of the worst kind. He has by himself, without the consideration of this House, and without the consideration of the Board of Agriculture, levied a tax of 11s. 4d. a hundredweight on every bullock or head of cattle that is slaughtered from one end of the country to the other. There are at the present time—in these times of scarcity—something like 400,000 beasts killed per year. If we take the average animal at 10 cwt.
  I think that in below the average, but take it so—that is a £5 13s. 4d. tax on the owner of every single bullock or cow that is slaughtered in this country. I think that is a gross sum of £2,250,000. On every sheep—and 2,000,000 of sheep are killed annually in this country—he has levied a tax, and is collecting it in varying amounts, about, say, 5s. for every 12 lbs. in weight. I think, on a reasonable estimate, £l per sheep tax is paid to the Food Controller. That amounts to a sum of £2,000,000 upon all the sheep that are killed. There are now 150,000 pigs killed per year. He has levied a tax of 2d. in the pound on every pig killed. So far as I can gather, a fair average is about £2 per pig; and although that may not be quite the figure, it is near enough, and amounts to a total of £300,000 in all. The total sums levied by the right hon. Gentleman on the owners of this stock is something like between £1,000,000 and £5,000,000 sterling. In addition he has put on a charge of 1s. 6d. per head on every owner of sheep and a charge of 2s. 6d. on every owner of pigs, besides put ting on the owners of pigs the expense of getting the pigs to market.
  I think this ought to be made public. I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with it, but farmers are not very popular, because the idea has been fostered that they were profiteering. Yet you have these large sums charged on home-grown meat which is going to feed this army of attendants that the right hon. Gentleman has got, is going to pay for this American

  2707
  beef with which we are to be flooded, whilst our own mean is disappearing in the way I have mentioned. Our young pigs are being killed as soon as they are born. Our sheep and pigs are losing flesh; and I spent my last day at the Board of Agriculture in considering two cases—when two poor pig owners were being prosecuted for starving their pigs because the Feeding Supplies Committee had broken down, and they could not get any feed for them; whilst the men themselves, remember, had been keeping the pigs at the request of the Board of Agriculture! For this administration we have this enormous tax, and the public believe it is going into the pockets of the farmers. I have said all I have to say. I think hon. Members will agree with me that there is an enormous waste of meat going on in this country which we shall very much need, if not now, in the very near future. The industry of which I am speaking is harassed beyond all reason by countless and stupid orders that are made. In my firm belief the agriculture of this country, and our herds and flocks, are likely for many years to feel the effect of these things unless they are got rid of before long, and unless control is handed back to the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about cotton; he knows nothing about cotton cake. He is very learned in calico; he does not know much about corn. I ask him what would he think if a farmer were appointed to control the cotton trade, or if a farmer had been appointed to control his own union?
  Colonel FITZROY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Food Controller will acquit me of any wish to embarrass him, or to speak of him in any unfriendly spirit, because there is nobody who realises more than I do the extraordinary difficulty of his task. I do not believe that any Department of State has had to deal with a more difficult question than has the Controller of the Food Supplies of this country in rationing the people. I venture to say, so far as that goes, the right hon. Gentleman has given great satisfaction, and I fancy that those people who have had to suffer from rationing have done it with the least amount of grumbling possible. While I say that, I am one of those who have been very anxious and have looked forward to a great increase of production from agriculture in this
  2708
  country. I am afraid, however, that if the methods with which agriculture has been treated in the past by the right hon. Gentleman are pursued we shall not get that increased production in agriculture to which we have a right to look forward. That may not be the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, because we must remember that we have the Board of Agriculture; but for the life of me I cannot understand why it is not the Board of Agriculture that controls agriculture, and not the Food Controller. The great mistake, in my judgment, that has been made by the Food Controller is that he has neglected entirely to look after the interests of the producer and considered alone the interests of the consumer. We know—unfortunately know—that there is always a certain amount of antipathy between the town and the country. I think it ought to have been the object of the Food Controller to try and make the consumer in the town look upon the agriculturist as his best friend. If that were the policy pursued there would be much more opportunity in the future to get this increased agricultural production for which we hope.
  I do not wish to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to ask for information. I happen to represent in this House one of the largest grazing districts in this country where the grazing and the feeding of cattle is pretty well the principal industry. Knowing, as I do, that the success of agriculture entirely depends upon the confidence that you put in it, I want to know what is to be the policy in regard to feeding-stuffs in the future? The hon. Member who has just preceded me has told us something about the losses that have taken place in the last two or three months—the losses in meat by the policy pursued in regard to the sale of fat cattle. I do not want to approach this subject, any more than the hon. Gentleman opposite did, from the point of view of the loss that the farmers themselves have sustained, but if the amount could be calculated the House and the country would be amazed to find the quantity of meat that has been lost to the consumer by the policy adopted in regard to the sale of fat cattle. I myself graze and feed a considerable number of cattle. I have been inundated with Orders each more contradictory than the preceding one. I have not been able to send cattle to market when they have been ready. When I have been allowed to send them to market I

  2709
  have had to send them one day and bring them back the next, and send them again the next, and in some cases fat cattle have had to walk 24 miles to market when they might have been allowed to go on one day and have walked only six. That kind of thing has been a cause of the enormous waste to consumers in this country.
  Anyone who knows anything about agriculture knows perfectly well that at this time of the year fat cattle on grass fall away in flesh extremely rapidly, however good the pasture may be, unless their feeding is supplemented by concentrated feeding-stuffs. These we know we cannot get. But the Food Controller knew we could not get them just as well as we did, and therefore should have anticipated the meat supplies with which he had to deal at the latter end of the summer. Every year in my country we buy cattle in the spring, and we reckon to finish them off in the first week in November. The hon. Gentleman who is beside him (Major Astor) went down to a farmer's meeting. I do not know whether he did it then, or at another time, but, at any rate, he stated that the farmers who had fat cattle and could not get rid of them were to put them into store. But in the grazing countries we have not got yards to put the fat cattle into; we have to keep them at grass and supplement their feeding with concentrated feeding-stuffs. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Food Controller whether he is going on controlling feeding-stuffs and the Board of Agriculture, or whether he is going to hand the matter over to the Board of Agriculture? If he is going to continue the control of feeding-stuffs and agricultural pursuits, I hope he will tell us what is his policy for the future. This Parliament is very near Dissolution. Probably we shall not have another opportunity of bringing forward this question, or of hearing, for a considerable time, what has to be said by the right hon. Gentleman. In a few months the farmers in my country will be thinking of buying for next summer. If they anticipate that they are going to be treated next autumn in the way they have been treated this autumn they certainly will not buy in the spring with any confidence. Therefore, we should like to know what is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to feeding stuffs. I would ask, further, in regard to the Board of Agriculture: Why is it that Board has given up its control of agriculture? That is a
  2710
  thing the farmers of the country cannot understand. Difficult as it is at the present time to carry on the agricultural industry, what with all the contradictory orders that we get from the Food Controller, the difficulty of getting labour and so forth, if that is accentuated and added to by lack of confidence in the fact that the Food Controller of this country controls agriculture and not the Board of Agriculture, the agricultural industry will go back instead of, as we all hoped, going forward. I could only wish that the President of the Board of Agriculture were here—
  An HON. MEMBER: Why is he not here?
  Colonel FITZROY: So that he could tell us why it is that, to a very large extent, he has relinquished his control over agriculture and handed it over to the Controller of Food Supplies. I trust the Food Controller will tell us what will be his policy in the future.
  The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I hope hon. Members will not take it amiss if I say that, little as I may know about this problem, my small stock of knowledge has not been increased by anything that has been said this afternoon, for, simple as I am, I know if cattle are not fed they will not thrive, and I know that there is less grass available in October and November than in May and June. Having listened with the greatest patience in the hope of profiting on this side of the question, I have listened in vain for any valuable addition to a Food Controller's moiety of knowledge on these food questions. If the House will give him some little of its time I think an answer can be afforded which will convince hon. Members that no just charge can lie at the door of the Minister of Food with regard to the feeding of cattle, and the national effort to obtain feeding-stuffs from abroad, or with regard to the distribution and grading of cattle.
  I continue to resent the imputation that I have no sympathy with agriculture. The hon. Gentleman who commenced this Debate said very emphatically that whatever I possessed in the way of other qualities, I had no sympathy with agriculture. I may have failed in my purpose from one reason or another to meet the needs of the Food Ministry, but I resent the charge that that disability or failure is due to want of sympathy with agriculture.

  2711
  I was charged when I fixed the price of milk, and when I fixed an increased price for grain, and when in regard to other foods I fixed prices far higher than representative consumers desired, with having surrendered to the agriculturists and with having been in the grip of the profiteer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who by?"] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) quite recently in the Labour Press, in relation to my fixing of the winter price of milk, said that this was the case of a Labour man having surrendered to the profiteer. On every Labour platform I have stood since I have seen fully the facts of this great food problem, I have expressed my deep sympathy with agriculturists, farmers, and food producers, and I have said what I repeat here, that it is clear to any mind or any person who troubles to understand this problem that agriculture has been one of the ill-treated and despised trades of this country. That those who have laboured as agriculturists and farm workers have not been sufficiently paid and properly treated is clear to all who have studied this problem. As a consumer, if as nothing else, I say that those of us who look for good food and good supplies of it should consent, whatever else we might neglect, to pay as consumers rates and prices for our food that will afford a good and reasonable return to those who have both their labour and capital invested in agriculture. I have not failed on that account in regard to want of sympathy in reference to any defect in the work of the Food Ministry.
  There is just one other personal point. The hon. Member complained that when a certain change took place in our policy with regard to pigs, I did not communicate with him. It was not my business to do so because he was the representative and the servant of the Board of Agriculture, and it would have been improper for me to have done so, or to have communicated with him upon such a matter, and it was not my duty as Food Controller to usurp that particular function. As to the general question of the Food Controller usurping the functions of the Board of Agriculture, the answer is that when the food situation reached the stage it did towards the end of 1916, it was decided by the Government, with the general assent of the House—and I do not know that any objection was taken then by my hon. Friend—to establish a Ministry
  2712
  of Food. That Ministry was given certain functions and duties, and we are exercising those functions and discharging those duties, but we are keeping in the closest touch and working in the warmest co-operation with the President of the Board of Agriculture and his representatives.
  On all Committees that have anything whatever to do with questions affecting food, cattle and prices, representatives of these two State Departments mingle together their stock of knowledge and usually reach agreed conclusions. The cases are rare where any action of the Ministry of Food is resented or disapproved of by the Board of Agriculture. Personally I do not fix prices, and I do not reach decisions on policy without communicating with the President of the Board of Agriculture. In cases where there are serious differences, and we find ourselves unable to agree, there usually is a Court of Arbitration, and that Court is the War Cabinet; and frequently the President and myself have been before it to place our respective views or make our joint appeal, as the case may be, and it has been by that process, before this supreme Court, so to speak, that decisions have been reached relating to questions like prices and our treatment of cattle. Certainly I have not usurped any of the functions exercised by the Board of Agriculture before the War, and for myself I shall be heartily glad to have my task lessened by a more equitable distribution, if that is seriously the desire of the House. I cannot claim to be master of such a mass of jobs as fall to the lot of the Food Controller, and if I was a complete farmer, in how many other respects would I be lacking in my understanding of scores—indeed, hundreds—of different questions which have to be handled by the Ministry of Food! No man can live a life long enough to make himself complete master of the bewildering number of subjects which come under the Ministry of Food.
  I will mention two or three points as illustrating what I think is a lack of point in some of the arguments and some of the charges which have been made by my right hon. Friend opposite. He complained by giving to the House an instance of super-grading by those who have been charged with the duty of grading cattle. This is done by sub-commissioners who were appointed as the result of experience. The House has had an opportunity

  2713
  of debating this matter, and the reasons were given. They were that it was quite possible for ordinary graders to err and they are not infallible, and there were defects and mistakes in grading discovered to such an extent that though we did not allege that there was any deliberate wrongdoing, yet clearly there were instances revealed to us calling for supervision, and this Commission was appointed for the purpose of checking and preventing mistakes in the interests of the consumer and the Government, and I think common experience has justified these appointments. Although there may be here and there an odd case of even a sub-commissioner himself being at fault, I say that, generally speaking, experience has fully justified the appointment of these representatives in the public interest.
  I was charged with not having foreseen what would arise from there not being adequate freezing apparatus and sufficient feeding-stuffs for cattle. I was charged with having surrendered to Mr. Hoover, and with having changed in a night the policy of the Food Ministry. I leave the House to test these charges by the answer. I do not want to prey on the feelings of hon. Members by allusions to the War, but the War so closely affects the question and is the cause of so completely upsetting our food programme for cattle that I must allude to it. I did not foresee in March last that the Germans would make such headway, or that they would get within 20 miles of Paris. I did not foresee that this country would lose such enormous quantities of munitions of war stores which were waiting to be used. I did not foresee that we would have to make good those errors and losses. I did not foresee in the months from March to August, during the period of the German advance, that we would require to bring over American soldiers at the rate of 300,000 a month, and that ships would be required for all that additional tonnage which the building up of an army carried over the sea means. I did not foresee all this, nor did Marshal Haig, nor Marshal Foch, but it is within the memory of the House that both these military leaders told us they could look with confidence to the German attack.
  5.0 P.M.
  All that means that a state of things was reached in this country in August, when the Cabinet, in spite of our appeals, upset the foodstuffs programme, insisted upon combing out more and more slaughtermen and butchers, and all those whose work in detail must be linked up with the
  2714
  larger aspects of the food problem. In August, when we went to get shipping facilities to bring in this cattle food, we were not opposed by Mr. Hoover nor the Allied representatives of other countries. We have an Inter-Allied Food Council, and the representatives of France, Italy, and America agreed with respect to the quantities of feeding-stuffs that we asked for, and those quantities I think, if I can trust my memory, were rather larger in bulk than were previously claimed by the representatives of the Board of Agriculture. We went before the Cabinet with our food programme when the military situation was such that in respect to our appeals the Cabinet decided that our food programme must be cut down. Naturally, we were compelled to begin, not with the food of men, but with the food of cattle. I know that the two are closely associated, and that it is important to feed cattle if we can in this country in order that the cattle may be turned into food for human beings; but, expressed as it had to be at that moment in terms of ships, it meant that it was more economical and more necessary as a military measure for us to import food from abroad than to import a much heavier weight of feeding-stuffs in order to produce food here in this country. We were faced with that situation, and the Cabinet had in sight the more supreme military reasons, reasons which have since been justified, and which have enabled us this week to rejoice at the War practically being brought to an end. The Cabinet, having reached those decisions, I think it can now be said that if the farmers of this country are told the truth they will not be likely further to complain of the policy of the Government at so critical and so supreme a moment. I am not going to pretend, nor do I think any hon. Member here would pretend, that the farmers, compared with any other class, are in such a situation that they cannot bear their full share of the burden imposed upon all classes by the War. I am not saying that they are not prepared to do so; but, patriotically as they have worked, and willing as they have shown themselves, our war measures, stern as they have been, have not placed the farming class under any greater disadvantage as regards this world's goods and the prospects of profit than any other class. The general state of admitted prosperity

  2715
  —relative prosperity, at any rate—amongst the farmers and food producers of this country is ample evidence that our measures have not treated them in any way prejudicially as compared with any other class in the country. It was not the ignorance of the Food Ministry; it was not a want of foresight on the part of the Ministry of Food; it was not the machinations of Mr. Hoover; and it was not the ambitions of those who wished to place us in the grip of the American Food Trust which caused this so-called reversal of policy—it was the supreme military necessity that drove the Cabinet at that critical moment into saying that whatever else came second, whatever else was lost, soldiers and munitions must come first, and ships must have the prior claim over everything else. Faced with that situation, I submit that no just complaint can be made against the action taken by the Ministry of Food.
  The hon. Gentleman who commenced this Debate gave two other instances in detail of unjust dealing with the farmers. He explained that the farmers made claims for supplies of damaged grain and appealed in vain. I am assured that in nine-tenths of the cases the claims are met. What is it that compels us to refuse in the tenth case? It is that where there is a shortage of a particular article there must be rationing. There must be arrangements for apportionments. You must issue licences. You must tick off and take the applications that are made with the quantities that are available in order to ascertain the quantities that should be conceded. That this causes dissatisfaction we well know. The wonder would be if in these times the farmers were not dissatisfied. Every class must of necessity be dissatisfied with the Regulations and Orders which war-time has entailed. My hon. Friend referred to a tax, or a levy as he termed it, amounting to some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, which he said the farmers were compelled to pay practically for permission to sell their cattle. These charges merely take the place of other sums which cattle sellers have always had to pay in the way of market dues and auctioneers' charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If I am wrong in this respect, so are my advisers, and so are the agricultural experts and all those who know these questions as intimately as hon. Members can know them, for these things
  2716
  are done upon their advice and upon the strength of the customs which have prevailed in connection with the sale of cattle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. LOUGH: What does the Food Controller do with the large sums thus levied?
  Mr. CLYNES: There is a Live Stock Fund. Answers have often been given as to the centre to which all these moneys go and out of which the various charges in connection with this business of State cattle buying have to be met. Let me try to give the House one or two evidences of the policy of the Ministry during the course of this difficult and trying time of serious shortage of cattle food. I have tried as Food Minister to maintain supplies of human food at quantities equal to maintaining in reasonable comfort our home population. Next to that, or contingent upon that frequently, there have been sacrifices which we have had to make to supreme pressing and military considerations. For instance, it was never our desire to lessen in this country the number of coal miners or of slaughtermen, or of butchers, or of very important farming hands, which in turn brought great difficulties to the Food Ministry, but we could not have our way in face of these pressing military necessities. There have been financial considerations as well as the shipping considerations to which I have referred, and these drove us incidentally on to the nearest market—America—which inevitably was the dearest market. It would have been preferable to have gone further overseas and to have brought meat from Australia rather than to have given our patronage to such a considerable extent to America. Had shipping been available we could have secured the 1,700,000 tons of cattle feeding-stuffs for which we appealed in August last when we went before the Cabinet. I am not now revealing secrets. These things are really common knowledge, and I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman who commenced this Debate seemed to be totally unaware of these more or less well-known facts. We failed to convince the Cabinet, and we were driven to the nearest market for reasons of quantity and for reasons of finance.
  Since August this feeding-stuffs programme has been further drastically reduced, bringing about the announcement which has to be made in relation to pigs. That announcement was travested in some

  2717
  newspapers and commented upon in others in a manner unfortunately to mislead certain pig-breeders. What we said was, that in view of this decision of the Cabinet we could not carry feeding-stuffs for pigs and that in view of the small stocks of cattle feeding-stuffs we could not guarantee the quantities after Christmas. It was then for those who had done their best to respond to the call that was made to them last May to face the consequences as we were compelled to face them. The appeal that was made in May to increase the supplies of food and to breed pigs was made before the August situation could possibly be known by anyone, and in this at least, I refuse to admit that there was any reasonable lack of foresight in estimating what the food situation would be. This drastic reduction in our minimum programme unexpectedly occurring within the last two months has created an extremely difficult position, but in face of the changed military situation relief, I believe, will not be long delayed. We have lost no time since the military situation changed and even before the Armistice was signed in pressing in the proper quarter the urgency of releasing ships for the purpose of increasing food production at home, and I shall be able to close, I think, with some consolation for those poor cottagers particularly and small pig owners who undoubtedly have laid out their few pounds in response to the national appeal and whose position ought to receive the greatest sympathy from the Government.
  It was early last month that the War Cabinet decided its policy in relation to the maintenance of munitions importations and determined that the importation of feeding-stuffs must be; so far restricted as to involve a possible serious rationing being applied to dairy herds and breeding stocks. These restrictions came upon us only because of overwhelming military necessity, and it was determined to inform the public, as we did, that after Christmas food for pigs could not be guaranteed. Meantime, in view of the change in the food situation, the restriction on the slaughtering of young pigs has been withdrawn. Instructions will now be given that in the allocation of additional feedingstuffs care shall be taken that cottagers and those who have joined pig clubs can secure a sufficient quantity of offals to enable them to fatten their pigs. Several relief measures have been taken. The price of cattle and sheep will be increased as from December on a graduated scale.
  2718
  The highest point will be reached in May, when the price will be 85s. per live cwt. That was a measure of mere justice, providing reasonable compensation to farmers who were obliged to keep back their cattle at a time when we could not guarantee feeding-stuffs for them and at a time when, had we consumed any increased ration, we should have endangered our prospects of even a slender ration during the beginning of next year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What will be the price in December?
  Mr. CLYNES: The prices have been quite recently announced in the House, and can easily be referred to, but I have not the scale before me. I have only before me the highest price—85s. per cwt. The second measure that we propose to take—it has been authorised and approved by the Cabinet only this week, which shows that we have been urging these matters forward as well as we could—is in order to deal with the present heavy surplus of cattle from the grazing districts, estimated approximately at 18,000 head per week. Supplies have been first taken from these districts, and the markets in arable districts have been temporarily closed to local supplies. These markets are being supplied from adjacent grazing counties. Further, the use of barley for feeding-stuffs has been sanctioned by the Cabinet during the course of the day.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Does that 18,000 per week include Irish fat cattle?
  Mr. CLYNES: My impression is no, but I should not like to give a definite answer. The Cabinet, as I say, has sanctioned a contemplated release of barley, and arrangements are now being completed to release to the farmer 20 per cent. of each thrashing of barley, the remainder being allocated to manufactures, distilling, munition purposes, and stock owners who do not grow barley. On a rough estimate, this should make no less than 3,000,000 quarters of food available for the feeding of stocks. Again, in order to assist pig owners, the prohibition of the slaughter of pigs weighing less than 112 lbs. live weight, as I have intimated, has been withdrawn. The steps taken as regards closing markets in arable districts I have already announced, and they are quite in accordance with the recent recommendations of the War Emergency Committee of the Royal Agricultural Society.

  2719
  As a result of the relief in the tonnage situation afforded by recent military events, the Cabinet have sanctioned a reduction of the percentage of flour to be extracted from wheat. This alone will mean a release approximately of 18,000 tons of offal weekly to the farmers—food which will be in every respect finer than that commonly used. The House will see that as soon as there was a release from the critical period, and as soon as we were able to pursue further our demands for shipping on the Cabinet, the Cabinet, relieved of the military tension, has reasonably met the present needs of agriculturists and farmers. The rationing of individuals, to which my hon. Friend did not refer, was really a small thing in comparison with the larger task of practically rationing nations, and in order that that rationing should be carried out we have worked recently in connection with or through an inter-Allied Food Council. Food and feeding-stuffs were and are short, and unhappily for some time must remain short, and the scarcity was aggravated by unequal distribution. It was imperative, therefore, that these arrangements and this machinery should be set up so as to secure equitable distribution of whatever feeding-stuffs were available.
  We pooled practically our finances and our shipping as we have pooled our military resources as allied nations, and the farmers and agriculturists of this country are suffering no more severely—indeed, I would allege they are suffering less severely—than the farmers of France and of Italy. We have not been unmindful of their sufferings, and I do not think we have unfairly aggravated them by any want of foresight or by the absence of any policy that in the circumstances could have been pursued. The aim of the inter-Allied organisation is not absolutely limited by the War. We must continue, I think, to control supplies and prices until the normal demand is satisfied and prices reach a level commensurate with the wage-earners' purchasing power in this country. At the present time meat prices range from 1s. 5d. per lb. in this country to 4s. in some neutral countries. In Austria a pound of meat can be bought for 8s., and in Germany between 4s. and 5s. These are things which clearly have had their bearing on the recent military situation, and it is not too much to say that the Ministry of Food has by its policy and its inter-Allied
  2720
  purchasing arrangement, and the manner in which it has been able practically to monopolise the markets of the world outside Russia and the Central Empire, provided some of the factors which recently have brought about the happy military situation which has caused us to rejoice during the course of this week. Reference was made to the position of the American Meat Trust. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Cautley) will not suspect me of any sympathy with a meat trust.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I expressly said that I did not.
  Mr. CLYNES: Since we were compulsorily driven to that American market I have been as mindful as anyone of the unrest and the natural uneasiness of the farming class of this country as to what ultimately would be the effect of trading with the meat trust of America to any considerable extent. As to the extent of it, I am able to say that our recent purchases have not been more than about one-third of the total. There are very much larger quantities of meat, so far as we can bring them to this country, brought from other places than those supplied by the American Meat Trust. We did not trade with them for preference, but out of necessity. We have had before us as a Ministry the findings and recommendations of the American Parliamentary Commission appointed to investigate the position of the Meat Trust. Those recommendations have been placed before the President of America, and until he gives a decision it clearly would be improper for me to express myself further than I have already done. I have already pointed out that we are protected as far as we can be by the fact that we buy meat in the United States through the American Food Administration, and buy at exactly the same prices which they pay themselves for meat for their Army and Navy. Before the War we bought little meat in North America, and it has only been by economy of consumption that the United States has been able to supply our present demands. As I have said, we are not buying all the meat in America, and of the recent purchases, covering a total of more than 600,000 tons, not more than 200,000 tons were bought from the United States. Let me, as I close, refer to an aspect of this question which I trust will receive some sympathy from hon. Members. The question naturally is asked as to what relaxation of restrictions may be possible now

  2721
  that we have substituted armistice for hostilities. Victory imposes obligations on us as well as a state of war, and the duty of feeding the destitute countries is one of them, and it is a satisfaction to be able to announce that, in conjunction with Mr. Hoover, I was enabled to set up the inter-Allied organisation to which I have referred through which assistance can be rendered to the starving enemy—it is not too much to say that—and at the same time further continue to ourselves.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the starving friend and Ally? Take, for example, Serbia.
  Mr. CLYNES: Certainly; I do not mean to give any preference to the starving enemy. The neutral and Allies certainly have our first claim. All I say is that before we substantially increase our own rations, or throw away our own coupons, there is an obligation which victory imposes of supplying the reasonable and immediate needs of the conquered foe. That is not a mere measure which humanity dictates, but is advisable as an act of self-protection, for if that were not done there would be indiscriminate buying at famine prices the world over. It would mean that we would be still further within the control of trusts, and those who are interested only in getting big prices. It is far better that for the common purposes of mankind there should be co-operative buying for the reasonable supplies of the feeding of the world. The needs of these starving nations are before the Ministry of Food, and steps are being taken, which we are satisfied will receive the approval of the country at large, in order that speedy relief may be given. I have already dealt with the matter of cattle, and now let me just touch on one very small matter, though it is of very great importance to some traders, and some people of particular tastes. Owing to the changed situation in respect of shipping, we believe before long we can secure supplies of apples, oranges and nuts, and certain fruits, and provide a much more agreeable Christmas table than we could last year. I submit to the House, whilst not having attempted any complete reply to all the arguments which I am certain are yet in the minds of hon. Members, nor so far as they have been uttered, that working under the stress we have, and being by no means our own masters, but mastered by greater forces than ourselves, we have shown no lack of
  2722
  sympathy with the agricultural community, and, if this be not accepted, I ask the House to accept the assurance and see our sympathy in the relief to the agricultural community to which I have committed myself in the announcements I have made.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend has by his sympathetic speech relieved, I hope, some of the worst fears of those who are interested in the production of food. Personally, with the glorious news we have been rejoicing at, I propose to let bygones be bygones, and do not propose to twit him at all with his lack of foresight. I cannot think his defence even this afternoon has entirely exonerated the Ministry of Food from lack of foresight, but I am not dealing with that subject now, because, after all, we have all made blunders, and as we have all come out very well, let us let those blunders slide. There are one or two points to which I would direct the Food Controller's attention. Starvation evidently is the great question that has to be faced in Europe. You cannot combat starvation by a food controller; you must have food production, and I cannot understand why the President of the Board of Agriculture is not present, because, after all, the Board of Agriculture is especially charged with the problem of increasing food production in this country.
  The Food Controller himself, however sympathetic he may be, still must have the co-operation and the advice of the Board of Agriculture. One of our complaints is that he has not, taken that advice and that he has not worked in sufficient co-operation with the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter of promoting production. I am far more interested in production than in the control of prices. It is production that we want to encourage entirely. The cost of living to-day bears with almost intolerable hardship upon people whose wages have not been commensurately increased—upon old age pensioners and especially upon people with small incomes, who have not benefited by this fictitious war prosperity. You cannot get a decrease in prices until you have increased production. I want to impress upon the Food Controller that he will not get an increase of food production by an enormous increase of officials. That is what we are complaining about in the country as much as anything—the enormous number of officials. We have to go to an official for this and to

  2723
  an official for that. Really we do not know-where we are. In fact, the two plagues from which the country and the country districts are suffering to-day are officials and influenza; both of which leave very debilitating influences behind them.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The officials are the worst.
  Mr. LAMBERT: The influenza is bad enough. May I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman? He stated that owing to the Cabinet's decision of August last shipping facilities for 1,700,000 tons of feeding-stuffs had to be cut off. How far do the concessions he has made this afternoon go to fill up that gap? It has a very important bearing for the stock-raising community. What the Food Control Department does not quite understand is that in farming operations you must have sufficient notice. You cannot produce beef or pork or even wheat without some months and, in some cases, years' notice. Therefore it would be a very great convenience to the agricultural community if the Food Controller himself or the Parliamentary Secretary would give us an assurance later on as to what these concessions which the Food Controller has adumbrated really amount to. Another thing I want to point out is that it is no use issuing these priority certificates in country places unless the stuff is there to supply the certificates. I hope things will be better now, but in our small village the other day several holders of these priority certificates for feeding stuffs for cattle went to the merchant and he had no stuff with which to supply them. He brought out a bundle of forms which he said they might have, but that was all. I hope that somebody will see—I do not know whether it is the business of the Food Controller or whose business it is—that when these priority certificates are issued the cattle-feeding foods shall be there to meet them when they are presented. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can guarantee that. Another point about which he did not give us information is whether shipping has been released for bringing cotton cakes and linseed to this country. Could he give us the information now? He told us that barley would be released and that the milling of flour would be greater, but has any shipping yet been released for the conveyance here of cotton seeds and other cattle-feeding cakes? The Food
  2724
  Controller said he had been pressing it upon the attention of the Cabinet, but has the Cabinet done this thing? That is what we want to know. After all, it was recommended by the Central Advisory Committee, and I want very earnestly to press home that recommendation, because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that these concentrated feeding stuffs are like the steel in the spearpoint. The farmers may have roots and potatoes, but they must have concentrated feeding stuffs in order to make their stuff fit for the market.
  Again, cannot the Food Controller reduce the high charges which are made upon the seller and so make the selling of bullocks and other animals cheaper. I think he said that these charges were only just as much as they were before. Let him believe me when I say he is very much mistaken. The auctioneers used to receive 2d. in the £1, that is to say, if you sold a bullock for £30 the charge was 5s., whereas the right hon. Gentleman's charges range up to £2, or something like that. This money is apparently going to maintain a large number of officials at the Food Ministry. Personally, I would far rather that the benefit went to the consuming public; it would be far better for everyone. Can the right hon. Gentleman reduce those charges? It would give a great deal of satisfaction to the farmer to know that the money of which he was mulcted in respect of the sale of his stock was not going into the pockets of a large number of officials. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement that the farmers may use their home-grown barley to some extent for feeding cattle. May I ask another question which does not relate entirely to the Food Controller, but which does affect food production: What about the supply of manures to farmers? I have no doubt my right hon. Friend cannot give me any information on that point, but we have a grievance against the Board of Agriculture for not being represented here this afternoon to answer these questions. Another matter which has been the subject of a great deal of circumlocution is the getting hold of a supply of labour. I am still on the point of food production. If you want to get home key-men, it really takes a scythe to cut away the red-tape that envelopes them. I made an application recently, and I was first told to go to the Ministry of National

  2725
  Service. I went there, and I was told to go to the War Office. I went to the War office, and they referred me to the Ministry of Labour. I went to the Ministry of Labour, and was referred back to the Ministry of National Service again in order to get this man back. It is the business of the Food Controller, who is responsible for the food position in the country, to impress upon the authorities that if they want production we must have labour, and the sooner we can get this labour home the better it will be for all concerned. The Government might have given us some assurances on this point.
  I regret that the Treasury Bench is so meagrely attended this afternoon, because this is a real problem, and it is going to be a real one for many months to come. Probably it will be quite as acute in February, March, and April as it is today. I do make complaint that we have not had a representative of the Board of Agriculture here to tell us something about one or two mutters I have mentioned, and especially with regard to one question which is of primary importance, namely, the getting home of some labour to put in the crops for next year's consumption. There is one further point I would like to put to the Food Controller, as it directly concerns him. He has fixed the price of milk at 2s. 3d. per gallon. I suggest to him that it would be well—here I appear rather against the interests of some of my Constituents who are producers—if he could allow the local food committee to fix the price of milk, because in rural districts the 2s. 3d. per gallon for milk is a price which ought really not to be paid. I say that because there are so many people who have to consume milk. If I were the right hon. Gentleman, I would really leave it as a matter of local government to the local food committees to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of milk in their districts; then I think they would fix the price at a figure much lower than it is now and would also ensure an ample supply. I throw out that suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I thank him very much for the concessions that he has granted this afternoon, and I trust he will not think I have been guilty of personally criticising him. I have endeavoured to impress upon him, as I do upon everybody, the fact that food production is vitally essential to the mation in the months to come.
  Major LANE-FOX: Before dealing with the main subject of the Debate, I should like to refer to a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. G. Lambert), when he urged the Food Controller to further reduce the price of milk.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I urged him to leave it to the local food committee.
  Major LANE-FOX: I hope that the Food Controller will do nothing of the kind. I am not speaking on behalf of the producers in saying this, but I know that the most anxious question in the whole food situation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the West Riding of Yorkshire is how to maintain the supply of milk. There is every prospect of there being a milk famine in the spring. Already, owing to other causes, such as the shortage of labour and feeding-stuffs, there is a reduction in the stock of dairy cattle, and a great many farmers are seriously considering going out of the milk business altogether. If that happens, and a further reduction is made, there is a grave danger in the industrial districts of a milk famine. Many of the local food committees do not know their own interests, and it is impossible for them to realise what is likely to happen. I had something to do with bringing a deputation to see the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman on this very subject. We went most carefully into all the figures of production. Although I admit that, in certain cases in rural districts in the south, the prices may be higher than is necessary, in the northern districts, especially where vegetation is bad owing to smoke and other causes, it is impossible to sell at a price which yields any sort of reasonable profit below that which is fixed now. I am not speaking on behalf of farmers, but with the knowledge I have of the very grave anxiety of the Food Ministry's own local officials with regard to the situation that might arise if there is a milk famine in the West Riding.
  The right hon. Gentleman's announcements of the so-called concessions which he has been able to make have made his position a very pleasant one, and have put us all in a very good humour. I am the last person to wish to attack him personally. I recognise the excellent work that he has done, and no one can deny that in carrying out the rationing of food for the population of this country, the Ministry has been wonderfully successful. It is

  2727
  enormously creditable to him and those who work with him. As long as he has stuck to his own job he has been a magnificent success, and I very much hope—I am sure he did not wish to trench upon the work of the Board of Agriculture—that at the earliest possible moment he will try to shed all such encroachments on their work, and that he will realise that his chance of fame hereafter depends on sticking to his own immediate job, the control of food, rather than the control of production. The control of production should be in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. He said one thing about farmers which, although he did not intend it to be unfair, was not strictly accurate. He suggested that farmers have had a pretty good time, in spite of the difficulties and drawbacks which the War brought upon them, and were a little inclined to complain unduly. I do not think that is a fair statement to make. Farmers have had a good deal to put up with. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that they have been profiteers. He knows better than that, although it has been unfairly and very ignorantly said in many cases. But I do not think it is fair to say they have been complaining unduly of the various drawbacks which have come to them through the operation of the War. They have had a great deal to complain of, and have borne it extraordinarily well—the constant shifting of policy and the constant change of Orders which come out day by day. After all, the farmer is not accustomed to shifting his policy or to reading fresh Orders. He is not looking at the newspapers every day seeing exactly what the policy of the Food Controller is, and the whole thing has been most harassing and difficult. Farmers deserve the greatest credit for the way they have borne all these things. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of certain improvements in the situation which, owing to the change in the military position, will now be possible. I hope he will not delay it, because the situation is really very urgent. It is only very slightly a question of the farmers' profits. It is very largely a question of the maintenance of the live stock of the country. One point which is very obvious, though it has not been mentioned, is the absolute necessity of keeping up the stock of cattle on the farm in order to maintain the fertility of the soil. If we allow live stock and cattle to go down we shall inevitably destroy the fertility of the soil.
  2728
  We are all talking about the number of men we hope to be able to put on the land after the War. If we starve the soil first and then put the men on it, we shall starve the men after the War.
  The right hon. Gentleman has had a fairly easy task, because he has been able to turn on to the pleasant announcements with which he finished his speech, and thereby left out some of the charges which have been made against his office. I do not wish to be ungenerous. We are all smiling over the announcements he has been able to make, and I do not wish to go back on his statement, but I do not want the House or the public outside to-have the impression that the speeches which have been made have no justification. We have had no explanation of the local butcher who became a supergrader. We have had no explanation why better provision was not made for a situation which must have been obvious months ago—the situation of the surplus cattle coming into the market all at the same time. I merely say that in justification of my hon. Friends who have raised these questions. They have not been answered and there is considerable justification for bringing them up. I am sure the rural community will be enormously relieved when they hear the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make. If the situation had gone on any longer disastrous results would have happened. Above all things I hope he will get these measures passed on without delay and will impress on the Cabinet, as far as he can, the absolute vital necessity of maintaining our live stock, and above all, maintaining our milk supply, owing to the great danger of industrial unrest if it comes to a milk famine. If the Ministry of Food and the Board of Agriculture between them can do something at the earliest possible moment to get key men back to agriculture they will do more for maintaining the success of the Department than any other measure-which could be adopted.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in announcing the concessions he was prepared to make has said nothing about cake. I should like to ask what he proposes to do with regard to cake. I found very great difficulty first of all in obtaining the form necessary to apply for cake from the merchants from whom I generally purchase it. I had a short interview with the right hon. Gentleman and then I wrote

  2729
  to the Department, but it took at least ten days before I got an answer. Then I had to write to the merchants and then I had to receive the forms, so that nearly three weeks elapsed from the time I first wanted cake before I could fill up the forms and send them to the merchant. Then I found I was only allowed 8 cwts. I wanted to give it to thirty-two calves about six months old. I should have had to fetch it from the station to my farm. I have never had less than 2 tons at a time, for two reasons. First of all, you got cheaper railway freight, and secondly, a wagon and a man and two horses will take 2 tons. I had to send a wagon, a man, and a horse to fetch 8 cwts. You have only to see the number of times 8 cwts. will go into 2 tons to see that there would be several occasions on which I should have to send a cart, a horse, and a man, at a time when labour is very scarce and horses are scarce; and once you get a man and a cart to the station you do not get him back much before the close of the day. I should have to waste a whole day, when I could get all the amount I want in one day. The result was that I did not have anything at all. I made up my mind I would go without. I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that farmers do not give their animals more food than is necessary. You can trust them. If you allow them a certain amount, they will not waste it. It is against their interest to waste it. There seems to be an idea in the official mind that a farmer will out of malice prepense use a greater quantity than is necessary. That is a very great mistake. Also cattle should have a certain ration every day, and you must have a certain spare amount of food in stock, because if you have not, and you are delayed in getting a fresh quantity in owing to delays on the railway or any other cause, and have to alter the ration of the cattle, the result is disadvantageous. You must always have a certain amount of stock in hand to bridge over the period when you are getting more stock. That does not seem to have occurred to the officials of the Food Department. I hope they will remember, first of all, that the farmer does not want to waste his food. He is anxious in his own interests to use as little as possible consistent with keeping his cattle in proper health or fattening them, as the case may be. Secondly, he cannot afford to be constantly sending to the station for small quantities. As far
  2730
  as I can make out from the forms which have been sent to me, no provision has yet been made for sheep. Ewes must have a little cake when they are suckling their lambs next month, but no provision has as yet been made for that.
  I want to say a word about the super-grader. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, said it was necessary in the interests of the country to appoint a super-grader because errors had arisen in grading. There has been very great feeling amongst people who had had cattle to send to market with regard to grading, and if it is in consequence of suspicion of that sort that he has appointed a super-grader, I do not know that I have anything to say except to ask what proof he has that the super-grader is any better than the existing graders. As far as I understand, the super-grader who has been appointed in the particular instance brought forward was a butcher. Why should one butcher be better than another? Butchers are the people who have been a little suspect in this matter as graders. I do not see that you are going to improve matters by setting one butcher to watch another. I do not quite know why, unless the right hon. Gentleman's Department was a little ashamed of the business of the particular gentleman in question, they refused to state his occupation. It is a very important matter because you are putting into the hands of two or three men at each market a very great power to influence the business and the profits of their neighbours, I admit it is a very difficult thing to get people who have a thorough knowledge of the grading of cattle who can be trusted to carry it out in a fair and impartial manner. It is one of the difficulties of the situation. But if these people are not doing it properly, the right thing to do is to get rid of them and to put some one else in their place, not to leave them there and put someone else over them.
  6.0 P.M.
  I understand the Minister for Agriculture has had a family bereavement, and that is the reason he is not here to-day. He said he would come down to listen to the case I wanted to bring before him, but I thought I could not possibly ask him to come cm such an occasion, and therefore I shall be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will communicate my remarks to him. I have a letter from Colonel Turner, who is a landowner in Wiltshire and a magistrate for the county and has been acting Chief Constable. He informs me that he had a dispute

  2731
  with the Wiltshire Agricultural Committee about a year ago. He entered into possession of a farm of about 720 acres at Lady Day this year, the tenant having left the farm. He desired to keep a portion of it, and the house, for the occupation of his; son, who is an officer in the Army. The rest he let on a grazing term of six months to a neighbouring farmer with the exception of about 58 acres let on permanent tenure. The Wiltshire Agricultural Committee took the farm away from him and took that portion of the land which was let on a six months' grazing tenancy away from the tenant. They then proceeded to stock it, and according to his statement, it was stocked with the cattle of one of the sub-committee who had come down and recommended that the farm should be taken away from him. It was then let to a nephew of one of the members of the committee. In the first place, they took the farm away from him then they prevented his son, who is in the Army, occupying the farm, they turned out the grazing tenant and let the farm, according to Colonel Turner's statement, to a gentleman who is supposed to be a nephew of one of the sub-committee who recommended that he should be turned out of the farm, and they stocked it with the cattle of one of the members of the committee. Colonel Turner, feeling aggrieved at the treatment he had received from the war agricultural executive committee, instructed his solicitors to bring the facts before the notice of the President of the Board of Agriculture, which they did, and a reply was received to the effect that what the executive committee had done was in order and that any claim for loss must be referred to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. On the 10th June application was made to the Committee for forms, but they were not received until the 23rd September. If you take a man's property and tell him he may claim compensation you might at any rate give him the forms with which to make application a little quicker than the space of time between the 10th June and the 23rd September. The amount of the valuation of tillages between him, the Committee and their tenant was received by the Committee last July, but they have not paid Colonel Turner anything. Colonel Turner asked for the farm to be inspected, because he says it is being very badly-farmed at the present moment. He tells
  2732
  me that the hayricks have never been thatched and that they have been spoilt owing to the incessant rain, but notwithstanding this they have been sold to the Government at the top prices. He says the corn ricks have never been thatched, and that the corn has been spoilt. Colonel Turner asked the Board of Agriculture to send someone to look at the farm, and the reply he got was that the farm had been inspected in July and could not be inspected again. I think that a case of this sort ought to be brought to the notice of the Board of Agriculture, because it is not conducive either to the good cultivation of the land or to the security of property if people are treated in this way. If the agricultural committees are to do these things, they ought to-be careful that no member of the committee benefits, directly or indirectly, from their action.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The Food Controller has said that his Department have not aggravated the conditions of the farmers, by want of notice. I cannot agree with him in that statement, because it appears to me quite evident, and I think it appears evident to any hon. Member who represents, either in Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Devonshire, or elsewhere, grazing districts, that the want of knowledge shown by the Food Controller as to the numbers of cattle that would be fat in the fall of the year shows absolute ignorance and has led to this want of notice. I cannot understand, if they had knowledge, that they would not have made provision for the present condition of affairs. It is evident to me, and to every man in this House, that they had no knowledge whatever of the number of cattle that, after the grass season, would come fit for slaughter from the middle of October to the middle of November. The result is that they have restricted the number of cattle fit for the butcher that could be slaughtered and the number of cattle that could be slaughtered per week. The excuse given by the Food Controller is that they desire that the supply of beef after Christmas should be kept up. To any man with any practical knowledge at all of the situation, either in this country or in Ireland, a more ridiculous excuse was never made by any responsible Minister. Two days ago I asked the hon. Member for Plymouth (Major Astor) whether any calculation had been made by the Food Control Department as to the loss that would be incurred in a beast of 10 to 11 cwt. from the middle

  2733
  of October to the middle of November—when it was fit for slaughter then—if it had to be kept over on bare pasturage without cake or without any other concentrated food until he relaxes his present Regulation. I asked what the loss of food would be, and how much the beast would reduce in weight and in grade. The hon. Member said that that was too hypothetical a question for him to make a calculation about. Anybody who represents a grazing district knows that a beast in the middle of October fit for the butcher, weighing 12 cwt., to be kept for the next two months until after Christmas on a bare pasturage without cake or without any other concentrated food, will not weigh 12 cwt., but will lose before Christmas every bit of increased weight it has put on since the 1st of May. The whole of the beef will run off the beast, and on the 1st of January you will have a store beast. You will undoubtedly have skin and bone, but you will have very little beef.
  I cannot understand how an intelligent man like the Food Controller, and how intelligent men like those who were associated with him in his Department, can for a moment imagine that they are going to increase the beef supply after Christmas by preventing cattle on grazing farms that are now fit for slaughter to be sold and used for food. The hon. Member who opened this Debate reminded the Food Controller of the condition of affairs that exists in England in the grass districts. There is no farm steading here, and it is so in all the grazing districts in Ireland. There is practically no farmsteading. No matter how willing the farmers on the grass farms in this country or in Ireland may be to help the Food Controller to prevent a beef famine in the spring months of the coming year it is out of their power to do so. They have no steading to keep them and no concentrated food to give them. Neither the Food Controller nor anybody connected with his Department had any previous knowledge how, under ordinary circumstances after the 1st November, fat cattle were kept on grass farms. True, they were kept on very often until Christmas on grass farms by giving them cake and other concentrated food, which was necessary if you wanted to keep them. The grass farmers will be only too delighted to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to avert the beef famine after Christmas, but there is no cake or concentrated foodstuffs to give the cattle. I
  2734
  cannot understand why it is that the English people are deprived of excellent beef now when it is fat. It will not be beef in the next few months; the cattle will be nothing more than store cattle.
  What is the loss to the farmer? The right hon. Member has told us that he is doing nothing to aggravate their condition. May I point out that if he continues to keep this regulation in force the effect on every grass farmer who has land that will make cattle fat will be that before he can turn his cattle into cash he will lose his profit for the whole year. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have realised that. He prevents the people of this country from having excellent beef now, but he does not conserve the beef supply by what he is doing; he deliberately deprives the grass farmers of this country and in Ireland of the usual profit of their occupation. We have more than that to complain about. One hon. Member who has spoken said that owing to the nature of agriculture you cannot make sudden changes. You must give farmers a reasonable warning if you are going to make great changes in their industry. It may be necessary to make changes in the stress of the time we have gone through, but unless you give them warning it is impossible for the farmers to comply with the condition. No such warning has been given in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman knew last May the numbers of cattle that were to be fat now, he ought to have given the farmers, five or six months ago, some warning as to what the condition of affairs would be, and then the farmers in this country and in Ireland would not find themselves in their present condition. On the question of sudden notice, I may say that the exporters and the farmers in Ireland had no notice whatever of the changes that the right hon. Gentleman was about to make. There was not a port in Ireland, Dublin, Dundalk, Newry, Waterford, or other ports from which fat cattle are shipped to this country in which, through want of notice of the sudden change, large numbers of cattle were not held up in the hands of the exporters who had taken them from the farms ready to be shipped. There was not a single port in Ireland where numbers of these cattle were not held up, and it meant almost ruin to some of the exporters dealing in these cattle. They could not send the cattle back to the farmers from whom they had first purchased them. They had to keep them in

  2735
  the yards and supply them with hay, and very often with very indifferent hay. It is perfectly obvious that these cattle could not maintain their condition. They were held two or three weeks before they could be shipped, with the result that enormous losses were incurred by the exporters because of a little want of prescience on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. If he had given a week or two weeks' notice he might have avoided all these difficulties.
  He says he has not gone out of his way to inflict unnecessary suffering or unnecessary hardship upon anybody. I say he has. It may not be intentional with him; I do not suppose it was; but it was due to the fact that, whatever other qualities the right hon. Gentleman possesses to deal with the food question of this country, it is lamentably true that he was absolutely ignorant of every condition with regard to farming and the farming industry. A short time ago I sent the Department the result arrived at by a very considerable conference of the South Kildare Farmers' Association. South Kildare is an agricultural constituency, and North Kildare is a grazing constituency, and the calculation made by these practical men was this, that, taking the present prices—store prices—on the 1st November at 70s., and with the increase of 13s. per cwt., a 10-cwt. beast on 1st November would in April probably weigh about 12 cwt., live-weight, and, allowing for the 2 cwt. increase in weight, it would not be sufficient to compensate them for the feeding of the cattle, taking cake, where it is available, I think it is £22 10s. a ton, and making a low calculation, the attendance per beast during 150 days, the calculation was that it would be only 1d. per week. I think that was a very low calculation. The hon. Member, in reply to a question, said that did not show that the present prices were the increased prices. The calculation was made at the time the official price was 80s. per cwt. The conclusion they came to was this, that a beast of 10 cwt. on the 1st November to be sold in April at 80s. weighing 12 cwt., calculating the ordinary market price for hay, for straw, for cake, for turnips—only £19 per ton—that the loss per beast would be £3 1s. 5d. The hon. Member says, "Yes, but the increase of 3s. will largely obviate that loss, and we cannot increase the price." He did not refute the calculation, he did not pretend to say that it was wrong, he rather by inference admitted that it was quite correct. I want to ask
  2736
  him this. Are the farmers in this country and Ireland the only industry that you expect to work for the State at a loss? I know no other industry that has been working for the State during these times at a loss. On the contrary, several are infinitely richer to-day than on the day when war broke out. I know some people myself whose banking accounts on the day War was declared were rather slender, but who now have two or three motor-oars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Irish."] English, I am sorry to say; I wish they were Irish. I understood from the Food Controller that 18,000 cattle per week is what he calculates to be going to the market about this time. I did not quite follow the calculation he was making, and I asked him if that included the 4,500 fat cattle which is the maximum which we are now allowed to export per week from Ireland. He said he thought it did not. I should like to know if he will tell us what are the actual numbers which are going to be permitted to be slaughtered per week in Great Britain, also whether it includes that 4,500 fat cattle from Ireland. Considering that the usual Dublin weekly market, held every Thursday at this time of the year has about 7,000 cattle, that shows you are dealing with a good deal more than half the cattle which is shown per week in the Dublin market. That 4,000 has nothing in the world to do with cattle in the provinces or in the province of Ulster. They go to other markets. The Dublin market is largely made up of cattle which come from the province of Leinster alone. I do not want the House to understand that 7,000 fat cattle is the total number produced in Ireland. That 7,000 a week is the number usually shown in one market—the Dublin cattle market. We are restricted now to 4,500, but he says, "You can export as many as you like," meaning, send them to a store market in England. I think that is extremely unfair to the Irish farmer. It means this, that an Irish farmer who has fat cattle, and must get rid of them at this time of the year because he has no keep, must take his chance of what he can sell, and as for the others, he can send there here to a store cattle market. That means that an English farmer can buy the Irish farmer's fat cattle at store cattle prices. Is that equal treatment? Is not that differentiation? I am glad the Chief Secretary is here. The right hon. Gentleman always boasts about equal

  2737
  treatment, and says that the Irishman gets as good as the Englishman does under British rule and administration. He does not. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has a voice of sufficient influence in the present Government to have these matters changed.
  Major WOOD: He is in the same position as the English farmer.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes a mistake. I agree that if the English farmer can by no possibility keep them, then the Irish farmer is in the same position. But I think my hon. Friend here was talking more as I was of the Irish grass farmer than he was of the farmer in the agricultural districts. But an English farmer who has a sufficient supply of farm steading and of roots can buy Irish fat cattle at store prices in the markets here. He can put them into his steading and can keep them on. I say that that is unfair, and is differentiation against the Irish farmer, and in favour of the English farmer.
  Colonel ROYDS: Sell them to an Irishman instead of an Englishman.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: That is the difficulty, because we have not the steading, we have no housing accommodation as you have here, and that is our difficulty in keeping cattle on during the winter. I admit that steadings on some English farms are just as scarce. I have been in Leicestershire more than once, and I observed extremely little steading, if any at all. I ask the Food Controller that if, after this Debate, they should find it necessary to make any other changes in their regulations, they should give the farming community some decent notice about it. It is of most vital importance to the farming industry that when changes are made they should get sufficient notice of what those changes are. I hope that he will be able to see his way to increase the price of meat in the month of April. I do not think there will be a large supply of beef in the month of April. Last year we were told over and over again that the prices fixed for February, March and April would be sufficient to safeguard a supply, and to ensure a supply of beef in this country during these months. But what happened? We all know that during the spring months of last year a beef famine existed, due no doubt somewhat to the shortage of food, but largely due to the fact that farmers
  2738
  did not see their way to feed cattle during these five or six months, and sell them at control prices. I know one man, a friend of mine, who usually fed a considerable number of cattle every winter, and who, last year, did not put in a beast. The reason he did not tie up a beast was, as he said to me, that he was certain that the control prices, instead of meaning a profit to him, meant a dead loss. The same thing, in my opinion, will largely occur unless the Food Controller increases the April and the May prices above 83s. and 80s. I know that he desires to keep food as cheap as possible; but which is better, for the working population and all classes—that you should have a sufficient supply of food at a high price or no food at all at what you may call a reasonable price? What is the use of a reasonable price for beef if you have none? Another question I want to ask is: What about the price of sheep in the spring? Some time ago the regulation was that there should be an all-round increase, a flat rate of 5s. per head per sheep, no account whatever being taken of the relative weight. I pointed out to the hon. Member what that meant. It meant on a big Roscommon wether in the month of March a halfpenny per pound, while on a short-woolled wether of 60 lbs. it meant a penny per pound. This is another instance of the want of knowledge of a practical kind in reference to farming on the part of the Food Controller, and it means differentiating in favour of the lightweight short-woolled breeds as against the heavyweight long-woolled breeds of sheep. I am not quite sure as to what the regulation is now, if the regulation is to work out fairly all round it ought to be an increase of so much per pound. I wish to know what the spring regulation about the price of sheep is to be. Is it to be a penny, or a halfpenny, or how much per pound over last year's spring price? Does the hon. Member not see that when you allow a flat rate-that was the first proposal—of 5s. per head next spring over last year's spring price it is not fair to all sheep breeders, and that it operates in favour of the man who breeds lightweight, short-woolled varieties and penalises the sheep breeder who breeds long-woolled heavyweight sheep?
  My hon. Friend here says what about the price of wool? You want more wool, and in order to get it you put a premium on the sheep that produces the least wool

  2739
  and penalise the breed of sheep that produces the most. But that kind of thing on the part of any Government Department does not surprise me. These are questions to which I would like the hon. Member to address himself. He told me the other day that there was going to be no controlled price for malt, and that a committee was to be set up consisting partly of maltsters and partly of brewers to fix the price of malt. Are the barley growers and producers to have any say in this matter? If not, it is quite clear that their interests will not be represented by the maltsters and brewers, and will be forgotten, while the interests of the maltsters and brewers will be remembered. Then I would like the hon. Member to tell us when he is going to remove the restriction of 4,500 head of cattle from Ireland per week, as a settlement of this question is the greatest necessity in Ireland at present. These cattle are wasting, losing flesh; they will be worth from £4 to £5 per head less in a few months than they are now. Meantime you are depriving the English people of food. You are restricting the quantity of beef that is there available for them, and you are not conserving it. You are losing it by wasting it. The weather is washing it away. An hon. Member says that you have too much of it already, but have you so much of it that you want to waste it, because that is exactly what you are doing? You are getting rid of it by waste instead of allowing people to eat it. I hope that the hon. Member will direct his attention to the state of Ireland in reference to these matters when he comes to speak.
  Sir F. BLAKE: I have been asked by farmers in my own Constituency in which which I live to protest in their name against the appointment of the super-grader and his action. I listened to what the Food Controller said on this subject, and I do not think that it gave satisfaction to the House. He dealt with the matter in a very superficial way, and gave no justification for the appointment and existence of these officials. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman comes to reply he will tell us something more than we have hitherto heard of the abuses which were alleged, which the appointment of these gentlemen is supposed to check. I cannot imagine a better method for ascertaining the quality of a bullock than by asking those who feed him and those who
  2740
  buy him, each of them, to appoint one of their most experienced and trusted members, and, with the auctioneer as arbitrator in case of dispute, to leave it to them to fix a fair live-weight of the animal. I do not know why that method is departed from. I should like very much to know what are the dangers which a super-grader is meant to check into which the super-grader himself is not likely to fall. Why was this method of dealing with the subject adopted at all? Why were these committees set up? I understood that they were set up to avoid the very perils and dangers that are likely to be incurred by the appointment of a suitable arbitrator, such as has been appointed now—that they were set up to avoid all difficulties and dangers and suspicions which are likely to be engendered in the minds of those who have to take the judgment and decision of a single arbitrator. Surely it is going back upon that wise decision practically to appoint somebody who overrides the decisions of those who have been set up for the purpose, of avoiding these one-man judgments. It is asking too much of any man. It is not a super-grader you want for a business of this sort, it is a super-man.
  I defy any man—and anybody who knows anything about agriculture, and, at all events, anybody who knows anything about stock-breeding will bear me out—to come down and say, of a particular animal, when it has been valued at, Bay, 74s. or 75s. a cwt. live-weight, to say, "It is not worth 75s. It is only worth 74s.," or "If it is worth more than 75s., it is worth 76s." It is mere speculation, mere guesswork, and does not commend itself to those who have to take the verdict of the man who purports to give such a decision. It is not a position in which any man ought to be put. Just to give the House an instance of the difficulties in these matters: I heard, the other day, that two bullocks were brought into the market that I know. They were exactly the same weight, 11 cwt. apiece. They were graded exactly in the same grade and valued at the same price—75s., or whatever it was—and the butcher who was there, a man of great experience, was given his choice of the two and he picked out that which he thought was the better, and another man got the other animal. But when the animals came to be killed that which was supposed to be the better, which was taken by the butcher who got his choice, killed 6 stone less than the supposed inferior

  2741
  animal. That is an instance of the impossibility of anybody coming in and checking the considered judgment of two or three people who have been specially appointed for the purpose. It may seem a small matter to the right hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him, but it is just one of these pinpricks which they ought to try to avoid. I know, from what has been said to me on many occasions, that farmers and butchers alike look upon this as questioning or impugning their honesty and throwing doubt upon their judgment. I do hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, and that, if he is satisfied, as I am sure he will be, that their work on the whole has been honestly and fairly done, though there may occasionally be errors of judgment, and that the appointment of these people over them to check these errors is unnecessary and leads to distrust, friction, and a want of that co-operation which is just as necessary now as it was at the most strenuous times of the War, he will cease making these appointments and do what he can to withdraw those which have already been made.
  Mr. W. NICHOLSON: My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) called the attention of the Food Controller to the new duty which has lately been imposed upon home-grown beef of 11s. 4d. per cwt. When the right hon. Gentleman replied to my hon. Friend he rather passed over the question of this duty and stated that he did not think that any duty which had been imposed by the Food Controller had in any way placed the farmer in a worse position that he was in before. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. This tax is having a great effect on the price of low grade cattle, and it is going to have a greater effect in the future. I shall give the House an instance of the effect on low-grade cattle. On the 16th October last four dairy cows were sent in by a farmer to Petersfield Market, and were put into the fourth grade before the tax was imposed on animals, and at that time they would fetch as much as 42s. per cwt. After the tax was imposed butchers were not anxious to buy fourth-grade cattle, because they were to some extent unaware of what the tax might be on the cattle which they bought. When these cows were brought into the market the other day and put up to auction the four cows, which originally
  2742
  had cost their owner £50 each, were sold for the large sum of £2 each. That is where the 11s. 4d. tax comes in. The purchaser of those four cows had to pay £8 in the market, and the Food Controller comes down and charges a duty of £20 8s. on them. In fact, the Food Controller has imposed upon the food of the people of this country a tax of 250 per cent. of the value of the cattle. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it is not the fact that the Food Controller in the past has prosecuted various people for profiteering, and whether in this case the farmer is guilty of profiteering for having sold what originally cost £50 for £2, or whether, on the other hand, the Food Controller is profiteering by imposing a tax of 250 per cent. on the price of cattle sold in the open market? I hope that the Food Controller will give his attention to this very important matter, because a large number of cattle are now being brought into market. If the number is beyond the quota allowed to the particular market they have to be sent back, if they cannot be sent to London to be slaughtered and put into cold storage. Having been sent back they come up, perhaps, in a month's time and will be classed in the fourth-grade, and consequently the farmer will lose, especially if a large number of cattle become classified in that grade.
  Another important point is that within the last few months I understand the Food Controller is closing some of the markets for fat cattle. For instance, I understand that at the next market to be held at Winchester no beasts will be allowed, and the week afterwards no mutton will be allowed. I am told that in some cases markets are being closed altogether both for cattle and sheep. The tax will, therefore, fall all the harder upon farmers in the future, and I am not at all surprised that there is a very great deal of discontent expressed by farmers in the markets at the present time with this 11s. 4d. tax per cwt. There is then the question of dealing with damaged grain. The farmer has to take a sample of damaged grain to an inspector. A short time ago a farmer had a certain amount of damaged rye. A sample was taken to an inspector at Winchester who said he could not deal with it, but that it must be sent on to another inspector at Reading, and some days afterwards the farmer received a certificate from Reading and across it was written in pencil "fit for human food." The farmer was quite sure it was not fit for human food. He took

  2743
  another sample to Winchester and the inspector said, "An inspector will be sent from Reading to inspect this rye." The inspector eventually did arrive, inspected the rye, and found it was totally unfit for human food. The farmer then received a telegram from Heading to say that the rye which had been considered fit for human food was not so fit, and that it might be disposed of for animal food. From the time the first sample was submitted until the matter was disposed of there was an interval of three weeks. I do not know what is going to happen in that instance, but I understand where a farmer receives a certificate that damaged corn is fit for human consumption, he had then to apply to the Food Controller to reimburse him to the full value of the rye, or 75s. 6d. per quarter. I strongly object to the taxpayer to have to pay for the faults of the food control office or of its inspectors.
  I sincerely trust that the Food Controller will reconsider the whole question of allowing farmers to use their damaged corn. I believe if you were to do away with those inspectors who are running about the country in motor cars and doing no good work, and if you were to ask the farmers of the country to save the corn which is fit for human consumption, and on the other hand, allow them to use whatever damaged corn they had without asking any further question, you would find far more corn saved, and the farmers in a better condition than they are at present. Farmers have been simply hustled and harried by the Food Control Office for the last few months and for the last few years, and I am quite sure if the Food Control Office wish to get on better with the farmers of this country than they have done in the past, the best thing they can do is to withdraw as many as possible of the restrictions which they have imposed and reduce their officials to a mere fraction of what they are at present.
  Major PEEL: I do not think that the answer of the Food Controller to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) was quite so satisfactory as seems to have been thought by some hon. Members. The whole gist and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that he did not foresee, and that he could not have foreseen, the crisis which has arisen with regard to feeding-stuffs. His reason was that in March of this year an unforeseen military
  2744
  crisis arose and that they were short of shipping and short of men and short of other supplies, and that, in his own words, he was helpless in the face of an overwhelming military situation. Surely all those who follow the important question of agriculture in this House must remember, and I have no doubt do remember, the speech that was made two months earlier by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, whose absence for the reason which we have been told we all so much deplore. In that speech of January of this year the President of the Board of Agriculture pointed out that there was no prospect of anything like the usual supplies of feeding-stuffs during the course of this year. You have not, he said to the farmers of the country, up to this moment realised what your position would be if all that supply of feedingstuffs was cut off, and it is cut off. At this moment, he continued, you have barely sufficient concentrated feedingstuffs to feed with a reduced ration your horses and cows, and hardly anything will be left during the remainder of the year for your pigs and poultry. If the Food Controller had read and was acquainted with the speeches and views of the Minister of Agriculture he must have foreseen long before March, when the disaster occurred, what a grave situation was bound to arise in regard to the question of feeding stuffs.
  7.0 P.M.
  There is one further question I would like to ask. I do not quite understand from the speech of the Food Controller how it was exactly that he appointed a director of pig production in March to do all he could to increase the number of pigs, although the Board of Agriculture was at that time perfectly well aware of the great shortage of feeding-stuffs. I do not quite understand either how it was that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead could have undertaken that task, in view of the fact that it was well known that there was that great shortage. Further, I recall that in July of this year there was a great scene here of mutual self-congratulation among some of those interested in agriculture on the great increase in the production of pigs. There was a speech by the then hon. Member for Wilton, now Lord Bledisloe, who, although not very apt to indulge in lavish eulogies, did on that occasion deliver a most warm, gushing eulogy on the Board of Agriculture on account of the extraordinary and successful efforts

  2745
  made in the production of pigs. He said that the President had been most far-sighted as to the question of the additional production of pigs, and, having given instances, added, "If, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts, that is reproduced all over the country, I shall offer him my warmest congratulations, because I am sure there is no industry which deserves greater support." What was the reason, in face of the well-known shortage of feeding-stuffs, why the hon. Member was allowed to encourage this great production of pigs, and that he was not stopped until it was too late? I am afraid to say that the reason was a campaign in the newspapers. There was a campaign between January and March in favour of the production of pigs, and one of those numerous Press stunts, and I really think that and no other is the explanation for this appointment and this great attempt to increase pig production. Only a day or two ago I was in the Fens of Lincolnshire, and in spite of the hon. Gentleman's encouragement in this House for the production of pigs, I do not think the people there will feel very satisfied when they are told, as they have been this afternoon, that they can have the advantage of slaughtering their pigs. The only other point I wish to mention is as to the very grave charges advanced by my hon. Friend this afternoon with regard to this country being under the control of the American Meat Trust. We are told on the other side that we are not under that control, and there, so far as this House is concerned, the matter is left. But I would suggest that we should ask, not for statements and counter-statements on this point, but for proof that we are not under the control of this Trust. As I understand the situation, the American Meat Trust prefer to send us the finished product. I think I am right in saying that in December the American crop of maize will be ready for shipment. In the Argentine also there is a great deal of maize of the 1917–18 crop. I can quite understand that the American Meat Trust and other American interests are not very desirous to see the transfer of that maize from the Argentine in order that we may get back our trade with the Argentine, a trade which we are very anxious indeed to recover, and I would suggest that the proof that we are not under the influence of the American Meat Trust is whether we can get from the Government any promise that these feeding-stuffs
  2746
  are to be shipped to us from the Argentine and the States. I should be very glad to have some answer on that point. I have only to say, in conclusion, that I think the speech of my hon. Friend—a very powerful one—has hardly had a sufficient answer, and I for one would like to see those two policies co-ordinated in some respects, so that we may speak with a single voice in the matter of agricultural production.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think the point in the very interesting Debate we have had to-day to which the most importance must be attached, is the reply received from my right hon. Friend, the Food Controller, with regard to the changes which will be made when peace comes. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not; promise any change. Let us look at one or two of the complaints that have been made this evening. They are not new complaints. The complaints, for instance, about the grading of cattle were fought out six months, or a year ago, when the matter was brought before this House as a practical question. We then said the scheme could not be worked, and the complaints which have been repeated to-day have shown that it cannot be worked fairly. Yet we do not get any promise that it will be moderated or withdrawn. Take the extraordinary position in which we are put with regard to fat cattle. My hon. Friend who spoke on behalf of Ireland put the case for that, and there is only one thing to be said. As far as my knowledge goes—and I am a farmer in a small way—everything my hon. Friend said about Ireland was true, but he seemed to try to make out that the grievances of Ireland were greater than the grievances of agriculturists in other parts of the Kingdom.
  Mr. FIELD: And so they are.
  Mr. LOUGH: I cannot follow my hon. Friend there, and I would suggest it is better policy for us in this House to fight one another's battles, especially when we have a united case. I think, at any rate, that on this question the complaints in England are just as grave as those in Ireland. Here you have the meat ration reduced to a miserable scrap of meat with which one can scarcely do anything. It amounts to 3 ozs. per coupon. On the other hand, thousands of tons of beef are-actually being wasted. The man who has the beef is not allowed to sell to the person who wishes to buy it in this country. That

  2747
  is the state of things with which we have to grapple. The complaint we make against the Food Controller is this, that in dealing with these great commodities he invariably takes the wrong course. What reason is given by the Food Controller for destroying all these thousands of tons of beef? He says, "I am destroying the beef now in order that there may be plenty of beef in January, February, and March next." That is the only reason he gives, and it has been repeated in this House ad nauseum. Is it likely to encourage the production of beef three or four months later on? I am afraid it will have the contrary effect. I may mention one or two other commodities. The case of milk was alluded to by my right hon. Friend. He rather complained of our criticism of his policy. I think the House does not remember the whole case of the Food Controller with regard to milk. It can be put in a nutshell. He said that by increasing the price of milk to 2s. 3d. per gallon on the 1st October he would be able to get more milk later on. I never heard a more foolish defence of the Government policy than that the price you fix on the 1st October will produce you more milk in the following winter. My right hon. Friend should go back to the period of gestation of the cow. It is no good giving high prices on the 1st October. What you want to do is to treat the farmer fairly in the preceding spring. In March and April the right hon. Gentleman came down to this House threatening the agricultural interests that he would reduce the price of milk to 1s. per gallon on the 1st May. That is what he did in March and April, which were the vital months, and he thought that thereby he was going to produce plenty of milk in the winter. But as a matter of fact he then struck a fatal blow at the industry. The House pressed him at the time to put up the price, but he would not move from it. He said it must come into force on the 1st of May, and when it came into force he would then appoint a Committee to consider the question. What is the good of doing a thing and then appointing a committee to say whether or not it is wise. This Committee sat and reported in four or five weeks. It reported that the price was absurd and that it should have been 1s. 4d. per gallon. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to compensate those farmers who had supplied milk at the lower price if it
  2748
  should be found that the price was unfair. The Committee found that it was unfair. They said it should have been at 1s. 4d. a gallon, and that was the condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have never heard yet how those people who supplied the milk at the lower price during the month of May or the beginning of June were compensated.
  Mr. CLYNES: I did not fix the price. That was done by a better man than I. I simply made the announcement.
  Mr. LOUGH: Quite so, but the extraordinary position is that the people who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman are far worse than he is. He has considerable merits. I acknowledge that he makes a good speech. He is courageous; he is candid, but he has behind him counsellors who always give him the wrong advice. The proper time to secure plenty of milk for this winter was last spring, and whatever he does in October cannot bring about that desirable result. He cannot increase the quantity of milk available. I should like to say one or two more words about beef. A year or two ago we were fighting the stupidity of the policy in this matter, and we then received exactly the same answer as we have got to-day. The House will remember the circumstances. In September last year the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Assistant Food Controller, announced a graduated increase in price for beef, but in January it was to be 15s. less than in September. No more cunning step could have been taken by the most ingenious man to discourage people from producing beef. The result was that the Food Controller, as a result perhaps of the criticisms of the House, altered the prices when it was too late. That is the complaint we have to make over and over again. Foolish steps are taken which produce exactly the opposite result to those which the Food Controller desires. For these reasons I am very sorry we have got such an unsatisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman. When will the producer who serves the country be allowed to deal directly with the consumer? He is only too anxious to serve the consumer in the future, and now the War is over we might expect more encouragement with regard to a change in policy than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman. I may mention the example set by other Ministers. The Minister of Munitions the other day said that the policy of that great Department was to restore the supply of

  2749
  material as soon as possible to the regular channels of business. The Shipping Controller told us that ships are to be freed from control as soon as possible. I want to know from the Food Controller what is to be his policy in this matter. Will he as soon as possible, in the interests of the public and of the consumer, free these articles from a control which has worked so badly and done so much harm?
  Perhaps my hon. Friend who has maintained the Debate on one subject will excuse me if for a moment I mention one or two other commodities. I asked my right hon. Friend a question this afternoon about coffee, and I got a written answer of a very unsatisfactory character. There have been some speculations in coffee. We were all agreed with the Controller in not rationing it. What we object to is the bad methods which the Food Controller adopts to secure his ends.
  Mr. FIELD: Unbusinesslike methods.
  Mr. LOUGH: As my hon. Friend says, "unbusinesslike methods." I asked him a question about coffee. You would have thought he would get a correct answer for me, having had notice of the question. I pointed out the great speculation in coffee, and that it had gone up 50 per cent. He replied that coffee could be got in London to-day at 85s. None could be got at that price since October. By 25th October it was 95s., and by 9th November 105s., and this is all due to speculation. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and he said he would consider the matter. In view of that inaccurate statement with regard to existing prices, I do hope a little more consideration will be given to that point. I will mention tea. The control of tea—will my agricultural friends forgive me for saying—has been as bad as the control of beef. The control was to terminate on the 28th December, but my right hon. Friend has given notice that he is going to extend it for seven months. Will the House remember the promise he made about tea? The promise was that he would bring in China tea, of which there is plenty, in May last, but he did not do it. He promised he would reduce the price of tea in May last. He did not do it. He is profiteering in the most gigantic way in tea, and he is introducing that most fatal system of treating tea as if it were all the same quality. The result is the tea is now sold of a kind which, I am afraid, must have a very bad effect on the health
  2750
  of the country. There is some medical opinion, I believe, which traces influenza to bad meat and bad cheese. I heard a story about cheese. Some friend of mine interested in sending food to prisoners bought 20 tons of cheese for this purpose. They got one ton as the first consignment, and they said this Government cheese nearly walked out of the window. Everybody knows the cheese is almost uneatable, and why? Because the right hon. Gentleman insists that there shall be only one price. He told me he gives the same price when he is buying skim-milk cheese as for full-cream cheese. In giving these answers you would think that a man would admit himself to be foolish in the sight of all mankind, but he says these foolish things and goes on all the same. So much for the first answer he gave the House. He has not told us that the system will be modified as regards anything. He wants to go on. He likes this job, perhaps. I am glad to see he shakes his head. He likes to keep these committees going, and the 10,000 officials in his Department. They are all working, I suppose, so nicely that it has all to go on perpetually.
  I want to direct the attention of the House for one moment to the second answer my right hon. Friend gave. He said they had to cut off feeding-stuffs because of the exigency of the War. I now want to call the attention of the House to a statement we have had from my right hon. Friend in another quarter. He published an article in a magazine in which he explained why he took these steps, and in that magazine article he dealt entirely with what he would do when peace came He did not give the same explanation he has given in the House. The article was headed, "Peace without Plenty." That was a bad subject to take for an article. We have had plenty in this country for 1,000 years; and if it is the policy of this new party, which is so ably represented by my right hon. Friend, to abolish plenty in the country, I do not think it will be a popular party. He laid down five principles on which the new policy after the War was to be based. The first was "We have to import as little as possible." Why should we import as little as possible? Why not import as much as possible? This country gets rich by importing. Then he said, "We must not expect to throw away our ration books." Those beautiful ration books, which are so unequal in their operation, are to be continued

  2751
  during time of peace. The third was, "We are compelled to use the grain for fodder; there is nothing else to be done." Then, "We must revolutionise our methods of feeding cattle." This restriction on the importation of feedingstuffs is a matured policy which is set out in this article.
  My right hon. Friend denied this afternoon—at least, so I understood—that he made any bargain with Mr. Hoover, but in this article he says, "America has assured us our food supply for two years," and he used this expression, "America is providing us with half our food for nothing." What did he mean by that? I wish my right hon. Friend could have told us. He makes the most remarkable statements, in view of the Debate we have had to-night. He was showing that it was a good thing for this country to give up fattening cattle. I wonder what Irishmen think of that? In substantiation, he made this statement—and I would like to know whether he adheres to it—that you can give 64 lbs. of dry fodder to a steer before you get 1 lb. of beef from it. Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that statement? He does not make any sign. I am willing, however, to exonerate him from this article altogether. I believe it was written by some of those foolish professors whom he employs at the Ministry of Food. But look at the statement that for every pound of beef the steer gives us, it must receive 64 lbs. of dry fodder. Why, all these cattle from Ireland never receive one pound of dry fodder. They are eating grass all the time. He says we must revolutionise our methods of feeding animals, and that all our cattle, as I understand him, should be killed, as they are on the Continent, at the calf stage. Here is the policy set out in full. If any hon. Member wishes to see it more fully than I have given it, he will find it in a magazine called "London," and it is carrying out that revolutionary policy which is plunging the country into such difficulties with regard to this matter. I do think some explanation ought to have been given. This Parliament is so near its end, that Debates do not go very well, but I do think we might very fairly have expected some explanation to be given of the extraordinary statements that were made in that article as to the new policy which the Government is going to adopt.
  I would only make one protest in conclusion. My right hon. Friend might make all
  2752
  his experiments if he were going to pay for them, or if he would allow the country freedom to carry on its business while he makes them. He will not allow feedingstuffs to be imported, and he will not import them himself. He will not allow anyone to bring in tea, and the Government do not bring it in. There has been a great change—even quicker in other countries than this—with regard to shipping. I saw last week that for the Scandinavian countries the insurance rate for. America is down to one per cent. and even half per cent. If we cannot get British ships, and if freedom is only given to the importers of this country, they will get other ships to bring in feeding-stuffs and food of every kind to this country. It is a dreadful thing that we should have all these prophesies of evil and not be allowed to help ourselves. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this policy. He told us that oranges and nuts may be brought in. I would ask him with regard to sugar, beef, tea, and feeding-stuffs, that freedom should be restored, that the ports should be reopened, and that we should be allowed to do for ourselves what he refuses to do for us, and if he gives us that promise, I venture to say that the position in every respect will be improved in a very few months.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Major Astor): I understand it will be generally convenient if I now deal with some of the points that have been raised, as there are other subjects which the House wishes to discuss presently. We have covered a great deal of ground, and there are a considerable number of comparatively small points in the main dealing with the past which have been raised. The majority-have been quite fair, and some of them have been due to misunderstanding. To-some of the criticisms and suggestions which have been made, I have no reply to make except this, that our action was due-entirely to war conditions and that we had really no alternative. The only thing to which I take exception—and I am sorry the hon. Member is not here—was a statement of the hon. Member who started the discussion (Mr. Cautley), who said I have no interest in the maintenance of agriculture. He had no right whatever to make a statement like that. After all, as I said just now, most of the points which have been dealt with refer to our action in the past, and our action, as my right hon.

  2753
  Friend explained in his speech earlier in the afternoon, was guided, as was the policy of the Government, entirely by the military situation. The Government had only one policy, and that was to win the War. They had to make adjustments periodically in order to carry that out. An hon. Member who spoke just now referred to the fact that the President of the Board of Agriculture in February or March—
  Major PEEL: January.
  Major ASTOR:—in January said there would be a shortage of feeding-stuffs. As a result of the German offensive in March, the Allied Governments had to find more men. In the early part of the year they got them from this country. Later in the year they had to get them from the United States, and had to bring them across the Atlantic. In August and September they were bringing them over by the hundred thousand. In August they came to a final decision as to the number of American troops to be brought over during the autumn. It was quite impossible for my right hon. Friend to know in January or February the number of American troops' which the Allied Governments decided to bring over in August and it was because of their decision in August that various Departments had to make adjustments in their policy. It was because of that, that in August and September our feeding-stuffs and our human food programme had to be altered.
  We have had two Debates on the question of turning back cattle, and on our policy as it affects cattle graziers and farmers generally. On previous occasions I was able to summarise the main reasons which compelled us to take the action, which we realised quite frankly imposed hardship upon the farmers, but for which there was absolutely no alternative. The hon. Member for Kildare, I think, said we ought to have given the farmers four or five months' notice. It was quite impossible to do that, as the Government did not give us four or five months' notice of their policy, which was decided by the German offensive. In all these things we had to look ahead as far as we were able, always realising that it was subject to adjustment and modification, according to the course of the campaign.
  It has been also said that we ought to have known more accurately the number of cattle which were to come forward this
  2754
  autumn. Earlier in the year we sent out requests for this information, and asked that we might be told the number of cattle the farmers expected would be coming forward month by month. The actual number that did come forward during the autumn showed that the farmers themselves had made mistakes which had misled us as to the number of cattle coming forward. I need not go into that now, because I have already dealt with it. But the experts, whom we are always urged to consult, were themselves wrong in the estimates and forecasts of the number of cattle coming forward in August. We have had a good deal of criticism, but I have not heard any practical proposal this evening which the Ministry had not itself thought of—as I have said on previous occasions—for dealing with the situation. It is no good saying that there ought to have been more of one thing or the other. I have already explained we could not have both cold storage accommodation and the freezing plant. On the whole, the Ministry, I think, were wise in concentrating on storing accommodation. There is ample storage accommodation. We could not have both.
  An HON. MEMBER: Is that any use for English beef?
  Major ASTOR: Oh, yes. We are freezing as much home-killed beef as possible. There is a difficulty in the plant which we have. It is adequate for maintaining the temperature, as I have already said, for frozen meat in good condition. It takes three or four days to get to the proper freezing point for this, while it takes twelve to fourteen days with the plant we have to freeze fresh-killed meat. The hon. Member referred again to the fact that we were inviting the farmers to hold back cattle. I quite agree that some of the cattle may lose condition, but it is better to have, from February to April, a beast that has lost condition than to have no beast at all. We are dealing with the situation, and by adding to the rates we give the farmers to keep their cattle back, hope to meet it. The Food Controller saw what appeared to be the obvious position, and he trusts that his measures will enable the farmers to produce their cattle in better condition later in the year. As I have said, and as probably most Members who are interested in this question-know, improvement in the position has been going on in grazing districts, and the situation is getting easier every day in the week.

  2755
  At the moment we are killing something like 50,000 beasts per week, and I understand that next week we shall probably be able—this in answer to a question which was put to me specifically from Ireland—considerably to increase the number of cattle coming from Ireland—by something like 50 per cent.
  Mr. FIELD: Are you in a position to give the number of beasts?
  Major ASTOR: Something like 50 per cent. increase some day next week, and without prejudicing the British farmer. There will be equal treatment. As to the added price we have fixed for the cattle, that was naturally settled after consultation with the representatives of the Board of Agriculture and the Central Agricultural Advisory Committee, and, generally-speaking, these prices have been accepted as being fair. The hon. Member from Ireland raised one or two points. I will re-examine those points, and see that the whole matter is gone into again. The hon. Member for the South Molton Division (Mr. Lambert) wanted to know what additional feeding-stuffs would be available as the result of the announcement made by the Food Controller. We shall be able to get 18,000 tons of offal more per week, so that the total may be easily reckoned, but it will be not quite double the amount of offal that is now available. In addition to that there will be 20 per cent. of barley, which—I again speak from memory—is equivalent to 300,000 tons. In respect to the total represented to be damaged grain, I think it is 17 per cent. of the cereal crop which is damaged. I am not able offhand to say what that amounts to in total tonnage. As to feeding cake, every effort is being made to increase the amount of that. We are in touch with all the markets where cake may be available. It is only fair to say that I saw a cable announcing that the United States were actually importing cake, so that it is quite possible we may not be able to get supplies from there. Very frequently, when the crop is particularly good in the States, we are able to get it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London referred to the amount of cake allocated to sheep. Any alteration, of the tonnage that the Food Controller has at his disposal can be very small, and thus limits the amount of feeding-stuffs, but he has allocated them over the different kinds of live stock.
  2756
  He consulted the Board of Agriculture and also the Central Agricultural Advisory Committee in fixing the actual ration for the different classes of live stock, and where priority was given it was arrived at in consultation with those expert bodies. Everybody who has any knowledge of the matter would admit the prior claim of dairy herds over store cattle, and that was the principle adopted by the Food Controller when he fixed the amount of feeding-stuffs available for the different classes of stock.
  On the question of milk, everyone in the House will realise that the Food Controller, when fixing what is admittedly, from the point of view of the consumer, high prices for milk to producers, was guided by the main consideration—the vital necessity of maintaining the milk supply of the country for the children.
  Mr. LOUGH: But it should have been done last spring!
  Major ASTOR: I was going to deal with that point; let me deal with it now. My right hon. Friend says it ought to have been done last spring. Could the right hon. Gentleman have told us last May whether the cost of labour, and, if so, to what extent, was going up in August; and could he have told us last May the cost of the amount of feeding-stuffs available, and all the other factors which had to be considered by the Food Controller and the Committee that decided on the price of milk? It was quite impossible last May to give anything like an accurate and satisfactory figure.
  Mr. LOUGH: But did not the Committee fix it then?
  Major ASTOR: They did not fix the price last May; they were sitting later. I think I am right in saying that the Subcommittee, in respect of the winter price—
  Mr. LOUGH: My point is, that the Committee that was appointed sat and recommended 1s. 4d., but the Controller fixed 1s., and it was fixing that low price that discouraged the people producing the milk.
  Major ASTOR: But the right hon. Gentleman also said that the winter price of 2s. 3d. ought to have been settled before October. That was the point with which I was dealing.
  Mr. LOUGH: No.
  Major ASTOR: Oh, well, certainly, I understood him to say that. As regards the price of milk, a Committee was set up. That Committee sat for a long time dealing with the question of price to be fixed for this winter. They were asked specifically whether it was possible or advisable to have different rates for producers in different parts of the country, or whether there should be a flat rate. They unanimously recommended a flat rate for producers throughout the whole of the country. We were guided by the urgent, the vital necessity, for maintaining the milk production even in those areas where the milk production is expensive. It would have been prejudicial to the welfare of the children if the output of milk this winter had been reduced by 10 per cent. as a result of preventing the production of milk in those areas where that production is expensive. Now another Committee has been set up and has been going into the question as to whether or not it is possible to vary the rates.
  Various hon. Members have raised the question of the appointment of super-graders. These officers were appointed by the Food Controller because there had been errors both in respect of the farmers and the butchers, and it was considered advisable and desirable to appoint these additional officers to supervise the operations. As a result of their appointment there have been fewer complaints, and the grading on the whole has been considerably improved.
  Mr. FIELD: There was plenty of room for it.
  Major ASTOR: Then I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman to the appointment of these super-graders. I was just going to say that I understand that actually in one market there has been such an improvement in the grading that the gain to the Ministry—there was a loss before—has more than made up the salary paid to the super-grader. Various points were raised in connection with charges: the cost of auctioneers, and various payments made in handling the cattle as between the producer and the retailer. The farmer, as a matter of fact, is not paying more now than he did in pre-war days. Very often he did not know that the price he; received included some of the charges which are now borne by the Ministry as middlemen and of conveying the cattle between the producer and the retailer. There is the actual cost of handling
  2758
  the cattle and other charges in connection with that operation.
  The hon. and gallant Member opposite referred to the danger of the meat trust. I agree there is a danger, and it is a great deal more serious than many hon. Members realise, but it does not represent a danger coming only from the United States of America. Before the War the United States was becoming less and less an exporting country for cattle. At the present moment North America is exporting cattle for the use of the Allies in Europe by reducing their own consumption of meat, and this is very largely due to a special effort to assist the Allies in Europe by sending them meat from the nearest market. If it were not for the fact that consumers in North America are deliberately and patriotically cutting down the consumption of meat there would be less coming from there.
  The danger in all importing countries is very serious, because the meat trust is not restricted in its operations to North America. There are branches in the Argentine and Australasia, and they control well over 50 per cent. of the available and importable supplies of meat in the world which can be imported by the countries which have to import. Here we import something like 40 per cent., and there is a very serious? menace to the producers and consumers of this and all importing countries. We have this world trust. When hon. Members talk of this danger they must not speak as if it were only a danger from North America. It is a danger because of the branches which exist in other countries and because of their position and hold on the Argentine market. It is a very real danger. You have a world trust and a national trust able to control the supplies on which all importing countries depend for their meat. It may interest hon. Members to know that before the War retailers, to an increasing extent, were making purchases from the agencies in this country of the American Trust, because it was so convenient to be able to buy just the joint they wanted instead of buying a whole bullock, and in many cases they were able to supply what appeared to be more tender meat.
  The House will forgive me, perhaps, going into this matter in some detail, because the exact nature and extent of the menace is not understood. If it is a menace, it applies to a greater extent to

  2759
  the producers and consumers of the United States than to the producers and consumers here, because in the former case there is less competition. We hear all the talk about Mr. Hoover, but we must realise that he has exactly the same interests as hon. Members. They are identical, and they are exactly the same as regards the meat trust; they are, in fact, the same as the interests of the Food Controllers of this country, France, Italy, and all countries which have to import meat. Take the number of the consumers in the United States of America and the number of producers, and it will be found that they are far more numerous than the people connected with the meat trust. The hon. Member opposite said he would take it as a proof that we were not influenced by the meat trust if I could assure him that we were taking every possible step to get feeding-stuffs from the Argentine. Surely he does not think that the American Trust controls the export of feedingstuffs, because that is no concern of theirs, as far as I know. In any case, they have nothing to do with the actual amount which the Government decided to import, and we are trying to get as much maize as we can from the Argentine.
  Mr. LOUGH: You can get more now.
  Major ASTOR: I know we can, but it is only fair to say that it will not get here for some months, because the ships have to be sent to the Argentine, load, and then come back again. We are taking every step to increase the amount of feeding-stuffs available, and we include in that programme maize from the Argentine, and wherever else we can get it. I have not time really to explain to the House the extent of the ramifications of the meat trust and they are not confined to meat. At the conclusion of the War this country would have been faced with a very serious position if it had been the case that there was an international world-wide organisation controlling more than half of the available supplies of the world in a position to dictate the price of the supplies. Hon. Members will doubtless realise that there is going to be for some time a real shortage of meat in Europe. There will be a great demand now for meat, and what is the remedy?
  Mr. FIELD: Increase production at home, if you can.
  Major ASTOR: As hon. Members have raised that point, I will deal with it
  2760
  now. Suppose you had increased home production 5, 10 or 15 per cent., either of pigs or cattle, you really would not have met the danger, because you would still be dependent largely on imported supplies. Hon. Members will also realise that this is a menace not only to this country, but to all countries which have to import meat. My right hon. Friend the Food Controller has already explained to the House the organisation which he and Mr. Hoover, together with the French and Italian Food Controllers, have set up. They have established an Inter-Allied Food Council, and that council buys in the world market wherever there is an exportable surplus through one buyer. This eliminates competition. It is, therefore, in a strong position to fix a reasonable price for consumers in this country. This Inter-Allied Food Council is, I believe, going to be in a position to dictate, if necessary, to the international meat trust. I cannot conceive of any other way of providing an organisation which would be stronger because it is international to deal with the international meat trust. It is quite possible that neutrals and other countries requiring meat or other supplies of which there is a world shortage, will all come in and get their supplies through this allied organisation. Only time will show the vital importance and magnitude to the consumers in all importing countries of this Inter-Allied Food Council which is world-wide in its operations, and which will be able to protect the interests of consumers in all European countries, and which alone could possibly deal with such dangers as exist through the ramifications and the magnitude of the operations of the international meat trust.
  8.0 P.M.
  After having gone so fully into the subject, I need hardly go into the details with regard to the question of bacon. We have been criticised in regard to getting our bacon supplies from North America, but let us compare the position last spring with the position now. Last spring for many months hon. Members were only entitled to something like 4 ozs. of bacon a week, and one month actually the supply was less than 4oz. even with a low meat ration. Now we have a larger meat ration and bacon is off the coupon. That is a very different situation and this could not have been achieved merely by producing the bacon and the ham here in this country. The bacon may not be so good, but it is bacon and it is better than

  2761
  no bacon. The position some months ago was that we had to procure 400,000 tons more bacon than we had in sight, and in order to produce that at home we should have had to import 2,000,000 tons of grain. That was the proposition put to the Central Agricultural Advisory Council in a memorandum sent out jointly by the Board of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. It was not the ignorant Ministry of Food that made this proposal, but it was one agreed to by representatives of the Board of Agriculture, and it was quite obvious that the amount of bacon required could not possibly be produced in this country, and even if shipping had been available it was obvious that there was a considerable saving to be made in tonnage which was so vital that the Cabinet decided to import bacon from North America instead of feeding-stuffs. As my right hon. Friend explained just now our policy has been most consistent. It has been to win the War as rapidly as possible, and when we came to the decision to reduce the feeding-stuffs import programme and increase our imports of human food hon. Members must realise that Bulgaria had not then shown any signs of collapsing, in fact there were no signs of a collapse anywhere. The Government would very rightly have been blamed if under these circumstances they had not insisted upon bringing over as many men as possible with a view of bringing the War to an end as rapidly as possible. Events have shown how right they were. I prefer to deal with these matters quite openly, because nothing is worse than to have insidious rumours going about. It has been suggested that Mr. Hoover somehow or other was responsible for cutting down our feedingstuffs programme. Mr. Hoover criticised every group of commodities that this country had upon its import programme just in the same manner as every group of commodities, whether for human food or animal food, was criticised by the French representatives and by the Italian representatives, and just in the same way as we ourselves, through our representatives, criticised every group of commodities demanded by France and Italy. When you know that you are going to have only a limited amount of tonnage, you are bound to criticise and examine each other's demands. I think the House will be glad to know that we were able to do so fairly without rupture between the
  2762
  Allies. The final amount of feeding-stuffs passed by the Inter-Allied Food Council, after all our Allied Food Controllers had criticised the items, satisfied the Board of Agriculture, so that the responsibility for the actual amount finally available for live stock was not due to the criticism or action of any of the Allied Food Controllers. It was due to the decision of the Government to give priority to soldiers and munitions over certain foods, both for human beings and animals.
  Hon. Members have referred to the relations or the want of co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Board of Agriculture. I have here a list of the committees on which the farmers and the Board of Agriculture are jointly represented with the Ministry of Food, and it is a formidable list. We go out of our way to consult the Board of Agriculture. It is in our interests to do so.
  Finally, it may interest hon. Members if I tell them exactly what economy has been possible owing to the control by the Ministry of Food. There has been a certain amount of criticism and a certain amount of irritation and annoyance, but when hon. Members compare this with the achievements I think they will be prepared to give credit to the Ministry of Food. We were this year actually proposing to import something like 7,000,000 tons less foodstuffs than we imported in 1913. In 1913 we imported about 19,000,000, and this year we were only proposing to import 11,700,000. We were actually making a saving of 2,000,000 tons of imported food as compared with the year before there was any rationing. It is only by this complete control which has been set up that that economy has been possible. It would have been quite impossible without having these very irritating restrictions and complete control. As a matter of fact, during these months, we have been actually importing at a lower rate. I think the fact that this country has been able to do with something like 11,000,000 tons instead of 19,000,000 tons of imported foods and yet maintain adequate supplies for the population generally is a great tribute to the work of the Ministry of Food.
  Captain Viscount WOLMER: And to the farmers!
  Major ASTOR: I quite agree. And to the farmers. They have obviously increased food production, but not to the extent of 7,000,000 tons. Agriculture is

  2763
  one of the few industries which has developed during the War. I am glad that it has done so, and I hope that the development will be maintained. When hon. Members say that the inconsiderate action of the Food Controller has ruined agriculture or is threatening the extinction or extermination of the herds, I would remind them that our dairy herds have never been so numerous as at the present time. Food production, I am glad to say, has increased and developed during the War, and the fact that that has been possible and that the people have been able to get a fair and reasonable ration is a tribute to the organisation which has been set up by the Department—I am able to say that because I have only recently become connected with the Ministry—and also to the response which has been made by the people, both producers and consumers, throughout the country.
  Colonel McCALMONT: I desire to occupy the time of the House upon a somewhat different subject which I am afraid does not command the attention of the House very greatly but which is an important one because it concerns a body of officers who are not receiving the consideration that they ought to receive. I refer to the Regular officers of the Old Army who went out from this country in 1914. It is not a matter which could have been brought forward very much sooner, because the obvious answer would have been that it was a post-war problem and not a war problem. I had, in fact, some doubt whether it would be in order to discuss it on this particular Vote. The principal point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster) is that of the retired pay of officers who have served their country for many years quite apart from this War. The officers of the New Army are naturally more vocal in the country. There are very many more of them, and they are able to bring their grievances' before their Members with a great deal more freedom than the officers of the Old Army. Taken altogether, this cannot be regarded as quite such an electioneering matter as many of the subjects to which this House has listened during the past few days. The principle under which these officers were granted retired pay previous to the War was entirely that of their particular work during their service. A man did not get higher retired pay unless he had held an
  2764
  important command. Those Regulations in my judgment are entirely obsolete, but they remain in force, with the result that unless an officer has been fortunate enough to reach high substantive rank in the Army he is treated exactly the same as if there had been no war at all. He gets no credit for his war services, and it is immaterial whether he has commanded a battalion, a brigade, or even a division. Under the Royal Warrant the junior officer who can get any real rise in his retired pay is a lieutenant-colonel. Below the rank of lieutenant-colonel it is practically a flat-rate. This, I think, refers to officers of all services. It is a flat-rate for all officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel, except in the case of majors with over twenty-five years' service. An officer with fifteen years' service is only granted £80; with sixteen years' service £85; with seventeen years' service £90, and so on up to twenty-four years' service or more, £200.
  These rates, despite the increased cost of living, still remain in force. That in itself is a grievance, but the grievance is a great deal more serious now, because it is well known that many officers of junior substantive rank have held very high commands in this War. I will not go into the figures, because my right hon. Friend is aware of them. Many officers whose substantive rank is that of major have commanded divisions. Possibly he is a brevet lieutenant-colonel or colonel, but for the purposes of his retired pay he remains at the substantive rank of major, and it is on his rank as major that he will get his retired pay, without any regard whatever for what he has done during the War. The same applies to a greater extent to brigadier-generals and to lieutenant-colonels. I am, fortunately, able to speak quite freely on this subject, because, joining a new regiment, I happen myself to be of the substantive rank of lieutenant-colonel. A large number of these officers are going to be called upon to retire, or will retire for reasons of health during the next few years, and unless the Government are prepared to give the matter their earnest consideration they will retire as though they had never got any higher than captain, or possibly major. I am very glad to see the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Hodge) present, because he knows as well as I do that a great deal has been done for what are known in the Army as the other ranks. I am bound to say that I do not think that amount of sympathy has

  2765
  been shown with the officers, and especially with the old Regular officers, that ought to have been shown. It always seems a pity to raise a grievance without suggesting a remedy. The remedy is very simple, and I cannot see that it will be extraordinarily expensive. It merely requires an Order which will entitle an officer who has held higher temporary or acting rank on service in the field to reckon that service in that acting or temporary rank for the purposes of his retired pay. If that is not done, the inequalities and anomalies will be extraordinary. There are many even at the present moment. People like myself who happen to have reached a higher substantive rank will get very much higher retired pay than people who have actually commanded divisions. This is not the first time that I have raised this question. I only raise it now in this form because the answer which I received yesterday from my right hon. Friend did not convey the impression to me that the matter had been fully considered or that he was quite familiar with the details of it. He gave me an answer which for a moment I thought was a pledge, but on further reflection I came to the conclusion that it was not a pledge:
  "I do not think that retirement on £80 after fifteen years' service is likely to overtake any Regular officer who has held a lieutenant-colonel's command in the field."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1918, col. 2485.]
  If he meant, and from subsequent conversation with him I do not think that he did mean, that there were not many officers who had held a lieutenant-colonel's command with less than fifteen years' service, I can assure him that he is very greatly mistaken. I would almost go so far as to say that the majority would not have as much as fifteen years' service. I thought, when I first heard the answer, that he meant that the matter was going to engage his attention, and that he was very nearly pledging himself to take steps to see that no such thing occurred. If the Regulation remains as it is, it will undoubtedly happen that very many officers with fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen years' service will retire with rates of retired pay varying from £80 to slightly over £100, despite the fact that the commands that they have held in the field, the risks they have taken in the field, and the responsibilities that they have fulfilled in the field have been out of all proportion to their substantive rank. My right hon. Friend referred me to one previous answer
  2766
  which he seemed to think covered the same point. I should just like to point out that the answer he gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christ-church on the 21st of October really did not touch the question at all, because it referred to officers who had commanded brigades in the field and held the substantive rank of colonel. Those are people with whom I have very little sympathy, because their colonel's retired pay is out of all proportion to the junior ranks. He also referred to those who have retired at the age of fifty-seven or held honorary rank of brigadier-general. That is not the type of officer with whom I am mainly concerned. I am mainly concerned with the young officer of twenty-five to forty who has given all the best years of his life to the service of his country, and who is going to find himself retired on exactly the same retired pay of an officer who has never been out at the front at all, despite the fact that he has been out at the front and held very high rank and high responsibility.
  There is one other small matter. It is one which I thought had been ventilated in the House, but which I find has not, and that is the question, of bandmasters. Every class of soldier, I think, in this War has had improved chances of reaching commissioned rank. As a result of this war thousands of men have received commissions who never hoped to receive them under ordinary circumstances, but for some extraordinary reason there has been no increase made in the commissions of bandmasters. People may say bandmasters do not deserve much sympathy. That may or may not be true, but that is not the bandmaster's fault. It is rather unfair to him to say, "You started life as a musician, therefore you are to be left entirely out of the benefits which have been allowed to people of other ranks." Now, it is well known that the foreign bandmasters are nearly all of commissioned rank, and in the oversea Dominions many bandmasters hold commissions. Yet, as a matter of fact, the number of commissioned bandmasters in the British Army remains as before the War, at five, with the result that many bandmasters who are still warrant officers find themselves saluting people whose services in some cases is about 5 per cent. of their own. There are many bandmasters with thirty or forty years' service, who, if they had not happened to be bandmasters, would have reached commissioned

  2767
  rank if they had behaved themselves and done their duty. I hope my right hon. Friend will give us some assurance that the officer question is not going to be forgotten merely because the officers are badly represented in this House, I mean the old Regular officers, and that he will be able to give us some promise that these matters are engaging the attention of his Department. I do not want to see, after all, that those who have borne the heat and burden of the early stages of the War return to civil life with insufficient money to keep them in decent circumstances.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I can promise my hon. and gallant Friend that with regard to the question of the bandmasters to which he referred in the closing part of his remarks, I hope to have that matter looked into and see whether it will be possible to take any of the steps that he has suggested. My hon. and gallant Friend has brought before the House the position of the officers of the old Regular Army who, after a long service during peace when promotion was slow, have found and seized the opportunities which have been created by the War. He points out with reference to their retired pay that the question is determined by the rules of peace conditions rather than of those obtaining in the War, however meritorious and distinguished the service of those officers may be, and he asks that the rank gained in war shall affect, to a larger extent than at present, the amount of their retired pay. One cannot think of this problem without calling to mind the enormous debt that the country owes to the great bulk of the officers on whose behalf my hon. and gallant Friend speaks—the regimental officers. These men belong to the old Army; they are the men who in the days of peace were the living link in the chain that unites the glorious traditions of the past with the still more glorious realisation of the present, men who in the days of peace moulded and fashioned the old British Army which by such steadfast courage and endurance laid the foundations of the victory that we have won. One cannot overrate the debt that the country owes to officers of that class. It is a debt that can never be discharged in terms of money. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that this question is not merely financial. The whole question of promotion and appointment,
  2768
  permanent, temporary, acting, substantive, is full of startling changes and unequal incidence. It is so intricate and perplexing as to demand the closest scrutiny and consideration before any final decision can be reached. I am sorry there has been any ambiguity in the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend yesterday. No ambiguity was intended. I might say, with regard to the senior officers on whose behalf he has spoken—the general officers—that their position has been under consideration for some time.
  Colonel McCALMONT: I think it was was full substantive colonels?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I think not. I think the retired pay of officers holding temporary rank of major-general, but with the substantive rank of major have been under consideration for some time. I promise to look into the case of the other officers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. He will realise, I am sure, the difficulty of dealing with the whole question of the retired pay of officers at a time like the present. I am afraid I should lack frankness if I allowed my hon. and gallant Friend to expect any very speedy decision, but I can promise that the matter shall be considered, as far as I am concerned, with great sympathy.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: I wish to say a few words on the general question of soldiers' pensions, which has been discussed frequently in this House and many times outside it. We have finished one part of the War, but we have yet another part to finish. We shall have millions of men coming back from France, but I have not heard, up to the present, any scheme proposed for dealing with the men who return healthy and strong on the basis of a permanent reward for what, they have done to save the British Empire. I distinctly remember the war in the United States, which occurred in my boyhood. When that war was over, every soldier who fought in it received a pension from his country. I cannot understand why we should not do exactly the same thing with our healthy able-bodied soldiers when they return. Millions of these men flew to the Colours even before we had the munitions necessary to carry on the War speedily and successfully. They did not stop to consider anything with regard to personal interests, but went immediately war was declared. They have seen four years' fighting. What has been going on

  2769
  in this country during that time? The men who have not been so anxious to go have been earning very high, indeed, abnormal wages, while the men in France and other parts of the Continent have been receiving the bare soldier's pay and, if they have dependants, allowances for them. When these men went they did not even know that their dependants would get any allowance. If they had stayed at home, they would have had many opportunities, such as the munition workers have availed themselves of, to put aside considerable sums of money, which would be useful to them in after days, whereas, in fact, they will come back here, and, although they may go back to their ordinary employment, we must not forget that they have lost four years' opportunity. Although they may go back to their ordinary employment, many of them will find that their prospects of advancement in life are considerably reduced.
  It is the duty of our Government—perhaps they cannot do it this Session—to give a statutory right, something that cannot be taken away or altered by a Pensions Minister—to an annual pension, quite independent of any other remuneration to which the men may be entitled. It is the duty of our Government to bestow a pension on every one of these men who fought in France or who has been in the fighting line. A committee or a commission should be set up to devise a scheme by means of which this could be put into practice. A pension of 1s. a day would be a very moderate sum. If that were capitalised, it would not represent any-think like the amount that the same soldier could have earned if he had been at work at Woolwich Arsenal or in other munition works in the country. It may seem rather extravagant to suggest £18 a year as a pension for a man, but he would have been able to save enough to bring in that amount if he had not gone to France or some other part of the Continent. Further, what about the widow? I have heard haggling in this House about 12s. 6d. and 19s. The widow, who cannot see her husband come back after victory, gets 12s. 6d. The Government ought definitely by Statute to lay down that while that woman remains a widow she shall receive £1 a week—it is not a penny too much—and that she shall receive it for life, so that it cannot be taken away from her. The scheme which I heard propounded here last week which included 4s. 6d. for one of the children,
  2770
  seemed to be little short of an outrage. Four shillings and sixpence a week is not much in these days of high prices, which, apparently, are likely to continue for a year at any rate—I doubt whether we shall get back to the old prices for many years to come. It is proposed to allow 4s. 6d. for the third or fourth child. We ought to have some definite scale of allowances for children from infancy up to sixteen years which shall be statutory, so that no parsimonious Government which comes along later on can whittle it down by 6d. or 9d., as many Departments are fond of doing in cases of this kind. I can assure the House that all over the country the discharged soldiers are dissatisfied, not so much because they have not received consideration, or because their cases are not being investigated, but because they are distrustful and have the feeling that what they are able to get this year may next year, or perhaps a year or two afterwards, be taken away. Everything that is conferred, either on the discharged soldier or on the man who has returned healthy, should be conferred by Statute, so that in no circumstance can an Order in Council set it aside. I know the Pensions Minister is a broad-minded man, that he has plenty to do and think about, and that to a certain extent he is controlled by others who keep a close eye on the finances, but I hope he will give consideration to the suggestions I have made tonight, and that they may not be entirely fruitless.
  Mr. DILLON: There are two subjects I desire to bring to the notice of the House—first, the question of the arms now held in Ulster, and, secondly, the question of what is the intention of the Government with regard to the maintenance of martial law in Ireland. With regard to the question of arms in Ulster, it will probably be within the recollection of the House that for the last two years there has been in force in Ireland a very stringent system for disarming the people. Throughout the three Southern Provinces and in portions of Ulster the disarming of the people was carried out in a most rigorous way. There was no ceremony about it. All the enormous and unlimited powers which are at the disposal of the Government of the day in Ireland were brought into force. Houses were raided and searched; all those found in possession of arms after the Proclamation was issued were severely punished; and, in fact, at this moment you can read in the Irish newspapers accounts

  2771
  of men who have been sentenced to six months', a year, and even two years' hard labour for being in possession illegally of arms. As regards the National Volunteers—that section of the Volunteers in Ireland who remain faithful to our party—their armouries were broken into last year and the arms seized by the military by force and unceremoniously carried away. That system was carried on for upwards of a year, while no attempt was ever made to disarm the Ulster Volunteers, although it was notorious that they were in possession of a vast number of rifles, obtained from Germany by means which we have not yet been able to discover, although it is rumoured that they were sent with the connivance of the German Government, and that they have not yet been fully paid for. At all events, it is admitted and not denied that they were shipped from Hamburg on the very eve of the War and were in the possession of the Unionist party in Ulster. Throughout all these months, now more than a year, during which these stringent measures were in full force for disarming the rest of Ireland, the Ulstermen were allow to retain their arms in spite of the Proclamation.
  No effort whatever was made to deprive them of those arms although it was avowed, and there was no concealment about it, that the purpose with which the Ulster men held them was, on the very moment when the War was over, to use them in a civil war in the event of the Act which is now part of the law of this country being put into force, an Act which comes into operation automatically without any further interference by this House within a very brief period after peace is concluded, as I am prepared to maintain, and full notice had been given to the Government by most responsible men that the moment peace was proclaimed if any attempts were made by the Government to enforce the law civil war and rebellion would be resorted to in Ireland, and these arms were held for the purpose of that rebellion. That appeared to us manifestly and grotesquely unfair. I am confident that in the annals of any other civilised country in the world you could not find a parallel to such a situation. Accordingly this matter was brought before the House at the close of the last Session, and the right hon. Gentleman who is now responsible, for the government of Ireland was asked what he was going to do in regard to these arms and here is the statement he made. He said:
  2772
  "With regard to the question of Ulster arms, I am not going into that except to this extent. I am taunted, apparently, with having left the control of arms to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. I have not, in fact, asked anyone to take control of the arms, and when I say that, I mean personal and physical control. I do not acknowledge the light hon. Member for Trinity College or the Member for East Clare, who is now described as the leader of the Sinn Fein party—I do not recognise either gentleman as having control over anybody else in Ireland, and I shall only deal with those who have physical control over arms. So long as I am connected with the administration I shall acknowledge nobody outside the Government. I have already explained my position in regard to arms and it is that we mean to get them without trouble if I can, as I am sure everyone in the House would prefer should be done.—"
  He was very tender to Ulster. He did not bother, nor did his predecessors, about the trouble when taking the arms from the Nationalists. He took them in the roughest and rudest manner possible—
  "If we cannot get them without trouble, we will get them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August, 1918, col. 1651, Vol. 109.]
  On the very day on which the House met a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman as to what has happened in regard to the Ulster arms. When questioned in that Debate as to the number of the arms, he said he was informed by the police that there were 50,000 rifles and twelve machine guns. I have made some inquiries since, and I think he underestimated them. At all events, that was the official number given—a very formidable armament. I suppose there was also a very large quantity of ammunition. Here is the reply the right hon. Gentleman gave to the question—
  "The precise figures are not available,"—
  He had previously stated that they were available—
  "But a very substantial number of rifles have-been handed voluntarily to the military and are under their absolute control. An Order has now been issued making it illegal to have arms without a permit.—"
  That ought to have been made long before.
  "And this Order applies to the whole of Ireland. For all arms handed over voluntarily a receipt is given and they will be returned when the Regulation forbidding the having of arms without a permit is revoked. For military reasons I cannot state where the arms are now kept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1918, col. 12.]
  What military reasons? We pressed again and again for details and particulars on the following points: What was the number of the arms handed over; secondly, whether they were handed over on conditions,

  2773
  and, if so, what are the conditions; and thirdly, where they were? There was a very special reason for asking those questions, because the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) when he went to Ulster on 27th September, 1914, made a very famous speech in which he declared that it had been said that he had lent some rifles—the Ulster rifles—to the Government to carry on the War. At that time, of course, our men were really using sticks, and rifles were so scarce that it was impossible to send drafts to France until the factories turned out rifles, and it had been stated that the patriotic men of Ulster had loaned some of their rifles to the Government to make up this deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is a man of plain language. He uses language which is not permissible in this House except by way of quotation. He said it was a lie, and that he had never allowed a single rifle to leave Ulster and he never would, although at that time it was a question of saving the Empire. He went on to make this declaration, that if, when the War was over, any attempt were made to put into force the Act which was on the Statute Book, he would call out his Volunteers and defy the law and institute civil war in this country. I have here a short extract from his speech:
  "What I propose to do in the future—may God grant it may be the near future—when the War is over, I propose to summon the Provisional Government.—"
  With us that would be high treason, but of course with the Ulstermen it is patriotism—
  "I propose to summon the Provisional Government together and I propose, if necessary, so far as Ulster is concerned, that their first act shall be to repeal the Home Rule Bill as regards Ulster."
  What is that but rebellion? In what respect does that differ from the action of the Sinn Feiners in the rebellion of 1916? And are we to patiently look forward after the horrors of this War to have in our country a fresh civil war?
  "I propose, in the same Act, to enact that it is the duty of the Volunteers to see that no Act or no attempt under that Bill shall ever be made in Ulster. We have plenty of guns and we are going to keep them. We are afraid of nothing."
  He went on to say:
  "Let them treat the Home Rule Bill—he supposed he ought to call it the Home Rule Act—"
  I should rather think so considering that it had the King's signature—"as a nullity." That is exactly what the Sinn Feiners say, that they will treat all the Acts of this
  2774
  House as a nullity, but they have a good example. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was standing on the platform beside the right hon. Gentleman and pledged the entire Tory party to back him in that civil war, and in treating this Act as a nullity when the hour came:
  "He solemnly stated that he was in a position: to pledge the entire Tory party to back him in this civil war and go ahead as though it never existed, and let those who dared come and try to force it upon her."
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman, undertook to give full notice as to these 50,000 rifles brought from Hamburg—German Mausers supplied by the Germans. They talk here of a German plot in Ireland. This was a worse German plot, which existed before the War and which brought on the War. They sent 50,000 rifles to the right hon. Gentleman in Ulster to stir up civil war. Then they believed that England was out of action with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, and that they were in a position to trample down the liberties of Europe. That was the condition of things that we had to face when we raised this whole question of the Ulster arms. These rifles and these machine-guns were deliberately left in the hands of a small minority of the Irish people who had announced their intention to rebel against the King and his laws the moment the War was over, encouraged by the present Leader of the House, and who had by their example brought on and given birth to the troubles which have taken place in Ireland throughout this War. To accentuate that position of affairs during the War the Government deliberately set to work to disarm the whole population of Ireland so far as they were suspected of Nationalist ideas—not only those who sympathised with Sinn Fein, but those who followed us and who were faithful followers of the late Leader of my party in the great policy which he preached and which he struggled so hard to carry out. His followers in Ireland were treated as public enemies.
  The only party in Ireland which had renounced physical force in any shape or form, and had conformed to the law, and for thirty or forty years had patiently, in the face of endless disappointments and cruel delays, proceeded by constitutional methods in this House and discouraged their people from resort to methods of revolution—we were literally the only party in Ireland that stood for the law,

  2775
  but our followers were disarmed and disarmed in every circumstance of insult, outrage and violence. At last, under pressure of shame in this House, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shortt) gave a pledge that he would disarm the Ulster Volunteers. I ventured on that occasion to say that I thought he would not be allowed. The right hon. Member for Trinity College was sitting behind him, and he smiled a grim smile. I knew perfectly well what the result would be. When he came here and replied to a question which was put to him he stated that the Ulster arms had been loyally surrendered, but he was not in a position to say how many. That was somewhat suspicious. I want to state here definitely that this is a fraud, and I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should come here and make a statement which is calculated to leave the House under a wholly false impression. He has not got the Ulster rifles. It is not true to say that he has got the Ulster arms. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened, according to my information. He is there, and he can contradict it if he is able to. He went to Ulster to interview certain leaders of the Ulster Council. Although he has been very courageous in his statement to the House that he would recognise nobody who had not the physical possession of the arms, when he went to Belfast he changed his tone very fast, and had to recognise them. He was met by members of the Ulster Council, and there was a discussion as to what should become of these arms. Before he arrived in Belfast the Ulster arms had been distributed to individual houses, and there are thousands of them, according to my information, now in the hands of the Ulster Volunteers.
  There was a parley, and certain terms were arranged under which these gentlemen undertook to surrender the arms, but, if my information is correct, I do not wonder that the Chief Secretary, for military reasons, declines to let us know where the arms are. Was there ever such a preposterous thing ever tried to be palmed off on this House? It is not for military reasons that he could not tell us where the arms are, but because the Ulstermen told him that they would not allow a rifle to leave Ulster. He had to obey his master In accordance with the statement of the right hon. Member for Trinity College on the 22nd September, 1914, he said, "I will not allow a rifle to leave Ulster." And he
  2776
  has not allowed any to leave Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman dare not take a rifle out of Ulster. He got the rifles on an undertaking to return them to the Ulster-men as soon as peace was proclaimed. In other words, they are to get back their rifles as soon as they want to rebel. Meanwhile the military have them, and they are perfectly willing to leave them there. They do not intend to rebel while the War is on—there is no necessity—but they are ready to rebel and fight against the King's Government immediately peace is concluded. Their rifles are there in Ulster, and they know perfectly well that they have the heads of the War Office on their side. Therefore they are not under the control of the military, but they are practically under their control, and they know that they will get them back whenever they want them. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us about the machine guns. Perhaps they have been distributed like the rifles. A great quantity of rifles were actually distributed while the right hon. Gentleman was discussing terms with the Ulstermen. While that was taking place the rifles were being scattered over private houses. They have retained a considerable armament in that way, and, though they are not in actual physical possession of the remainder, it is just the same for their purpose as if they had been left in their possession.
  We want to know, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House, is he going to make any pretence of honest, even-handed justice and fair play to all sections of the population in Ireland? I was opposed and am opposed to the disarming of the population of Ireland altogether. The unhappy rebellion in Dublin was the result of a series of shocking blunders and breaches of faith on the part of the Government, and it was taken part in by a very small body of men, misguided enthusiasts, who did not extend over one-thirtieth part of the population of Ireland. I believe that if the Government had handled Ireland properly they would have left the arms in the hands of the Irish Volunteers, and they could have taken every single soldier out of Ireland if they had followed the advice of the late Mr. Redmond. It would have been perfectly safe. The object was to relieve the Government of all responsibility for holding troops in Ireland, and in order to do everything in his power to strengthen the Government in the conduct of the War. They did not take his advice.

  2777
  Every single piece of advice which he gave to them was turned down and defied and the opposite course was taken and the result has been that at the end of the War 70,000 men were kept in Ireland, whereas at the beginning of the War, if they had acted with common sense and listened to the advice of those who understood the Irish situation, they might have taken every soldier out of Ireland and allowed the Irish population to arm as much as they liked in perfect safety. When you once embark on the policy of disarming a section of the Irish people surely any man who understood the ABC of statesmanship would see that the only course was to disarm all sections impartially. To disarm the majority of the population of Ireland and leave armed to the teeth the minority, who had declared their intention of rebellion and of fighting the Government, was the most wicked policy that could possibly enter into the mind of man and was best calculated to disturb the country and exasperate the people. All this you have done. I say it is not true that the Ulster rifles have been taken up in the real sense of the word. The Ulster rifles and machine guns are still at the disposal of the Ulstermen, and the Member for Trinity College has not the slightest notion, and as long as he dominates the Government—and he does dominate the Government in their Irish policy to-day—he has not the slightest intention of allowing these rifles to leave Ulster, and so long as they are in Ulster no one will believe that they are withdrawn from the control of the Member for Trinity College and his Provisional Government, which is still in existence, and which he intends to summon together as soon as peace is declared. So much for the Ulster rifles.
  I want to say a few words on the question of martial law. Ireland is at present governed by martial law. It may be forgotten by many Members of the House, but we have not forgotten that when the rebellion was put down in May, 1916, now two and a half years ago, we made repeated appeals to the then Government to withdraw draw the Proclamation of martial law and for some obscure reason for which I could never get any explanation from the Government, they refused to withdraw the Proclamation of martial law, giving a whole series of insincere and hardly plausible excuses; but the fact remains
  2778
  that they declined to withdraw the Proclamation, and at this moment Ireland is under martial law. I want to know from the Chief Secretary what is the policy in that respect.
  9.0 P.M.
  Now that the War is over, and all pretence of German plots and danger from rebellion so far as the National side, or I will add the Sinn Fein side is concerned, do they intend to maintain martial law in Ireland? That is a very serious question, and one which I maintain I am entitled to have answered before this Parliament breaks up. Are you going to the country on this platform, that Ireland is to be governed after the War is over by martial law? Was there ever anything to equal it in the history of mankind that a country where there is no serious disturbance, where all military operations and all active resistance to the law has ceased for more than two years, when a state of war is ended, military operations have ceased even on the Continent, that martial law should be maintained in Ireland? When we draw attention to the results of that system, the working of that system, the right hon. Gentleman jumps up—and I really must say in all my experience of Irish Debates in this House I have never heard anything to equal the attitude, the tone, and the style of the replies of the present Irish Secretary. I never heard anything like it. What did he say the other day? His answer was, as a sample of the condition of Ireland, that only the week before last there was discovered in Dublin in one house enough dynamite—I suppose he meant melinite—to blow up the whole city of Belfast and Dublin. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that is a perfectly grotesque exaggeration. He did not state where the house was. That, I suppose, is a military-secret—a secret, as the old saying is, a secret of polichinelle. I know where the house is. Everybody in Dublin knows it. It is a notorious house. It is in Rutland Square, or, as they call it now, Parnell Square. It is a house I bought myself two or three years ago for the National Volunteers, and I daresay he knows it well too through his police spies. He knows the history of this house. It was taken out of our possession by armed men about a year and a half ago. A body of armed men attacked it one night with the connivance of the police, who never interfered, and it has been held by these men since, and he has the unblushing audacity

  2779
  to stand up in this House and attack the whole Irish cause and the whole country, because in this house, which his police have allowed to be held by an armed force against the lawful owners for nearly two years—that unknown to the police there have been stored bombs and melinite enough to blow up two cities. Where were the police all this time? They knew the character of this house; they knew who were in occupation and control of it; and I say deliberately that these plots in Ireland are, in my opinion, the work of the police spies themselves—of the Secret Service Department. That is what Major Price and company are kept in Ireland for. How did that melinite get into that house without the knowledge of the police? It has been a matter of common rumour in Dublin that there were bomb stores in the city. Everybody has been asking, "What on earth are the police about?" Is he aware of what occurred at Amiens Street Station six weeks ago? I wonder he did not give us that story. That, I suppose, was too indelicate to be heard in this House. The very last time I crossed to Ireland, the night before I arrived, a body of armed men took possession of Amiens Street Station, in Dublin, bound the solitary policeman on duty to a lamp-post, put a revolver to his head, and stole a large quantity of this melinite. The district in which I live was surrounded that night by military, and all the houses searched from the garret to the cellar—a preposterous proceeding, as if the melinite would be stored in the residential quarter of the city! I suppose it was brought to Rutland Square, and they knew quite well where it was and did not get it.
  Does anybody in his senses imagine that in the present condition of Dublin and of Ireland that large quantity of explosives would be left in the Amiens Street Station in Dublin with one policeman to guard it, and that twelve armed men would go down and take possession of the whole station, the military being in the immediate vicinity and some soldiers on guard at the station, and carry off this explosive, unless there were police behind it? The innocence of the Chief Secretary is delightful. He gives this as a justification for all his performances in Ireland; but take up the newspaper every day, and you find the other side of the picture. Twenty girls, most of them under twenty years of age,
  2780
  were arrested in the streets of Dublin last week for selling flags and hauled off to the police station. Two or three men were arrested for singing songs of a seditious character, songs that have been sung in Ireland habitually since I was a child, and were sentenced to hard labour, and in various other ways of that character you make out these terrible eases which, in my opinion, are largely the organised work of your police spies in Ireland to-day; make no mistake about it.
  I got a long letter this morning describing the whole machinery from an inside source, from one of your own men. I will not tell his name. But he describes the whole machinery of spies whose only duty is to get into all the secret societies in Ireland and organise these outrages. That system was going on long before the Chief Secretary ever saw Ireland, and is going on still. The only difference now is that money is plentiful. The Secret Service funds are now unlimited. The millions we vote in this House are used freely in Ireland for carrying on this infernal work—it is infernal work; diabolical work. It is part of the machinery by which our race is being traduced before the world and held up, part of the plot to show that Ireland is not fit for self-government and that this Government is justified in breaking all its pledges and in going before the world and saying, "What are they but a race given over to outrage and disorder, and nothing can keep them quiet but martial law." The Leader of the House promised us the other day that the very moment he knew he would tell us what is going to happen in reference to this Parliament. Apparently he does not know yet in spite of all that happened to-day and yesterday, but before this Parliament breaks up we are entitled to know what is the policy of the Government, since they have cast Home Rule aside, and how are they going to conduct the government of Ireland? Is the country to be asked to endorse a policy of leaving in possession of the German arms which they now possess the minority in Ireland, who have announced their intention of defying the King's law and the King's Armies and carrying on civil war in that country if an attempt is made to enforce the law? And is this country to be asked, in the present condition of Europe and according to the high principles for which, in the words of the Prime Minister, we are ostensibly fighting in every country in Europe, to face Europe and face the world with Ireland

  2781
  under martial law without a shred or shadow of excuse? We are at least entitled to know where we stand.
  This is one of the last opportunities which we can hope to get for extracting from the Government some frank and fair statement of what is their policy and what is their programme so far as the Irish question is concerned, and whether for which they mean to go to the constituencies and ask for a mandate for five years, because that is now the avowed purpose of this Coalition. Is Ireland to be kept under martial law for five years? Remember this: if your present system of provocation goes on, I see no end to it. You cannot trample upon the Irish people. The more you trample upon them and kick them, the more intractable, unmanageable, and ungovernable they will become. You cannot, to use an expression of a predecessor of the present Chief Secretary, create in Ireland an atmosphere favourable for settlement by kicking, insulting, and tyrannising over the Irish people. If the Government are going to carry on their present system, things will go from bad to worse. They may provoke another insurrection. I do not know. I pray God that that may not be the case. But according to their policy they are going about having an insurrection one way or another, because if they grant home government Ulster, armed to the teeth, is to fight, and if they do not grant home government, and maintain martial law, possibly even without arms, they may have some attempt at insurrection in the South. The more they carry on this system of repression, the more difficult the situation becomes. It is getting worse from day to day. I warn the Chief Secretary that that is so. He postures sometimes before the House as if he had produced order and contentment in Ireland. He has done nothing of the kind. His policy has been of such a character as to make the situation worse and worse. The country is entitled to know where it stands. That certainly is a very modest demand. Some kind of hugger-mugger arrangement has apparently been come to behind the scenes by the two parties who form the present Government. Nobody knows what that arrangement is. The British people may be content with such a situation, and if you will not give us the right to govern ourselves the least that even we may reasonably demand is that you will frankly, honestly and clearly state how you mean to govern us in Ireland.
  Mr. NUGENT: I wish to join my hon. Friend in pressing the Chief Secretary for some information as to what he hopes may be done in connection with these Ulster rifles. We have heard statements made in this House, based possibly on reports that he has received, though in my opinion a great many of these statements have been intended mainly to satisfy public opinion in this country—that he, as the representative of the Government in Ireland, is acting in a fair and impartial manner towards all parties in that country. Those who have listened to the various Debates in this House will recollect that some twelve months ago, on the very eve of a series of demonstrations in Ulster, organised by the constitutional party to put the case of the constitutional movement versus the physical force or the extreme movement before the people, that occasion was utilised to raid public halls and private houses, to raid the halls of an organisation with which I have the privilege to be associated, to go into these Hibernian halls, break doors and locks and steal—because I can give no other description—rifles which were there, which were never asked for. But not content with that they proceeded to enter the houses of Catholic clergymen and break locks and doors as if these men were fomenters of disorder and strife. And anyone who knows the position in Ireland will recognise that if there is anything in this world calculated to create disorder and strife in Ireland it is surely this invasion of the private dwellings of Catholic priests. I would like to know how many Orange halls have been entered for the purpose of getting the Ulster rifles, and what means were employed to ascertain where these rifles were?
  I would ask the Chief Secretary for definite information as to whether, when an order was issued, or not an order but a request made by the sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Keady, in the County of Armagh, whether that sergeant suggested to the constables not to mind the order that was issued by the Inspector-General to watch the houses where the rifles were stored so that they would not be removed, and I would also ask him how many rifles have been taken out of that district and out of the Orange halls in that district, because with all his Secret Service surely the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer a question on a subject which is public property in the district. I ask that in view of the fact

  2783
  that this particular gentleman was the organiser of the police force in the county to sign the covenant and called meetings during the week previous to the signing so that the police were to throw in their lot entirely with those men. He was stationed at that time at Lurgan. We have these whispering statements made, and we have it given to us as a secret that the rifles, or a certain number of them, have been secured. That may satisfy the very confiding Members of this House, but it certainly satisfies nobody in Ireland, and nobody believes one word about the rifles having been taken. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is merely an agent acting for and on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College. He exercises no power in Ireland except with the permission of the hon. and learned Member. Will he tell us how many rifles have been taken in any one county and where they are being stored. Rifles have been taken from the Nationalists and raids made upon them, and the fact that they were taken is public property, and also where they were taken to. Surely if there is to be equal treatment for all people we should get the opportunity of learning here and now how many rifles have been taken and where they are stored. I am informed that the constabulary sergeant at Keady is very anxious to facilitate in every way the Sinn Fein organisers. I happen to know the situation very well there. He was anxious to supply them with information as to how they could conduct their case when a number of them recently were tried. We have looked for some time for information as to the rifles, and we have got very little. Every effort is made by the Chief Secretary and those supposed to be responsible for the government of Ireland to create a panic in the country. One day an order is issued to the Dublin Metropolitan Police that they must all have rifles, and 900 were scattered around the barracks with 250,000 rounds of ammunition, and in the most excited way in the course of a few days all those are lifted, taken back again and placed in the depot. The management of the Government agencies in Ireland is so great that the very guard upon the Chief Secretary's Lodge and on the Vice-Regal Lodge is one day supplied with rifles and a pass word to guard him coming in and going out, and in a fit of this extraordinary panic all that is stopped because the police cannot be trusted, and because Major Price issues an
  2784
  instruction that they cannot be trusted inasmuch as the policemen on guard outside his house allowed two squibs to be thrown on the tram track, and they had frightened himself and his family.
  I have a distinct recollection of a raid that happened to be made on my own house, and there certainty was not the same consideration there for women and children. That was a raid made for what? Will we get any information why that raid was made? [An HON. MEMBER: "A demonstration."] It was merely to tender an insult, nothing more, because supposing, for argument's sake, that I was doing something, and as the Chief Secretary alleged was suspected, surely he does not imagine that I am a fool to keep documents of that kind inside my house. I thought the Government representatives had some common-sense, and I was absolutely mistaken. They thought I was a fool, and they were mistaken. To come to another case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo about a raid upon a house in Parnell Square, a raid is made, and a seizure takes place, and policemen are sent around looking for information and making needless inquiries. What is the object? The object is to try and circulate in the public mind that something desperate is happening, and it is a system of trying to slander and libel the Irish people. If there were such a thing as explosives, surely the special guard at the Great Northern Railway station would have seen those things coming in, and surely there are sufficient police and soldiers there to protect a policeman and prevent him being caught and tied up. I may say I have made close inquiries, and I cannot discover the name of any policeman that was taken up and tied to a post, or anything of that sort. Around where I live there are a couple of railway bridges, and one night suddenly the whole military forces were called out and the whole place surrounded. The only information we could get was that it was a military manœuvre just to see, in case there was a rebellion, how they were to suppress it. There was a deep feeling in Ireland that all these alleged crimes that have been committed are crimes committed in the Secret Service in Dublin Castle, and are crimes generated there, and that we have a repetition of the old methods. Chief Secretaries come and go, but the crime perpetrators, the men who are employed for the purpose of detecting

  2785
  crime, the Sergeant Sheridan's and Sergeant Sullivan's, are still there, and the only difference is that there are a great deal more of them employed at present. What has this brought the position to in Ireland? It has brought us to this state of affairs, that of all the Chief Secretaries we have had it is generally admitted that the least powerful, the least respected, the least capable of taking charge of the Government machinery, is the right hon. Gentleman who holds the post at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman can ignore these criticisms, but he cannot ignore the responsibility that he owes to the country of which at this moment he is Chief Secretary. He cannot ignore the fact that during the administration of his predecessors Ireland was never in a more discontented state than it is to-day.
  Neither Unionists, Nationalists, Sinn Feiners, nor anybody else have the slightest respect for the Government. It is the laughing-stock of anybody who makes the slightest inquiry into the matter. One day a man is arrested for receiving corn in which ammunition is supposed to be sold to him, and he is put in prison for weeks. After all possible inquiries the person who is supposed to have sent away this stuff disappears, and the whole case collapses. It is a strange thing which I want Members of the House to recollect, that when the stuff arrives in Amiens Station the police were watching it, they saw it delivered, they surrounded the building in which it was. Their information was so clear and definite, and yet they are unable to say where these 30,000 rounds of ammunition were procured. I do not think there is any machinery in Belfast for the manufacture of ammunition, except that which is under the control of the Government. But there is a general impression that the ammunition was manufactured in Birmingham, was sent to Belfast, and was transhipped from Belfast to Dublin as part of a deliberate plot to try and create crime on the eve of the assembly of Parliament and thereby to cause a sensation. The whole state of the country is at this moment deplorable. We have the reign of martial law, and that, to say the least of it, is absurd. You cannot at this moment organise an ordinary boys' brigade for the purpose of drilling exercise. You are not permitted to do that. I have tried it myself, and therefore I know. I was refused permission to give absolutely wrong, and so far as I am
  2786
  little athletic exercise because it was suggested the State would be jeopardised thereby. And yet we have the right hon. Gentleman coming down here and in a most sensational and pathetic manner telling us what serious things are taking place in Ireland, and in what an awful state Ireland is! If it be true, is it not a condemnation of the right hon. Gentle man and of the present Goverment to say that when this War broke out they had practically the whole sympathy of the Irish people; but, by their mismanagement, by their cruel tyranny over the people, they have driven them away and brought Ireland to its present discontented state? If there is all this alleged crime, it is not because it has the sympathy of the people, but because the right hon. Gentleman spends too much Secret Service money in generating crime.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt): I am sure the House will desire that I should not take up very much of its time in replying to the last two speeches. In the first place, we have really heard nothing new at all to-night. I have listened very carefully to both the speeches, and there is not one single charge which has not been made over and over again—and not one single allegation—
  Mr. DILLON: They are true, and you have to make these charges over and over again.
  Mr. SHORTT: There has not been one single allegation or charge which has not been exposed over and over again as totally unfounded and totally inaccurate. The hon. Member referred to the case of Ulster arms. He and his colleagues appear to have an astonishing amount of detailed information as to the sedition, or treachery or rebellion going on in Ulster. Apparently, there never was a more seditious, a more treacherous, or more rebellious organisation than that of the Ulstermen of Belfast and the surrounding district. The hon. Gentleman apparently know everything about them, but so far as my information goes their information is inaccurate. He or his colleagues described how on a certain occasion, when I happened to be in Belfast, Ulster arms were being carefully distributed apparently under my very nose. Of course, I do not know, he may have had more detailed information than I had, but I can say I am satisfied that his information was absolutely wrong, and so far as I am

  2787
  informed, the movement of arms which no doubt he heard about, and which he quotes as signs of the wickedness of these people was the collection of arms for the purpose of handing them over. I have already stated in this House that substantially so far as we know, all Ulster arms have been handed over, and if they have not been handed over it is just as illegal for Ulstermen in Ulster to possess rifles as it is for men in any other part of the country.
  Mr. DILLON: Have you ever searched a single house or prosecuted a single person in this connection?
  Mr. SHORTT: I cannot answer that question. I do not know. It may possibly be that the Ulstermen have given up all their arras and it may be that they have not, but I can tell the hon. Member that if he can give me any information that Ulstermen are holding rifles in an illegal way I will give immemediate instruction for a prosecution. If the hon. Member can tell us that—
  Mr. DILLON: You want us to turn informers!
  Mr. SHORTT: If the hon. Member will name a single house we will direct the police to search for rifles and if they are found a prosecution will follow. I shall go no further with regard to that. With regard to the question of martial law, I take it, of course, that when the hon. Member says martial law he is referring to the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and so on, which exist in Ireland to-day.
  Mr. DILLON: Not at all. I am referring to nothing of the kind. I am referring to the Proclamation which was issued after the rebellion, and which is in full force to-day.
  Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member called it martial law.
  Mr. DILLON: Yes.
  Mr. SHORTT: My predecessor tried his best to explain to him that there is not martial law in Ireland or anything approaching it.
  Mr. DILLON: There is!
  Mr. SHORTT: As I say, my learned predecessor tried to explain that there was not, and where he failed I do not think I
  2788
  need take up the time of the House in trying to succeed. There is no martial law in Ireland at this time.
  Mr. DILLON: I deny it!
  Mr. SHORTT: Undoubtedly there is a special law required by the circumstances which exist there. Practically the whole of the law which exists in Ireland to-day exists in this country to-day, and if the necessity arose, either by sedition or any other reasons, to put in force Regulations in England which to-day are put in force in Ireland, then of course they would be put in force. We have heard of some instances of alleged fabrication by the police of crime, though apparently it is difficult to say whether it was to obtain a conviction of some innocent person or whether it was that absurd charge that everything was being done to blacken Ireland. Take the case of the oats, over which the hon. Member waxed so contemptuous. Is it denied that the stuff was there, and that the ammunition was in the oats? Is it denied that the gentleman who would have been charged with putting the ammunition into them immediately took to his heels, and has been missing ever since? If it were a pure police stunt, why did he want to run away?
  Mr. NUGENT: Because it was arranged with him to run away.
  Mr. SHORTT: Really, it is not fair criticism to try to make up a case against the police. If that is the sort of argument, I really do not think I need trouble the House any more on the point. That is typical of all the charges. I have at this box before protested against the attack upon the honour of perfectly honourable men. Apparently any stick is good enough to beat Major Price with, or anyone who is doing his duty under most difficult circumstances. I do not propose to deal any further with it. We have heard these charges over and over again, and have denied them over and over again, and it is useless taking up the time of the House in denying them once more. The policy of this Government has not changed in the least. The policy of this Government is to restore order in Ireland.
  Mr. DILLON: You are going the wrong way about it!
  Mr. SHORTT: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion. My opinion differs from his. My information differs from his. The policy of the Government is exactly the

  2789
  policy it was and remains, namely, a policy of Home Rule for Ireland. I do not want to indulge in recriminations. I am not going to argue here to-night who is to blame for what is taking place in Ireland. Suffice it to say this, I absolutely decline on the part of the Government to admit that we have anything but a minor share of the fault.
  Mr. KING: Surely if there is any truth in the doctrine that we ought to judge the Government by its achievements, or, to put it another way, "By their fruits ye shall know them," there are two countries in regard to which the Government of this country, during the past four years, stands condemned as incapable and contemptible. The two countries to which I refer are Ireland and Russia. Turn your thoughts to four and a half years ago, when we were told that Ireland was the one blight spot. What have we got to-day? Ireland hopeless and helpless, because of the duplicity, incapacity, crooked and contemptible ways of the Government in dealing with it. And really the same remark in the case of Ireland applies to Russia. More than four and a half years ago no country was so united with this country in aim, in methods, in complete harmony of action and purpose; no country was so determined against German aggression and German militarism. And what is the case to-day? We are virtually at war with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could only manage Ireland by interning hundreds of the best men in Ireland. I wonder he has not interned the right hon. Gentleman behind him. I think it is only through lack of courage that he has not done so. We are practically at war with Ireland. In spirit there could not be anything more deplorable than the relations between Ireland and this country, and it is exactly the same with Russia. After the greatest enthusiasm four years ago, continuing as it did after the revolution one and a half years ago, we are to-day in an actual state of war with that country, and, moreover, we are at war with that country apparently alone of all the countries of the world. Our warfare with Germany has ceased, but our warfare with our great Ally at the beginning of the War is not only to continue, but, apparently, from all the indications we have, it is to be carried on with greater energy, and now that our soldiers, our sailors, and all our military forces are relieved in other spheres, we are to carry on the war in Russian with redoubled energy. I deplore
  2790
  this state of things. I think it lamentable. I think that a war against Russia ought not to be carried on without definite reason and definite objects. Attempts have been made by myself and by others in this country and other countries, in the Press, by public men to find out for what objects our military operations are still being carried on in Russia. When I ask questions, or others ask questions, absolutely no reply is given. For what reason are we carrying on war in Russia? I gave notice to two Departments that I would raise this question, and I have had quite friendly and courteous consultation with representatives of those two Departments about the subject, but no one attends. Only a few hours ago I had a definite promise that someone would be present to answer this question. I ask the House to observe we are carrying on a war against Russia, or in Russia. There is no attempted explanation of it, and I cannot understand it. Let me recur to the point, at the end of July and the beginning of August, when the present military operations in Russia were begun. An explanation was then given by Mr. Lansing, the American Secretary of State. I quote his exact words:
  "Intervention in Russia was solely to aid the Czecho-Slovaks to leave Russia for the Russian Front and not to establish an Eastern battle front."
  The Czecho-Slovaks, when the fighting started, instead of making for the Western Front, have been moving all the time towards the Eastern Front—that is from somewhere in Siberia. They have been moving the whole time towards Vladivostok. They have been offered repeatedly by the Russian Government that they might pass through Russia either to Archangel or elsewhere on the Russian Western Front if they passed through without their arms. As the Czecho-Slovaks had all been prisoners of war, and as it is usual to disarm prisoners of war, and as on the conclusion of Russia's hostilities against the Central Powers they were offered the opportunity of returning home without their arms, we ought, I think, to have some explicit statement why, in the first place, the repeated offers of the Russian Government have not been accepted, and, secondly, why they have not been allowed, as Mr. Lansing put it, "to leave Russia for their Western Front." Then I think we ought to observe that though Mr. Lansing, on behalf of the American Government, stated most explicitly that

  2791
  "Military intervention in Russia was entirely and solely on behalf of the Czecho-Slovaks to liberate them"
  there is this fact, that many of the speeches and remarks by Allied statesmen have indicated that the intervention was to draw the German soldiers from the German Western Front so that, by getting behind the German lines in Russia, their strength on the West, in France and Flanders, would be weakened by their having to retain soldiers on the Russian borderland. Though Mr. Lansing repudiated the idea of establishing an Eastern Front yet that view has always been pressed in various utterances by both French and English statesmen as one of the objects of our operations. Now that there are no German hostilities, and no power on the part of the Germans to continue the War, that object, obviously, must be out of the question. It cannot possibly be the object of our military operations in Russia to draw off German soldiers from the Western to the Eastern Front. Beyond this there may be other objects. I notice in various papers of very high authority other objects are being stated. I take, for instance, the objects stated by that very eminent journalist, Mr. Garvin, in "The Observer." Mr. Garvin appears to have exceptional opportunities of knowing the mind of the Government, and especially the policy of the Prime Minister. He says:
  "Further intervention in Russia against Bolshevism will be imperative, for we must enable the former Russian territories to rise. The Peace Congress will take the responsibility for remaking Russia."
  These are very important words coming from that authority. I hope they will be repudiated. I maintain that the Peace Congress has no authority, and ought to have none, to continue a war against Russia for the purpose of re-making Russia. If the doctrine of self-determination for nationalities and great countries is to be justified and acted upon, the doctrine put forward that the Peace Congress must take the responsibility for re-making Russia, and must continue its military intervention in that sense, and with that object should be definitely stated. It is so novel and so extraordinary a doctrine that it should be made clear. In connection with this doctrine, that in order to re-make Russia and establish commercial or political relations with ourselves or congenial to those who undertake these operations, I must quote
  2792
  what a German Junker paper, the "Kreutzerzeitung," says. That journal, which, as anybody knows, is one of the leading Conservative Junker papers in Germany, supporting the idea of continued military intervention in Russia, says, or said:
  "The fight against Bolshevism may prove to be the bridge between us and our enemies."
  In other words, it contemplated the time when the capitalists and militarists of this country and the Allies should join with the capitalists and militarists of Germany, and the bridge which leads them into Russia and to Russian exploitation and domination should be the union of interests. Those words are very significant. The way in which this war against Russia is being carried on and the objects that are being maintained by all sorts and conditions of the Press, Liberal and Conservative papers alike, with the same object, entering Russia as a great land of booty and adventure, ought to be made clear. What are our intentions in this matter should be stated. Let me quote one other Minister, Lord Rothermere, in his great organ of the Press, says:
  "Russia cannot save herself, but order must be imposed from without."
  This is what the "Star," a Radical paper, says:
  "It assumes that the Turkish armistice is aimed at our continuing our military operations in Europe, and urges that the great granaries of Southern Russia and the oil reservoirs of Baku will now be open to our trade."
  Central and Northern Russia are starving and yet we are told the granaries there are for us. Rather strange view for a Radical paper. What are the objects of the Government? We have a right to know how long this campaign is going on. With what object and when and on what conditions the Russian campaign will be brought to a close. I suppose really there never was a campaign that was undertaken so rashly and on such bad information. Again and again, in talking to various people, Ministers amongst them, I was told, three or four months ago, in July especially, that as soon as an Allied force entered Russia the power of the Bolsheviks as a dominant party in the Soviet of the day would collapse, and that all the other parties would unite with the soldiers who came in, and that there would then be peace and harmony in Russia. That opinion was stated in the House and constantly in the Press, and it was a constant supposition of many conversations with authorities on the subject

  2793
  that the Bolshevik power would collapse as soon as an intervention Army entered that country.
  10.0 P.M.
  What has happened? Just exactly what would happen if the German Army had entered Ireland. Instead of being at loggerheads with us, the Irish would all have rallied to our side, just as much as if a German Army entered England Radicals and Conservatives, Coalitionists and Labour men, in fact, every man, would have rallied to the side of the defenders of their native soil. That is exactly what has happened in Russia. I read in many papers there the result of our military intervention in Russia, instead of producing a collapse of the Bolsheviks, has really been their establishment. In fact, this is so much the case that in an elaborate account of the position in Russia the other day the "Times," after having prophesied for weeks the collapse of the Bolsheviks, heads one of its articles "Bolshevik Rule Extending"; and we read how the Bolshevik power is extending over North and Central Russia, and from the Urals to the Ukraine. The Bolsheviks have been consolidated by our action, and if your object was to put Bolshevism down, you have gone the wrong way about it. Now you see Bolshevik doctrines spreading like wildfire throughout Europe; and who can say what is the prevailing sentiment amongst the great German people, because, though defeated, starved, discouraged, disheartened, and depressed, they are yet a great people in numbers, genius, and potentiality, and who can say what the prevailing spirit is amongst them? May it not be Bolshevism? I remember reading a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith), in which he declared that "Bolshevism was sinking into its grave." The right hon. Gentleman has made many wise observations in his time, but he has sometimes made remarkably foolish ones, and of all the foolish things he ever said, I think that is the most foolish. I know we have all made mistakes, but has anybody ever made so great a mistake as to declare two months ago that Bolshevism was sinking into its grave, when, as a matter of fact, it is spreading like wildfire over Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria, and our Government is afraid of it here. Military intervention in Russia has only helped to fan the flame, and has added fuel
  2794
  to it. Who are the Bolsheviks? They are the extreme logical followers of the doctrine of Karl Marx. It is a very popular thing now to represent the Bolsheviks as an absolutely uncultured, incapable set of men, and I would like to quote what the "Daily Mail" says about them through their very eminent correspondent, Mr. Hamilton Fife. This is what they said of Lenin:
  "We must not think of the men Lenin, Trotsky, and Tchitcherin as men of no account or mere mob leaders. Lenin is a thinker and writer. He has been for many years the director of the Bolshevik party, chiefly in exile, but he is a man of high culture, although he is deliberately careless in his dress and prefers to look like a peasant or town labourer, but he has honest ideals."
  I have had the pleasure of meeting some of these men, and I am not ashamed to say I consider they are as much gentlemen as I am a gentleman myself. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear!"] I consider that in intellect and eloquence they are even the equal of the Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Macpherson). You may represent them through your mob Press, your War Aims Committee, and your other organs of gramophone opinions, as mere blackguards, or whatever else you like, but it does not alter the fact that they are of vital importance in this campaign and to the country and the nation which they have behind them. The idea that you have only to send a few soldiers there and all the people will tally to your banner and down these Bolsheviks is absurd.
  There is another fact about Russia which is too painful to ignore. Russia suffered years before any other country in this War from a shortage of food. I have tried to make out the facts on the best evidence that I could get, and I am convinced that food shortage, which in one form or another has attacked every belligerent country and every neutral country in Europe, attacked Russia earlier than any other country, and that there are now, and have been for a year, people dying of absolute starvation in Russia. A very grave responsibility lies upon those who continue this War, meaning as it does the closing of all ports in Russia against the import either of food or rolling stock or engines or anything else, increased difficulties of transport, of food supply, and of the organisation of the people, and the continuation of a horrible state of starvation in Russia. I was speaking the other day to a gentleman who knows Russian

  2795
  conditons better than anyone else in this country, and he says that if this War goes on there may be millions die of starvation. If it goes on a second year, during next summer and the following winter, without any help in the form of engines, rolling stock, or food, it must mean the perishing of 5,000,000 from starvation.
  Colonel Sir H. JESSEL: Whose fault is if?
  Mr. KING: It is the fault of the people who carry on war when peace may be made. It is certainly not the fault of the poor peasants who are being starved. If the punishment fell upon those who are guilty for all this horrible business, I should not complain, but it falls upon the weak, the helpless, and the poor peasant. That is the horror of this War. I have no wish to abuse anyone. I think everyone is as capable of pity and desires to do justice as much as I do myself, but when a war is being continued under such peculiar conditions one has the right to ask how far and how long it is going to be continued. There is one point of special interest to which I am justified in referring. The various terms of Armistice in the case of Turkey, Austro-Hungary, and Germany all give us particular military facilities for continuing our operations in Russia. There is Article 15 of the Armistice with Turkey—
  "Allied control officers to be placed on all railways, including such portions of the Trans-caucasian railways now under Turkish control, which must be placed at the free and complete disposal of the Allied authorities, due consideration being given to the needs of the population. This clause to include Allied occupation of Batum."
  Batum is Russian territory, but by the terms of the Armistice we are entitled to occupy Batum—a most unusual condition. Then it goes on:
  "Turkey will raise no objection to the occupation of Baku by the Allies."
  Here are two Russian ports to be occupied by us if we choose. I could in the same way follow various Articles in the three Armistices which seem framed or which might have been framed for a continuation on a very large scale of our military operations in Russia. We really ought to have some assurance that these military operations will be brought to a close as soon as possible, that we are not going to interfere with the right of the Russians to set up what Government they like, and that we are not there to occupy
  2796
  the country and manage it for a long period in order to get gain or recompense or repayment of debt or any other material advantage. We ought to seek only the freedom, the self-determination, and the happiness of the Russian people. If we are going to do that by continued military occupation, or continued military invasion, it will indeed be a sad descent from our noble achievements and our noble ideals of liberty and democracy which on the whole this country and the Allies have so wonderfully maintained. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication as to how long and with what object this war with Russia is to be continued.
  Captain WATSON: I desire at this somewhat late hour to draw the attention of the Government quite briefly to a matter one of the phases of which was dealt with incidentally yesterday in this House by question and answer. The question was asked of the Leader of the House whether at the earliest possible date members of the Volunteer Training Corps who were serving as such by reason of a certificate of exemption to which was annexed a condition that they should serve in the Volunteer Training Corps would be released from such service at as early a date as was practicable, and I was very glad indeed to hear the answer by the Leader of the House that this would be brought to the attention of the Government as soon as possible.
  As this House is aware, there are many members of the Volunteer Training Corps who are serving as such not incidental to the exemption from military service, but because they took up this very important work quite voluntarily and from the most patriotic motive. Many of these men have been serving, as I well know, from the very early days of the War, and they have given most loyal and effective service. Their conditions of business are such now and their staffs have been so reduced that their work has almost reached a strain which has come to breaking-point. I do desire to ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will bring to the notice of the Government this question, in order that not merely those who have this condition annexed to their exemption certificates, but those who are serving in the Volunteer Training Corps may be released at such early date as is practicable and feasible I was glad to notice, two or three moments ago, that my right hon. Friend

  2797
  the Acting Secretary for Home Affairs is also in his place, because I wish for a moment to refer to the case of those who are serving as special constables. Many of those, as we all know, have given many of their midnight and waking hours to this service for a long time. Latterly, at the request of the Local Government Board, this condition that they should serve as special constables has been attached, in a very large number of cases, to the certificates of exemption from Volunteer service. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider as speedily as possible whether some, at any rate, of those to whom the service as special constables is annexed may not, owing to their special domestic and business positions, be re-leased from that covenant which they gave as early as is consistent with the national position and the service of their country.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I think the House will like me to reply to the two speeches which have just been delivered. I appreciate to the full the admirable service of the Volunteer Training Corps, and I agree with every word that my hon. and gallant Friend has said about their services. To-day I was discussing the question as to their future with the military authorities at the War Office, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that steps will be taken as quickly as possible to see what can be done for the men who have received exemption upon the condition that they join the Volunteers. In my opinion these men have not only a claim but the right to return to their civil service in the country. With regard to those who voluntarily enlisted at the very beginning of the War, no one in this House could fail to recognise the patriotic endeavours and patriotic services of these men. They were men who had physical disabilities, or who were over military age, and who were busy citizens of the United Kingdom, yet all their spare time they fully and in all cases thankfully devoted to the service of this kingdom, in case at any time they might be called upon to render resistance to any foe who dared to invade this country. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that these two classes will have my most sincere sympathy, and will have my sympathetic attention at once. I hope to be in a position, probably before the House rises or before Parliament
  2798
  dissolves, to be able to reply at greater length to my hon. and gallant-Friend.
  A series of questions were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). Those questions were ingenious in their nature, very comprehensive and bristling with difficulties. I am sure the House will not be surprised when I tell them that I am not in a position, nor do I think any Minister of the Crown is in a position to answer all the questions that he put. I personally regard them as not being in the national interest. When I remind my hon. Friend that the Inter-Allied Congress will meet very shortly and that all the questions he has raised to-night will be discussed at that Congress, he will feel, I am sure, that it would be impossible to give a definite answer, because it is not this House alone that decides these questions. They will be decided as a whole at the Inter-Allied Congress. I, therefore, do not propose to discuss them, and can only assure my hon. Friend that all these questions will be discussed at the Inter-Allied Congress and that they are prepared to discuss them I do not personally agree with his praise of the Bolsheviks. My view of the Bolshevik is. I gather, the view of the whole House, namely, that the Bolshevik, whatever might have been said of him at the beginning, is a pure anarchist. I for one feel that I could not allow the definition given by my hon. Friend of the Bolsheviks to remain unchallenged.
  Mr. KING: It was the "Daily Mail's," not mine.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not care what the "Daily Mail" said; I can only judge them by their deeds. I am certain no Member of the House will agree with my hon. Friend in praising these men when they read of the brutalities and dastardly crimes—
  Mr. KING: I did not praise them at all. In respect of their ability and intellect I said they were the equal of any others, and I maintain it. I have not said any of their actions should be imitated or even praised. I did not deal with their actions at all.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I can only rely upon the recollection of the House. The impression created upon my mind was that my hon. Friend was out to defend them. I can only recall to the House the numerous instances of dastardly cruelty inflicted upon the peasants. The peasants have

  2799
  been treated as badly as anyone. The record of the last few months of the Bolshevik Government is disgraceful, and I am astonished that any Member of the British House of Commons, which is out for freedom, justice, and liberty, should make the observations which my hon. Friend has made. What I object to much more strongly is that the whole tone of his speech was an indirect attack upon the good intentions of this country. He suggested indirectly, if not directly, that we were in Russia at present for aggrandisement of territory. The one bright fact during the whole of this War, to my mind, is that our motives and intentions were pure, and we have entered this conflict, as we shall end it, without any of the guilty motives which my hon. Friend suggests we have.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.— [12TH NOVEMBER] SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1918–19.

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.—INTERIM FORESTRY AUTHORITY.
    Resolution reported,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for a Grant to the Interim Forest Authority."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Owing to the speed with which business came to a conclusion yesterday evening no Debate was possible upon this Estimate and I understand there are one or two points which hon. Members wish to be clear about. During the summer an announcement was made in another place that the War Cabinet had accepted the Report of a Sub-committee which had thoroughly considered the question of forestry in reference to reconstruction and it was the policy of the Government to give effect to these recommendations, so far as the House might ultimately think it advisable. Owing to the pressure of work it has not been possible so far to pass the necessary legislation, but it is felt very strongly that it would be a thousand pities to let the winter and spring go by without taking preliminary steps in the direction which it is desired to tread, and it is with this object that this Estimate has been introduced, to cover expenses which may arise between now and the end of the financial year by an interim authority which the War Cabinet
    2800
    has set up pending the passage of legislation. Certain gentlemen have agreed to serve as a central forestry authority ad interim, and their work will consist in taking whatever preliminary steps may be thought advisable, and among them of course there are such matters as the getting together of seeds—that is a matter which takes time—the raising of various nursery stock, the training of forest officers and foresters, the making of necessary surveys, and the irritation of replanting and afforestation schemes. The personnel of the authority must of necessity he temporary and provisional. Obviously many men well fitted for this work are still serving in the forces. It may interest the Committee if I give the names of those who have so far consented to serve on this authority. The chairman will be the right hon. Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Acland); the English representatives will be Lord Clinton and Mr. R. L. Robinson; the Scottish representatives, Lord Lovatt, Mr. Walter Conynham, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott); for Wales the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Major D. Davies); and for Ireland (Mr. T. B. Ponsonby). It has not been possible to snake an Estimate under the various subheads for this short period, but I may say that the members of the authority, with the exception of Mr. Robinson, who will relinquish his position as Superintendent-Inspector of the Board of Agriculture, will be unpaid.
    I am sure the Committee will realise the urgency of the forestry position. If the work is to be done and if afforestation sites are to be secured, there is no time to be lost. I know that there has been a certain amount of controversy as to the centralising of all afforestry effort. I can inform the Committee that the legislation has not been passed. The details of the legislation will be a matter for settlement as early in the New Year as may be possible for Parliament to deal with it. When that matter comes before the House it will be open to all those who are interested and have special knowledge of these problems to press upon the Government the course which they think most desirable to obtain their ends. In order that there shall be no confusion and no clashing of authority in this brief interim period, the War Cabinet has decided that in the appointment of this interim authority, while they shall have power to take all the preliminary steps necessary they

    2801
    shall work, as far as possible, through the Departments of the separate countries involved. In the case of any dispute arising between the interim forestry authority and any of the existing authorities, there would be the right to appeal direct to the War Cabinet for settlement of such disputes. I hope that the few words I have said will commend this Estimate to the Committee, and that it will ease the not unnatural apprehensions entertained by some Members, who perhaps had not been fully seised of the work which is proposed to be entrusted to this interim authority.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Estimate, has informed the Committee of the purpose which is in view in setting up this new Interim Committee to deal with the question of afforestation, not only in England, but in Scotland and throughout the Kingdom. I regret very much that the House has not been afforded a better opportunity for discussing a matter which raises a question of such vital interest to the whole Kingdom, and especially of Scotland, where the interests of afforestation are so wide. Unfortunately, when the Resolution was passed last night it was not expected that it would be reached, and there was a very small attendance. The same remarks applies to a certain extent to-night. I do not think that in this matter Scottish Members generally, and Scotland as a whole is sufficiently apprised of the important subject to be discussed and dealt with to-night, or there would have been a larger attendance of Members. The effect of this Vote of £100,000 is to set on its legs a new central authority which is to carry into effect, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, the recommendations of the Forestry Reconstruction Committee, an interim authority—to use the words in the Estimate—to carry on the work pending the passing of legislation setting up permanent machinery for the purpose.
    I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman as the representative of the public purse on this occasion in asking us to vote £100,000 for a purpose against which a protest was made by the representative of the Treasury in the powerful dissent from the Report of the Forestry Reconstruction Committee. He is opposed to the setting up of a central authority on the ground of the expense and other grounds which were set forth in his dissent. He states:
    2802
    "While there are certain obvious advantages in a policy of concentration such advantages do not appear to me to be sufficient to justify a reversal of the policy of decentralisation which obtains in regard to agricultural policy generally. A separate Forestry Department, with a paid commissioner and assistant commissioners at its head and a considerable subordinate staff which is almost bound to expand rapidly, with large new central offices, is a costly matter. The multiplication of departments is a thing to be avoided except as a matter of the clearest necessity."
    That is the Treasury view, and we are asked to-night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, notwithstanding this protest, to vote this substantial sum in order to set up this authority which is to carry on, on the lines of the Report, until the new authority is set up. There are two grounds on which I desire to protest very strongly against this matter. The first is, that in the dying days of this Parliament we are asked to authorise the setting up of machinery to carry out the proposals of this Committee, which it was understood would be dealt with by legislation in this House, so that a full opportunity would be afforded to all interests affected to come here and express their views and have the matter fully discussed. The hon. Gentleman clearly indicated that it was the intention to deal with the machinery to be set up by a Bill at a subsequent period. The only reason he gave for anticipating the judgment of the electors and of the members of the new Parliament was that they did not want to let the winter and spring go by, but that they wanted to set up an interim authority to do something in the direction in which they wished to move. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that no Bill would in any circumstances be introduced into this House to deal with this matter until the winter and spring had gone by. We are told that we are going to have a General Election within a month. Does he suggest that the Bill cannot be introduced practically within a month or two at the very outside, when every interest affected will have an opportunity of coming to the House?
    I object to the carrying out of recommendations of this character by the passage of a Supplementary Estimate, and by the appointment of a Committee to the personnel of which I do not take the slightest exception. I take this opportunity of saying that the Gentlemen whose names have been suggested are all men who, I believe, carry great weight, and men who are fitted to deal with these

    2803
    matters, although I should have liked to have had some further representation so far as the different schools of men and authority are concerned in Scotland on this question. My first objection as to the method which has been employed here tonight to get this matter settled is to the appointment of a Committee, which is going to carry us so far upon the road as to prevent us from reconsidering the question maturely when the Bill is before us. It is, I think, a bad precedent for the House of Commons, when we have been promised legislation on the subject, to have the matter settled in advance in this manner, and is not in consonance with the procedure of this House. I hope that view will be supported, as I know it is, by a number of my colleagues from Scotland. The effect of this proposal is to set up a Committee with very wide powers. I followed closely the definition of the powers. They include all aspects of forestry. They include the initiation of forestry schemes, and, in other words, they empower this Committee to take in hand the functions which are at present being discharged by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and to override that Board if they should differ from it, subject to appeal, as my hon. Friend points out. I should like to ask where the Chief Secretary for Scotland comes in with regard to this matter? I think the Scottish Members are entitled to assume that the Secretary for Scotland is going to have his say in regard to matters of administration which fall under his charge at present. My hon. Friend suggests that he is, but at the present moment he has the right to deal with the question of schemes relating to afforestation proposed by the Board of Agriculture. I take it there is to be an appeal direct from the Board; if there is any difference, to the War Cabinet; and there is to be no regard paid to the views of the Secretary for Scotland himself. That is, to my mind, a very retrograde step in regard to matters of Scottish administration. I hope that we shall have some further assurance from the Treasury and from those responsible for this proposal that this matter has been considered, and that the Secretary for Scotland is fully advised of the difficulties and of the results which may follow from this proposal. I have no knowledge in regard to this matter, but I for one think with regard to Scottish matters we ought at least to be in a position
    2804
    to know what the views of the Scottish Office are on a question of this importance.
    The second ground upon which I oppose this proposal is that on its merits it is a reversal of the present policy in Scotland under which we deal with our own affairs, in our own specially constituted Boards. The question of forestry is one in which Scotland is very deeply interested. We have an area something like three times as great as the area in England to be afforested, and we have our own special conditions and our own special laws. We have at the present moment a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland which is charged with the Forestry Department as well. The Sceretary for Scotland informed us on the Scottish Estimates the Board was at present taking every possible means to secure the initiation of forestry schemes in the interests of Scotland. I should like to remind the House that on the Estimates the Secretary for Scotland, on the 4th July, 1918, in reply to the charge that insufficient assistance had been given by the Development Commissioners to afforestry as far as the Board of Agriculture was concerned, said that every recommendation of the Board during the last eighteen months had been given effect to by the Development Commissioners, and he was really at a loss to suggest any better arrangement that could be made at this time. In other words, he was satisfied that everything was being done to give effect to the best policy in regard to afforestry in Scotland. I am quite prepared to admit that in the past we have not been able to do all we should have done in regard to afforestry, but to suggest that during the intervening period of two months before the matter can be dealt with by legislation nothing is going to be done unless this central committee is set up is a pure travesty of the situation. I speak as one who knows the interest taken in this matter all over the country and the strong desire to get a further move on.
    My further objection to the proposal to-night is this, that the Committee is set up to anticipate the new scheme, and, although it is charged with afforestry work, is undoubtedly going to deal with a great many other matters affecting agriculture. You cannot separate afforestation from agricultural pursuits. I think it right to point out that in the Report of the Afforestation Reconstruction Committee they make it

    2805
    perfectly clear that in their view the functions of the Forestry Board cannot be separated from other functions of the Board dealing with agriculture and small holdings in Scotland, and they mention further that the question of small holdings is wrapped up in the future of afforestry in Scotland. They point out in their Report the special social and economic benefits that afforestry can bring to bear on small holdings, and that farm work fits in better with them than any other industry. They further point out that concurrently with afforestation the number of small holdings obtainable at a moderate rent can be increased and they consider that to be the duty of the afforestation authority to earmark portions of the present area which are suitable for small holdings. The Report is, in fact, ample proof of the proposition that you cannot deal with forestry altogether independently of such problems as that of small holdings That is a proposition which is accepted by every person, yet the proposal we have tonight is one which is going to set up a special Committee to deal purely with questions of afforestation, and, it may be to give very large powers also with regard to a small holding policy, which might not be in consonance with the small holding policy adopted by the Scottish Board of Agriculture; in other words, it would afford them the right to override our policy with regard to forestry and small holdings. That is a matter of very much importance to Scotland. It is anticipated that 573,000 acres will be held by the Commission in the first ten years, of land acquired by them, of which only 150,000 are to be planted. In other words, the remainder of that very large area is to be not afforested, but is to be made use of for the purpose of constituting small holdings, and therefore we will find that the policy of small holdings, of land settlement, will very largely be dealt with by this authority. It has never been suggested that the whole of the land is to be planted. The suggestion of the report is that you will be able to acquire large areas of land, some of which is suited for afforestation and the remainder of which will be used for small holdings and agricultural purposes. I am not surprised that that should be the view of the Committee, because if the House will refer to page 65 it will be seen that really their main policy, although they only deal with forestry, has been to
    2806
    swallow up all the Scottish Departments dealing both with agriculture and forestry. The passage in the Report says:
    "It has been suggested to us that there is some possibility that a new Ministry may be formed which would embrace the existing Departments of Agriculture of England, Wales, and Scotland, and possess wider powers on all questions of rural land and development than are possessed by these Departments."
    It goes on to say:
    "If action were taken on these lines, the views we express would be to some extent modified, and they would still desire to have a single forestry authority under the new Ministry, which is to swallow up the functions of the Scottish Board of Agriculture."
    I think it is a fair comment to make that this proposal would involve a central authority not only for forestry but for agriculture in our country. I am aware that there are some of my colleagues from Scotland who do share that view, but I do not think they represent anything like the mass of opinion in Scotland on that subject. I am quite sure if we were to take the views of people in Scotland we should find that they would unite in protesting against any policy which, instead of carrying out decentralisation, which is all the current of the time, we should set up a central authority which is going to control us. I do not want to suggest that there are not many competent persons who might not be able to render us splendid assistance in Scotland in regard to forestry, and I should like to make it quite clear that in Scotland we should welcome the reconstitution of our Scottish Board of Agriculture in such a way that we might have the advantage of the very best experts, and those who are best qualified to deal with this important matter. We feel that this is a matter of enormous national interest at the present time—that we should control directly the interests of Scotland, while at the same time keeping in active and sympathetic touch and consultation with the departments or authorities put in charge of reafforestation in the other parts of the United Kingdom. But I am quite sure that I am not exaggerating the feeling in Scotland when I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should not in this matter seek to override what is the very, very strong view held by the Scottish people that they should have control of their own Departments in Scotland, and that so long as the present system continues in operation and the Secretary for Scotland is responsible to Scotland for this Department, that he

    2807
    should not be overridden by any authority. The effect of this proposal is entirely to override him. We look forward to the time when we shall administer these matters in Scotland. What in the meantime is suggested? That these questions should be determined by a central authority. The answer my hon. Friend got was that this is a matter of national interest, and that as England and Wales have an equal interest with Scotland in the matter. But surely it cannot be suggested that Scotland is not able to look after her own interests, and get her own experts, who are efficient and well equipped to advise and deal with this problem; and in the second place, that we have not got an enormously greater interest in this concern in Scotland than any other part of the United Kingdom? Some of my colleagues are present. I appeal for their support in my protest. It may be that at this stage this protest is ineffective in the sense that the Government has made up its mind. Well, whether or not we be saddled with this new authority is a question for which the Government must assume responsibility. So far as the immediate future is concerned, I am quite sure that anything they may do, so far as Scotland is concerned, which takes from that country her existing right of control over her own affairs, will not be disregarded in the coming weeks and months. I urge whoever is responsible for this to estimate very seriously whether it is wise in the interests and objects he has in view to get this matter pushed through at the end of the Session, when no full discussion is likely or possible, whether it might not involve those concerned in the future in far greater controversy than if the discussion were delayed until we got a Bill which could be fully discussed. If the decision is taken to-night, I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that in Scotland, there will be a very wide degree of indignation because of dealing with such matters in such a fashion, no opportunity being afforded for full discussion. I venture to assure him that the protest will assume a very woeful form if he persists in this Resolution.
    Mr. BRADY: I desire to associate myself with the last speaker in his protest against the late hour at which this Vote is taken, though perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not personally responsible for that; and, secondly, that when the
    2808
    Session is in its dying days a Vote of this importance should be introduced into the House in this fashion. This matter of afforestation is one of very great national importance to all parts of the United Kingdom. I venture to assert that there is no part of the United Kingdom in which the question of reafforestation is of more importance than in Ireland. Those of us who have studied the question are convinced that there are enormous possibilities for afforestation in Ireland, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted Irish opinion? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us as to who Mr. Ponsonby is and what are his qualifications for so important an office? I think the Irish Department of Agriculture has done something in regard to afforestation in Ireland. It may be that Ireland's financial resources are limited, and hitherto our schemes have not been on a very large scale. Therefore it is all the more important when a proposal of this kind is made that we should know what Irish opinion has been consulted, in order that we may satisfy ourselves that Irish opinion of a representative character has been consulted. I do not know whether the Rules of the House would permit the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is meant exactly by the appointment of an Irish Commission. We should be very glad to have a little more information before agreeing to this Vote.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to associate myself with the protest which has been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Millar) on this question. This Vote sets up a new authority to deal with forestry throughout the kingdom, and therefore it takes from Scotland and the Board of Agriculture there the power which that Board at present possesses of dealing with that subject. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote is acting entirely contrary to the recommendations of his own representative on the Committee which dealt with forestry, who indicated in an addendum to the Report that it was unwise to set up a separate institution to deal with forestry in the three kingdoms and yet my right hon. Friend brings up a Motion setting up a body which will deal with the three kingdoms. The Board of Agriculture was set up in 1912 with power to deal with afforestation in Scotland and yet my right hon. Friend is taking action to set up a central institution to deal with the three kingdoms, and I think that is a retrograde step. The

    2809
    Board of Agriculture in Scotland deals with small holdings which are necessarily associated with afforestation, and should this central body be set up to deal with the three kingdoms it follows that the subject of small holdings will fall into the hands of this central body and be taken from the Board of Agriculture, which has only had six years to deal with that subject. I think that is most unwise, and is contrary to the recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee. At this stage of the proceedings I feel it is impossible to override the decision which the Government have come to that a central institution should be set up, but it will be unpopular in Scotland that the Board there should be so easily overridden and that they should not be given a longer time to deal with the subject. Scotland possesses more land suitable for afforestation than any other part of the United Kingdom, and we ought to have our own Board to deal with the subject. The hon. Gentleman no doubt will say that our own Board, up till now, has been inefficient in dealing with the matter, and that must be admitted, but if that is the case of the Government, it can easily be remedied by an improvement of the Board. It is quite possible to add members and to strengthen it. There is a strong feeling in Scotland that a Scottish Board should deal with the matter, and I therefore protest against the setting up of a central institution. It will be a most expensive method of dealing with it, as the representative of the Treasury has said. It would be much better if it were left to the various nations of the Empire to deal with it.
    Sir J. FLEMING: I came into the House too late to hear all that has been said upon this Vote, but I am delighted to think that we have now made a start with regard to afforestation. I do not understand how this little Vote, asking only for £100,000, has been brought forward, and I am still less able to understand why it should be brought forward at this late hour and at this fag-end of the Session, but I can fully appreciate the fact that we are now going to begin with afforestation. It will be the time when the big scheme comes up to put everything right regarding England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. It is quite true that the possibilities of afforestation in Scotland in proportion to the acreage are far greater than in England. On the whole, the wood produced is rather better and of greater
    2810
    variety. When I heard the arguments used to-night for the separation of Scotland from England in the management of this matter, I could not help remembering that the Royal Scottish Horticultural Society, of which I have been a member for twenty years, passed a resolution the other day in Edinburgh approving of this scheme. If that body, which has been giving its attention to this vital question of afforestation for the last half-century, passes a resolution of this kind, men like myself, with such a small knowledge of the business, need not find very much fault, though I would much rather Scotland managed its own affairs, not only in afforestation, but also in everything else. But I am afraid we are scarcely ripe for that yet. I do not see that my fellow members from Scotland can continue in opposition to the commencement of this movement. By and by we will be able to have a round talk about this. Meantime, we ought to support the Government in this proposal to get the first instalment of this measure.
    Colonel GREIG: I entirely agree with what has fallen from the last speaker, namely, that we support this Vote. I am not in any sense opposed to it, but I do wish and hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us a little more definite assurance than he gave in his speech as to what the meaning and extent of this Vote will be. He told us it was provisional; he told us also there would be legislation necessary in the next Parliament or Session, whatever happens. I would like him, if he could, to say that both as regards the policy underlying any question of afforestation and as regards the form in which that new Vote is to be applied that there shall be a free hand. Anybody who has read that Report must be convinced that there are at the root of it two very conflicting principles from the point of view from which one should regard afforestation in the future. There is one which may be called the war policy, and the other which is called the commercial policy. I am not going to discuss them now, but we want to discuss them before we finally decide on what lines we are going to set up our new Afforestry Department in the different units of the Empire. What I am most anxious about—and I share this feeling with my other colleagues in Scotland—and I do not wish a conflicting authority set up in Scotland, first of all against the only Minister we have here,

    2811
    in a matter in which land settlement and all the questions of land are so intimately connected. Afforestry is bound to give rise to all those questions which in Scotland are bound up with that problem to which I have referred. In my view—I state it frankly now—do not believe you can solve the question of afforestry in Scotland unless it is controlled by somebody that deals with land settlement. If you are going to have another outside body coining in, it will conflict with the Ministry and with the Department under that Ministry. Animadversions have been given vent to in the past, and they have been referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow about the Board of Agriculture in Scotland not having performed its duties in regard to afforestry. I regard that as a wholy unjustifiable and unfounded accusation. Anybody who has studied the question must come to this conclusion, that the Act which set up that Board—now only five or six years old—provided a certain Grant for afforestation and other matters, but at the request of the Scottish Members, and under pressure from them, and with the general consent of the people in Scotland, the energies of that Board were directed not to afforestation, but to the question of land settlement. It is not true to say, also, that the Hoard has done nothing. It has set up testing stations, it has set up nurseries, it has trained men in the technique of forestry, and has made a beginning. If this Vote will encourage that and foster in the interim what has been done, nothing can be better than that it should be passed, and that this should go on. I do wish the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to-night will tell us definitely the basis of the Report, whether we are to adopt a war policy or a commercial policy; and, secondly, whether there is to be a separate institution in Scotland. I believe the Board of Agriculture to be the right one, but we do not wish Scotland to be controlled in this matter which so intimately affects us locally.
    Mr. HOGGE: I wish, in the first place, to protest as strongly as possible against the action of the Government last night in taking the preliminary stages of this Vote without consultation with any of the Members from Scotland who are concerned with this subject. I have now been a long time in this House, but I do not remember any other occasion on which
    2812
    the Government have ventured to take that course without consultation with the Members concerned. I very much regret that my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot), who used to make these arrangements, is unable to be in the House owing to an accident. But for that I am sure this discourtesy would not have been shown to the Scottish Members. I can assure the Government that they feel very keenly this attempt to rush business. In the declining days of a declining Government, when Parliament is absolutely moribund, we object to having these matters, which greatly concern our country, rushed through. I am afraid that to-night those of us who have been able to remain in the House until this time will require to take this matter to a Division. With us this is a matter of principle, and there is no other method of showing what we think about it. Therefore, unless the Government are prepared to withdraw the Vote altogether, we shall have to take the drastic action I am suggesting. In order to try to get other Members of the House—who, whatever their political views may be, will agree that the matter concerns our country very much more largely than any other country—to lend us their support in defeating the Government on this Vote, let me remind hon. Members that there is in Scotland from three to four times the area of land for the purposes of afforestation than there is in the rest of the United Kingdom. If that fact is true, and I have not yet heard it disputed by anybody on the Government Bench, it is perfectly obvious that the question of afforestation is peculiar to the country of Scotland. It is because of the geographical conditions of the subject of afforestation, and because of the fact that in Scotland you have practically all the area that can be afforested in this country, that we, as Scottish Members, whatever our political views are, insist that this arrangement which is suggested by the Treasury should be withdrawn.
    If hon. Members will take the trouble to look at the White Paper showing Class 2 of the Supplementary Estimates, they will find that this is an interim forestry authority. Why should we, within some four days, if not less, of the demise of this Parliament, be asked to pass £100,000 as a Grant towards an interim forestry authority? The footnote reads:
    "In view of the urgent necessity of increasing certain preliminary expenditure for afforestation an interim authority has been set up to carry

    2813
    out the necessary work pending the passing of legislation setting up permanent machinery for this purpose."
    I do not dispute, because I do not at present know the facts, as to whether there are any preliminary works to be done, but it all that is involved is a question of certain preliminary expenditure which may reach the sum of £100,000, let me ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Baldwin), who has a large business experience, what difficulty is there in spending such portion of that money as is required for these preliminary purposes in Scotland through the regular and authorised Board of Agriculture? If I could have an answer to that question it would perhaps shorten my remarks. I cannot for the life of me understand why, with that organisation in existence, and with a certain amount of this work—the larger amount—obviously requiring to be done in Scotland, such money as is required cannot be spent in this businesslike way. If there is no answer from that question, I assume it cannot be spent in chat way because the Government does not want it spent in that way. That is the only assumption we can make from the silence which greets that question.
    We are promised, as the result of this, a Bill next Parliament. What guarantee have we that this Government is coming back after the General Election? I should not mind if they were, but no Government which is going to the country, and coming back can guarantee that they are going to introduce a Bill on the Supplementary Estimate which is put before us to-night. I do not think we have a right to assume in a financial transaction of this kind, that the Government can implement the promise they are making, that a Bill should be introduced to carry into effect the suggestions of this Supplementary Estimate. But even if and when that Bill is introduced it will receive the strenuous opposition of the Scottish Members. We do not want this Bill. We do not want our afforestation to be controlled from Whitehall. We make the claim, and we shall emphasise it at every stage of the proceedings of the Bill, to control our own schemes of afforestation and we do that out of respect to the only Minister who represents Scotland in this Government. Scotland is represented by the Secretary for Scotland, and at the present moment the Board of Agriculture in Scotland is subject to his authority and speaks through him to this House and to the people whom we represent. This Committee
    2814
    which is suggested under this Supplementary Estimate can go to the War Cabinet, if it exists then. We have no guarantee that it will continue to exist. It certainly cannot continue to exist as a War Cabinet. It may be reformed as a Reconstruction Cabinet if we are going to have in the new Government a smaller and a larger Cabinet. If so, this new Interim Committee on Forestry can go to that Cabinet. I am glad to see that the Secretary for Scotland is in his place. It is not often that the Members on these benches spend the bulk of their time supporting his position in the Government. We are rather inclined to criticise him. On this occasion we object very strongly that he should be passed over by this Committee, which can go to the War Cabinet, and that their decisions will be put into force in Scotland probably against the will of the Board of Agriculture. I am not giving my own opinion, but the opinion of people who know. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I suppose it is not the first time that Members of this House have given expression to the opinions of their constituents, even though they do not know them. It is one of the privileges of a Member of Parliament to put the arguments of those he represents in this House. Therefore, I cannot understand why that should be a subject of laughter. Let every hon. Member who is laughing do the same thing himself. I was not expressing my own opinion, but the opinion of a Treasury expert. I have very strong opinions on forestry, and if hon. Members wait they will hear my own views as well as the views of one who sat on this Reconstruction Committee. In regard to this Reconstruction Committee I make a protest. I have in my hands a Report toy this Reconstruction Committee on Forestry, running to 105 pages, and I do not know any Scottish Member who was consulted on the subject.
    Mr. ACLAND: The forestry representative of the Scottish Board was a member.
    Mr. HOGGE: I said a Scottish Member, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he would listen to the criticism and not interrupt. I know he is chairman. That is why he knows so little about the respective people on this Committee. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter so far as the Members for Scotland are concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman will learn before he has done with the

    2815
    chairmanship of this Committee and before he gets this money, and before he gets his Bill. After all the Scottish Members stand for something. They know their own views, and the opinions of the people they represent, and they are not going to be laughed at or interrupted by English Members who do not know.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member address himself to the matter before the House? He is talking at large now. He has said over and over again during the last five minutes that he was going to quote something. Will he quote it?
    Mr. HOGGE: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I usually follow any suggestion from the Chair with great alacrity. I was going to quote, but I was prevented from quoting by the irrelevant interruptions of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not agree that the hon. Member was interrupted. He was prevented by his own interruptions.
    Mr. HOGGE: I respectfully differ from you on that point. If it had been a point of Order, I would not have questioned your ruling, but I do differ from you upon your interpretation. My point is whether or not we should have this separate authority, and I would remind the Committee of the reservations which are appended to this Report; in the Report itself you find reservations made by a very eminent authority who certainly knows something about the subject. He points out the evil of creating an entirely new central authority to control afforestation in the United Kingdom. Is any weight given to reservations of that kind, especially when they are backed up by the majority opinion of the Scottish Members from an area of country in the United Kingdom which is far and away the largest area concerned with forestry? This Report goes on to say that the difficulty of controlling operations in Scotland from London is going to be very great. That is the crux of the position, so far as we are concerned.
    Other Bills have been introduced during the past few days in which arrangements are made for controlling in Scotland other matters of as great public importance as this. For instance, in connection with the Ministry of Health it is proposed to set up a separate Department for Scotland and to provide it with a new secretary, which is an absolute innovation, so far as Bills in
    2816
    this House are concerned, and at the very moment when the Government, with a commonsense which is not always a feature of what they do, are proposing, with reference to the Ministry of Health, to give my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland the help of a new Department and a new Minister they are taking away from him under this Supplementary Estimate the control of one of the greatest national features in Scotland. Afforestation in Scotland is linked up with the question of small holdings. We are at present in Scotland, under an Act of Parliament administered through the Secretary for Scotland, attempting to establish small holdings in Scotland, and one reason more than any other why the effort has not been fully successful is that we have not been able to associate small holdings with schemes of afforestation. Every Scottish Member agrees that the one thing necessary for the successful establishment of small holdings is to associate them with afforestation. Where are we going to be if we get this Board of Control Committee in London presided over by a right hon. Gentleman who does not know Scotland and does not understand Scottish opinion, which will have the power not only to buy land for small holdings but to have schemes of afforestation in Scotland, while in the same breath the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House tell us that after the War they are going to give us a scheme by which Scotland, along with other nations, will have control of its own affairs, and you are proposing to set up in the last week of this Parliament an interim Committee, to be followed by a Bill in the new Parliament, which nobody can guarantee, under an authority centralised in Whitehall. If the Government think that the scheme is going through in this Parliament without the strenuous and consistent opposition of every Scotsman who loves his country they are mistaken. We are going to have our own scheme of afforestation in Scotland, and to have it associated with our schemes of small holdings. We are going to re-people our own country under the exercise of our own powers, and, in order to show that we mean that from the beginning, we shall divide on this Report if the necessity should arise.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I do not know whether, as a Scottish Member, I dare venture to support the Estimate before the House. That is what I wish to do. After all the thing which in Scotland

    2817
    really matters is to see the trees planted, and to see that done at the earliest possible moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "When the Department is created."] Even before the Department is created. This is not the first time I have taken an interest in this subject. Ever since I came to the House, year by year I have raised this subject of afforestation, recognising that it is one which is vital to any land settlement in Scotland, and vital to any real development of the latent resources of Scotland. Moreover this question, though it is one that interests the United Kingdom as a whole, is peculiarly a Scottish question. There is land which is suitable for afforestation in England and Wales, and there is more in Ireland, but there is infinitely more in Scotland. As one Royal Commission has estimated, I do not pin myself to the accuracy of the estimate, one-fourth of the surface of Scotland can be more profitably used for afforestation than it could be for any other purpose, and if it is used for afforestation it will not double the population or treble it, but in many cases multiply it by ten. This question is also intimately linked up with the whole question of the further development of small holdings in Scotland, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has just said. You cannot have a vast development of small holdings in Scotland without an auxiliary industry, and you cannot have economic holdings without the development of this great industry, which in Continental countries has led to such extensive and widespread development of small holdings. Seeing that this is so peculiarly a Scottish question, I should naturally prefer that it was developed by a Scottish Department, but as a Scottish Member, I am sorry to have to confess that the chief obstacle which we have had to the development of afforestation in Scotland has not been any central authority, and has not been the Imperial Government, but has been the Scottish Board of Agriculture which has resolutely, during the four years before the War, set itself against any development of agriculture on Scottish lines by Scottish resources. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland at the present time for the delay. He has shown himself most sympathetic with the development of afforestation in Scotland. Unfortunately, owing to war conditions, he was not able to put his sympathy into practice. What is the reason for this opposition
    2818
    to the development of agriculture in Scotland coming chiefly from the Scottish Department? The reason is that which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig). There was a superstition on the part of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and, I am sorry to say, on the part of many Scottish members, that afforestation was merely a means of shelving small holdings, and that it was not an auxiliary policy, but was an opposition policy—a policy of those opposed to small holdings.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Landlords.
    Mr. SCOTT: And when the Scottish Small Holdings Bill was passed, including as it did a grant of £200,000 a year for the purposes, among others, of afforestation and small holdings, the Scottish Board of Agriculture resolutely, and by determined policy, refused to spend a single penny of that money upon afforestation. It said this money must all be spent upon the direct creation of small holdings. But it could not spend the money upon small holdings. It found the machinery too cumbersome. It found the cost of acquiring the land too cumbersome, and, instead of spending money on afforestation, it deliberately accumulated money year after year in the bank, until it had accumulated large reserves, and then when war came the Treasury said, "You are getting a Grant of £200,000 a year for purposes of Scottish agriculture which you are not spending, and you have a good bank balance. In view of the economic necessities of the War, we will suspend your £200,000 a year, and you can live upon your bank balance." That is what the Scottish Board of Agriculture has been doing since the beginning of the War, and I am sorry to say I see little chance of substantial progress being made in afforestation if left entirely to the Scottish Office.
    There is another matter which influences me just now. Before the War this was peculiarly a Scottish question, but since the War a new development has taken place. It is no longer a purely Scottish question. It is an Imperial question, limber has become an Imperial question, and it is necessary for Imperial purposes to have all the land, wherever it is, afforested. In view of the Imperial necessity, I see some chance of getting the trees planted in Scotland—and that is really the thing that matters—at the earliest possible moment. What does it matter if we get a separate Department for Scotland just

    2819
    now? We have not got Scottish Home Rule just now. This separate Department would be responsible to this House, which consists of 670 Members, out of whom only 70 are Scottish. Let us get a move on as quickly as we can. Let us support any means whereby we can get the trees planted and the land developed. Later on Scottish Home Rule is coming. That is inevitable, and, when it does come, then we can settle what share we in Scotland are going to take in the development of the resources of our country. In the interests of Scotland, as a Scottish Member and as a Scottish Home Ruler, I urge that we support whatever measures will secure the planting of trees at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think everybody in the House will recognise the sincere desire of my hon. Friend who has just spoken to promote afforestation in Scotland. He has made many speeches in this House on this subject, and I think we will all agree he has been, with the present Governor-General of Australia, one of the pioneers in promoting afforestation in our country. Naturally all of us who have listened to him are inclined to give the greatest weight to all the considerations he has put before the House. I regret, however, very much that on this occasion I find myself at variance with him in the practical conclusions which he has drawn. What is the situation in regard to afforestation so far as Scotland is concerned? We as Scottish Members are bound to look at this matter from the Scottish point of view. We know, as a matter of fact, that there is already existing in Scotland a Department which has power to deal with this very important problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott) has reminded this Committee that when the Small Holdings Act and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland were set up special provision was made for afforestation in Scotland. I agree with my hon. Friend that certain hindrances have been placed in the way and that there have not been shown, in respect of that Department in Scotland, that activity which we would all have liked to see. Undoubtedly we have to face the fact that there is at the present moment in existence with Scottish administration a Department which has by legislation had thrown upon it the function of dealing with this question of afforestation in
    2820
    Scotland. It may be true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that up to the present it has not acted as it ought to have acted, but even admitting that that is so, we are now called upon to say whether having a Department absolutely in existence in Scotland we should by a vote of this House in Committee of Supply supersede that Department. It is a very extraordinary proceeding on the strength of an interim Report dealing with the whole of the United Kingdom, to propose to interfere with a Department which relates exclusively to Scotland. Before doing that we ought to know exactly what is the position of the Secretary for Scotland in the matter. We should like to know whether he is in agreement with this proposal. Up to the present moment he has not enlightened his Scottish colleagues in this Debate. It is true my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire, who is private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman, has made a very interesting speech.
    Colonel GREIG: I have spoken entirely for myself and from my own point of view. Anything I have said to-night is entirely on my own account, and has nothing whatever to do with the Scottish Office.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I expected that that was the position of my hon. and learned Friend. I only alluded to his speech by way of illustration. He has made a very interesting and valuable contribution to the Debate. I expected that after his speech we should have some guidance from the Secretary for Scotland as to the attitude of the Scottish Office towards this matter. As Scottish Members, we may be excused for taking so special an interest in afforestation, for Scotland, in proportion to area, has more land available for that purpose than any other part of the United Kingdom. The urgency of the problem in Scotland has been recognised by having a representative on the Board of Agriculture who is specially charged with the question of afforestation. In these circumstances we naturally want to know why in this, almost the fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour of the thirty-first day of the twelfth month of the last year of an expiring Parliament, we should have a Vote put down as a
    "Supplementary Estimate of a further sum required to be paid for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1919—£100,000—for an Interim Forestry Department."
    I can understand why there should be some desire for the first time to deal with

    2821
    this question in regard to England, but why should there be a desire to set up an interim authority in regard to Scotland, where you already have a permanent statutory authority? I doubt very much whether it is competent for this House on a Supplementary Estimate in Supply to supersede a statutory authority by an interim authority. I do not know whether the Government has really considered that point, or whether the Secretary for Scotland has considered it. Undoubtedly the whole problem of afforestation was under the consideration of the Government in 1914, when the Small Holdings (Scotland) Act was passed. It was in view of the importance of afforestation and the closeness of its relation to the extension of small holdings in Scotland that a special Small Holdings Committee was set up under that Act for Scotland. Why should we now have this supplementary Estimate? I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), who has held some very important posts in the Government at various times and who has shown great administrative ability in all those offices. But I remember that his recommendations in regard to the Luxury Tax have now been thrown on the scrap heap. That is by way of illustration. He is now put up as the chairman of the interim forestry authority and he has to deal with problems of afforestation in Scotland with which he has had, up to the present, absolutely no acquaintance whatever. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I do not wish to disparage the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, but so far as the country which I represent is concerned I think it is quite clear to us that he has had no special experience. We must remember that the representative appointed by the Treasury on the special Reconstruction Committee which deals with forestry has made a very strong recommendation against the course which the Government is now adopting. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is going to reply, but I should be very much surprised if he, as a representative of the Treasury, were to throw over the recommendations of the very distinguished gentleman appointed by his Department to look after the interests of the Treasury on this special Sub-committee on Reconstruction. Up to the present we have heard nothing from the Secretary for Scotland as to his own view, and I think we are entitled to hear
    2822
    from him what is the view of the Scottish Office on this question. We want to know whether, before this Report was promulgated, his Department had considered this problem or not, and, if so, whether they had any schemes in view and had taken any practical steps towards putting their proposals into operation. These are most relevant considerations for the House to have in mind before assenting to this Vote.
    12.0 M.
    I do not wish to go into details as to the special aspects of this question as it relates to Scotland, but we all know that the whole problem has been revolutionised by the special committees arising out of the War. It is true that many of the areas which were capable of being afforestated in Scotland are areas in which the kind of timber which can be grown is timber which could not be profitably grown on an economic basis before the War; but this has now been altered. The whole question of the importation of timber is fundamentally altered by the rate of freights which prevail, and which are likely to continue for a considerable time under the shortage of tonnage, which affects not only this country but every other country in the world. Under these circumstances, the areas capable of afforestation in Scotland have an importance which in the past could not possibly be assigned to them altogether out of relation to the importance of afforest-able areas in other parts of the Kingdom. We have a Department in Scotland in existence with a Commissioner whose special duty it is to deal with this question. Why, therefore, should there be this Vote now put before this House? It is a Vote of £100,000 for afforestation, and we have this footnote:
    "In view of the urgent necessity of incurring certain preliminary expenditure for afforestation purposes an interim authority has been set up to carry out the necessary work pending the passage of legislation to establish permanent machinery for this purpose."
    I should like to know why we are to have this interim authority dealing with the situation in Scotland at all. There is an authority in Scotland at present and you are paying for it, and why should we pay for an authority to supersede it? If there is any money to be spent it should not be expended on officials so far as Scotland is concerned, but on the actual work of getting seeds, selecting areas, and the planting of trees. You have

    2823
    officials already in Scotland, and why should you supersede them by a new authority? To that no answer has been given up to the present in the course of this discussion, and I think it is due to the House that the Secretary for Scotland should make a statement now and tell us what the Department is doing for which he is responsible, whether it is inadequate, and to what extent, and why it is necessary that it should be superseded by a central authority. The Secretary for Scotland has been associated with me in many schemes for the decentralisation of control in Scotland, and I once drafted a Bill along with him for Home Rule for Scotland, and it is not only with surprise but with sorrow and regret, that I now find him allowing an interim afforestation authority to take over powers which are conferred on a Department subordinate to him. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to-night to assert the rights of Scotland, to vindicate the Department for which he is responsible, and decline to allow any interim authority to interfere with the work of afforestation in Scotland.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: As the Secretary for Scotland shows no indication that he proposes to respond to what I think was a very powerful appeal addressed to him by my hon. Friend and colleague opposite (Mr. Pringle), I rise to say a word or two with regard to this Estimate. I wish to enter my protest against the course which the Government has followed in connection with this Estimate. The Committee stage of the Estimate was taken last night at a moment when Members who are deeply interested in the question were absent. It was taken without notice. I want also to point out something much more remarkable. Finding that the members who had not had notice that it was going to be taken were absent, the Government took the Committee stage without one word of explanation, so that when we received the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of this House to-day, we find no explanation whatever, such as would have enabled us to criticise from the basis of knowledge the proposal which the Government have to make. In making this protest I am not accusing the Secretary for Scotland of any intentional discourtesy to his colleagues. I am sure that he, like the House, had been rushed by the Government. It is an action for which I am sure the Secretary for Scotland is in no way responsible. It is so alien to all his
    2824
    traditions. It is a proposal of a most preposterous character. If the Secretary for Scotland is going to get up to defend his colleagues—I can quite understand his extreme reluctance to perform such a repugnant task—he will find it difficult to point to any parallel where such an amount of money is voted for a scheme which has not been defined and which depends upon subsequent legislation to be passed in a subsequent House of Commons before it can be carried out.
    What is the legislation that we are promised? I desire to express my agreement with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) who pointed out that this Government cannot claim successive immortality. It may be dissolved, and it may not return. I am one of those who hope it will not return. Is it not trifling with the country and with this House to ask for this blank cheque in order to carry out, through an authority not yet constituted, powers which depend upon an Act of Parliament which cannot be brought forward or will not be brought forward in this Parliament, but is relegated to the unknown future. This action on this important question is without any parallel even in the extraordinary records of the present Government. Let me summarise what it is we ask the Secretary for Scotland to secure for us. We do not want the Government of the day, above all, this Government, to nominate for us in Scotland an authority to deal with this question, over which we have no control. This question which is most intimately connected with the local government of Scotland, should be controlled by Scotland. This proposal by the Government, and the form in which it is introduced, is alien to that for which we stand. It is the negation of all that we strive for in connection with self-government in Scotland. Therefore, as a Scottish Member, I make my protest against the action of the Government. I make my protest, also, because I believe it to be an infringement of the privileges of this House, and also because of the conduct of the Government, which has been marked not by straightforward action in the way this Estimate has been brought forward, and the way the preliminary stages were yesterday rushed through Committee. I am very glad indeed that we shall have the opportunity in the Division Lobby of showing how strongly we feel about the way we have been treated.
    Sir J. BARRAN: I rise to make very briefly, not a protest, but what I hope will be even more useful, a suggestion. Listening to the latter part of this Debate I very fully realise the difficulty and embarrassment in which in this matter we are placed. I quite see that the Government are pledged to take prompt action, and I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow that prompt action should be taken. I am only sorry that action has not been taken more promptly. At the same time the arguments used by the hon. Member for Lanark have a weight which, I am sure, has not been lost upon the Government Bench. My suggestion would be: would it not be possible for the Secretary for Scotland to consider the advisability of not pressing this Vote at present? The objections to taking it in this form are manifest. We expect that, at any rate, within the next few months a new Parliament will be sitting. Why should my right hon. Friend not agree, without any prejudice to the discussion on this matter on its merits at the earliest possible moment in the new Parliament, to refrain from pressing the Vote now? Such a course would be meeting in an honourable and practical spirit the difficulty which is felt, and felt strongly, by many who have spoken, and who represent various constituencies in Scotland. If my right hon. Friend will consider that suggestion in a friendly spirit it will, I think, have the effect of not retarding in any sensible degree the carrying out of the scheme, which we all recognise is of urgent importance, and at the same time it will meet the practical difficulties which have been impressed upon him with so much cogency by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. I hope my right hon. Friend may be disposed to give my suggestion favourable consideration.
    Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend has asked me to say a few words as he is not able to speak again, and the Secretary of Scotland has just intimated, too, that he would like me to do so, I take the opportunity, therefore, of intervening to say a word or two as to my own position in this matter. I happen to have the honour of being chairman of the Reconstruction Committee that went into the question some time ago. We were appointed, I think, in the summer of 1916. We reported in the spring of 1917. The Government made up its mind in the summer of 1918. When I was informed of the decision of the War Cabinet on the
    2826
    matter, part of that decision, I found, was that I should be asked to do my best by advice to assist in the steps which the War Cabinet had decided it was necessary to take. I was, unfortunately, only graded B2 during the War: therefore, I thought it right to do anything which the Government asked me to do during the War period—and this came within the War period—and there was, therefore, no question at all but that this being a matter which, as chairman of this Committee, I had gone into very, very carefully, I should do my best to follow out the request of the Government.
    There really is some urgency for action to be taken to co-ordinate the efforts of existing authorities, and I am sorry we have got on to questions concerning Scotland so much, because there is a great deal more to be said on the general merits of the question. But there are one or two questions which have been asked on which I could remove misconceptions. For instance, there has been a misconception as to the position of the Secretary for Scotland. It had certainly never come into my mind in the discussions I had with him, and they have been numerous, or with other members of the Government, that his position and opinions were going to be ignored or given the go by. He told me the other day that the Cabinet, in deciding on the matter, had very properly decided that the interim authority should work in close touch with all existing authorities, and I took it for granted that when we worked in co-operation with and with a desire to help the efforts of the Scottish Board of Agriculture if any difference of opinion of any kind arises the matter would be considered by the Secretary for Scotland, and it would be only after he had expressed his views that there would be any question at all of this appeal to the War Cabinet which has been decided upon. I do not conceive that under the procedure which has been laid down for the operations of the interim authority there can be any possibility of ignoring the perfectly right and proper position in this matter of the Secretary for Scotland. I certainly look forward to working with him in every possible way. We have had some preliminary meetings of the body which has been appointed—
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. ACLAND: We decided, as our first act, to go to Scotland and ask the Board to see us, and to see, so that we might consult with them, whether in any way we could really help them with regard to this difficult matter of forestry. With regard to Ireland, the question has been asked as to the Irish representation. I consulted the Board of Agriculture in Ireland and the Chief Secretary, and naturally the suggestion they made was accepted. I believe Mr. Ponsonby is a very useful member of the Agricultural Wages Board in Ireland, and has done very good work there. He is interested in agriculture, and certainly knows a great deal of forestry. He is a colleague anyone would be proud to work with.
    The only other point I want to make clear is this: I do not think it would be right for us to regard the authority under which we now work as in any way committing the House to a final decision as to how the general final policy of the Government with regard to afforestation ought to be carried out. I can say that when the Bill comes forward the matter will be as open for their decision as it is now. I place as axiomatic only two things—first, that the State in the future in one way or another is going to take the question of planting on big lines really seriously, and in tackling it they want to avoid big mistakes. There has always been a suspicion that State action in afforestry has been misguided, and if tackled by the State in a big way it is very important that mistakes should be avoided. Starting from this assumption, that land is to be secured, if land is to be secured, it is very necessary to look into the question of where those areas ought to be. If this matter is regarded as a matter for Scotland alone, undoubtedly there will be far less chance of securing large areas in Scotland than if the matter was considered from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Scotland can do far more than provide timber for its own needs. It can provide timber for the greater part of the needs of the United Kingdom as well; and there is undoubtedly more chance for Scotland providing for the needs of the United Kingdom if the representatives of the United Kingdom have, at any rate, some say in the survey and selection of those areas.
    One word as to the argument put forward that we might as well postpone this matter for two or three months. There is
    2828
    no certainty that legislation will be passed in two or three months. The latest time for seeds to be planted is the end of May.
    Mr. HOGGE: Next year?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes; the latest stage at which seeds can be planted is the end of May next year. I did not think I had been talking about May this year. Seeds must be collected now. Every effort should be made to obtain stocks of the most necessary seeds of this country. The Douglas fir and the spruce have already shed their seeds, as far as this country is concerned. If a supply of these seeds is to be obtained for planting before the end of May, we have to take advantage of foreign supplies, and get to work to collect supplies in foreign countries. It is the same with larch. The only hope of using this planting period of next spring is to start at once, with very large measures of seed collection. As I see that my hon. Friends, to whom I did my best to listen with quietness and courtesy, are engaged entirely in conversation, I shall not continue the argument, which does not seem to interest them. But I can only say, with regard to that matter, with regard to collecting seeds and planting, with regard to starting schemes for the training of forest officers and foresters, with regard to schemes of research, and in very many other matters, there is a great deal that a central authority can do to help the efforts of existing authorities, which is all we are going to do, and what we hope to do. And I believe that those very authorities themselves, the Boards of Agriculture in England and Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, with whom we have entered already into the most friendly relations, will be the very first to appreciate the efforts which we hope to be able to make, and forward these efforts in this extremely important matter.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but after the invitations to do so, which I have received from my Scottish colleagues, I agree that it would be only courteous that I should say a few words in explanation of my views with regard to the questions before the House. I quite recognise the strength of the opposition which has been shown by my colleagues with regard to this Vote. I think that they will bear me out when I say that on all occasions I have endeavoured, so far as I can, to meet their views,

    2829
    not only with regard to this, but on all other questions. I fully recognise also that this question is a very important question for the Scottish people, for, in respect of the afforestable area, Scotland is larger than England or Ireland. Therefore, the Scottish interest in this question is not only justifiable, but perfectly natural. There has been no question whatever of rushing this Vote through. It has been suggested that the Vote was taken last night at a time when most Members were not in the House—
    Mr. HOGGE: Without notice.
    Mr. MUNRO: It was taken with full notice. The Vote was on the Order Paper. If my hon. Friends were not present that cannot be said to be the fault of the Government. Full notice was given that the Vote was to be taken. My hon. Friends knew that it was to be taken. They had the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter at length—I do not say at too great length.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: We had no Government statement last night.
    Mr. MUNRO: There was no one here to ask for a Government statement last night, but a full Government statement has been made to-night, and it has been dealt with fully in Debate. This question has not been brought before the House without the very fullest consideration. In the first place, there was the Committee of which my right hon. Friend opposite is Chairman which explored the question with fulness and with care. I have their Report which has been presented. It was considered, first, by a Cabinet Committee at considerable length, as I know, because I had the privilege of attending the Cabinet Committee and discussing the matter very fully, and after it had been discussed by the Cabinet Committee the matter came before the War Cabinet, which, after giving the matter full consideration, authorised the setting up of this interim authority. It was recognised by the War Cabinet that what was done was done for the purpose of making certain preliminary arrangements for the development of afforestation. There was no question before the War Cabinet, nor is there before the House to-night, of a permanent forestry authority in this country. The minute of the War Cabinet, which I have before me, expressly bears out that what was sanctioned was the setting up of an interim authority to make certain necessary
    2830
    preliminary arrangements with regard to afforestation in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. WATT: Do you agree with that?
    Mr. MUNRO: I was not present at the War Cabinet, and I am not a member of the War Cabinet, as my hon. Friend knows. The second point which the War Cabinet decided was that until legislation was passed the interim authority should work through the existing agencies in touch with the various Departments concerned—that is to say, with the three Boards of Agriculture in the three parts of the United Kingdom—and in order to meet the point which has been made by several of my hon. Friends tonight that a policy might be adopted by the interim authority which was not approved, say, in Scotland, it was expressly provided that in the event of difference of opinion between the interim authority and the existing Boards of Agriculture there should be a right of appeal to the War Cabinet. But apart from that provision altogether, I do not anticipate, knowing my right hon. Friend opposite as I do, that in a conference between us any such difference of opinion would really arise and I do not think that the right of appeal which has been provided by the decision of the War Cabinet will have to be invoked because, after many conferences with my right hon. Friend, I am really assured that his point of view and mine with regard to afforestation in Scotland will not differ.
    I would like to mention to the House this further point, that, so far as the personnel of the authority which is being set up is concerned, Scotland comes out of it uncommonly well. In the first place, we have upon the interim authority Lord Lovat, who has more knowledge of afforestation in Scotland than almost any other Scot with whom I am acquainted. I do not think anyone will doubt his expert knowledge and his enthusiasm for the development of afforestation in Scotland. Further, upon the Committee is Colonel Fotheringham, of Murthly Castle, who lately provided the equipment of the forestry school which I had hoped to open in Scotland last Saturday, but which I was prevented from doing by urgent business in London. He is also a member of the Committee, and, as if that were not enough, my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott) is another representative from Scotland. I think, therefore, that my

    2831
    hon. Friends who come from Scotland, and whose views I share, may rest assured that the Scottish point of view in the determination of these matters will be fully represented upon the interim authority—
    Mr. HOGGE: But that is not what we want.
    Mr. MUNRO:—upon the authority which will act in consultation with myself, and if, contrary to my expectation, there should be any difference of opinion in policy, then, as I say, an appeal to the War Cabinet lies. I should like to point out, if I may, to my hon. Friends from Scotland, that the Debate to-night has very largely proceeded upon what I think I may describe as a mistaken view that we are deciding a permanent question or setting up a permanent authority for afforestation in Scotland. The Debate, in other words, would have been entirely appropriate to a Second Reading Debate upon the Bill, which will, in the next Parliament, I assume, be brought in to set up a permanent authority. That is not the case now, and the Debate is largely a misrepresentation of the circumstances in which we find our-selves to-night, because the only proposal now is that an interim authority should be set up for certain preliminary arrangements. The House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing, of debating, and of turning down, if they think fit, any Bill which may be introduced in a future Parliament for the purpose of setting up permanent arrangements.
    Mr. WATT: Some of us will not be here.
    Mr. MUNRO: That may of course be, though I sincerely hope my hon. Friend will be here or I shall miss him very much. If he is not, however that may be, there will still be an hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It will be a sad story if he is not here.
    Mr. MUNRO: At any rate you must remember that you will have the fullest opportunity of debating and discussing the Bill if and when it is introduced, and of impressing your views regarding it. The only question to-night is whether in the meantime, for the purpose of carrying through certain necessary preliminary arrangements, this Vote should be passed. I will appeal, if I may, to my Scottish colleagues to let this Vote pass on this assurance that there will be no prejudice
    2832
    to the fullest discussion and determination of the important topic which will then arise, namely, whether or no there shall be a permanent authority of this nature set up for the purpose of administering afforestation in Scotland and England and Ireland. Having in view that the Vote does not prejudice that great and important question, I hope this Vote will now be allowed to pass.
    Mr. GULLAND: I confess I am rather at a loss to understand the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. I understood that he took quite a different line. I find that in the House, on Scottish Estimates on 4th July of this year on this very important topic, he made this important statement—
    "I may say that every recommendation which the Board has made during the last eighteen months or so, I think without exception, has received effect at the hands of the Development Commission. I am really at a loss to suggest any better arrangement that can be made at this time than the system under which we are working at the Board of Agriculture and the Development Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1918, col. 1946, Vol. 107.]
    Now the Secretary for Scotland comes down, throws over what he said so recently as July, and says that the ideal scheme is one of a temporary Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. MUNRO: My right hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. I did not say this was an ideal scheme; I said it was a temporary working arrangement.
    Mr. HOGGE: You have said the other thing as well.
    Mr. GULLAND: I do not want to labour the point, but I say that in July the right hon. Gentleman could not suggest any better arrangement, and now he talks about this temporary arrangement which he commends to the House, of a Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend. I have the greatest faith and confidence in my right hon. Friend, and the greatest praise for all the splendid work he has done during the war. But Scotland wants her own body—that is the whole point, and I really must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are getting rather tired of all this timidity, of having reports to the War Cabinet and reports back again. We want this thing done in Scotland, and I really would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to divest himself of any authority that has been put upon the shoulders of the Secretary for

    2833
    Scotland. I beg of him that he should not be content with a temporary Committee. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this temporary Committee to make preliminary arrangements, and the case of the right hon. Gentleman here appears to be that he has bought a large number of seeds which he wants to plant. If you are going to plant these seeds in a specially selected place, I suggest that you have initiated your policy. Before you plant the seed you must have fixed the ground where it is to be put in. I want to say, too, that one hears all the time about a planting scheme in the North of Scotland and in the Highlands. I suggest that full consideration should be given to the South of Scotland, where there are large tracts of country just as suitable for planting as there are in the North. I rise to join in the appeal which has been made to the Secretary for Scotland to withdraw this Vote, and let us, or at any rate those of us who return here, discuss the matter when the Bill is produced. We have had to wait years when these Committees have been reporting and reporting; let us wait a little longer and get the thing put on a proper basis instead of having this temporary arrangement which apparently pleases no one.
    Mr. KING: This Debate has now gone on for two hours and a quarter, and at this late hour it is certain that many of the important speeches will not be reported in to-morrow's papers. I would also like to observe that though in the Vote apparently there is no reason why Scotland should be singled out for special favour in the money allocated, yet there have been ten speeches from Scottish Members, only one from an Irishman, and so far only two from English Members. I hope that the money for afforestation is not going to be given in that proportion. I certainly think that there is in some way more need for afforestation in England than in Scotland, partly because Scotland has already an authority and has already done, or ought to have done, a good deal in this direction, and also because I think there are more districts available in England and accessible for afforestation—areas that are yet unopened for afforestation. I was very disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland). He seemed to be addressing his remarks to two or three Scottish Members, and when he observed that they did not attend he desisted. He did not look around him or he would have
    2834
    observed myself and many other Members waiting most anxiously upon his remarks, and I assure him that it was a great disappointment and a great disadvantage to us that we had not the benefit of his enlightenment upon this subject. In the few remarks that he made, and which he cut short so unfortunately, he spoke about gathering seeds.
    I would suggest that a real systematic effort be made to gather seeds. I believe it could be done; in fact, I have done a little in that way myself sometimes, because I have been planting seeds of trees. There is nothing more easy than to organise children in any village to gather any amount of seeds that would be available for a certain class of trees. Another thing I should like to suggest in this connection is that seedlings be collected. I walked through the wood the other day for about two miles and must have seen hundreds, and probably thousands, of young seedlings, one or two years old, that could be taken up and collected and planted again in places where such trees would eventually have grown. I want to know whether all the organising power and opportunity which is being made in so many Departments—in gathering things suitable for munitions, in collecting animal food, and so forth—cannot be used here. Why cannot these efforts which have been admirably organised in certain districts be organised in the interests of afforestation? There is nothing, I think, that so feeds the imagination of the young and is so attractive as the planting of trees, more especially of trees that the youth who has been engaged in collecting and planting will in years to come see as great and splendid timber. These are ideas that may be followed out to a considerable extent, but at this late hour I shall not attempt to do it. I will only conclude by saying that these Scottish Members have practically monopolised this Debate, but that they are not going to monopolise the money. I hope that will be clearly understood. Scotland is not going to occupy all the efforts of this authority. I am sure that a great deal of work can be done, and if taken up in the right spirit and the right way possibly something will be achieved.
    Mr. BYRNE: I join with my Friends from Scotland in protesting against this matter being rushed through to-night. One of my hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench said that Scotland wants

    2835
    its own body to deal with this matter. I agree that Scotland should have its own body to deal with this matter, but so should Ireland. I cannot understand why Ireland should only have one representative on this Committee. In all matters affecting Ireland you always give the least possible representation. I think the Chief Secretary will agree with me that on any Committee dealing with any matter affecting Ireland one man is regarded as sufficient. I ask the right hon. Gentleman

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1916–17.
  [For Text of Resolutions see OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 12th November, cols. 2628–30.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [12th NOVEMBER].
  Resolutions reported.
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £10 to be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, the sum of £702,656,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Baldwin.
  2836
  in charge of this matter to give Ireland proper representation. Ireland would like three members at least. This gentleman, Mr. Ponsonby, may be an expert as they say he is, but he is not capable of looking after all Ireland in this matter. I would ask the Chief Secretary to impress on the Government to give Ireland more representation.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 11.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES.

  [12.47 a.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Anderson, G. K. (Canterbury)

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

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Jodrell, Neville Paul

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  McCalmont, Colonel Robert C. A.

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

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

  Cotton, H. E. A.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur Harold

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Colonel

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Sanders and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

  Newman, Major John R. P. (Enfield)

  NOES.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Byrne, Alfred

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Mr. Duncan Millar and Mr. Hogge.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,—"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen and one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [12th NOVEMBER].

    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) [MONEY].
    Resolution reported,
    "That it is expedient to authorise further provision, out of moneys provided by Parliament, for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police and for pensions allowances and gratuities to members of those forces, their widows, and children and for other purposes in connection therewith.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    1.0 A.M.
    Mr. BRADY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who

    2837
    is responsible for this Resolution, to give the House some idea of its purport. For that reason I rise immediately, and as the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to do that, perhaps I may, even at this late hour, occupy the time of the House for a very few moments to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two. In consequence of the indefiniteness and vagueness of the Resolution which is put from the Chair, it is rather difficult for us to know at this stage what the ambit of its intended payments will be. The Money Resolution which has been read gives no indication of the specific sum which it is proposed to allocate for the purposes of this Bill, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, I should like to know whether, in addition to those who might be described as the active serving members of the two police forces in Ireland, namely, the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the pensioners of both forces are intended to be included in the measure which the Chief Secretary hopes to introduce to the House. I have no authority to speak for the service members as I shall call them, but certainly I have a very full authority to speak for the pensioners of both forces. During the early part of the evening a great deal of criticism was offered from these benches on the action from time to time of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Unfortunately such are the conditions in Ireland that certainly Nationalist Members, and I think my hon. Friends above the Gangway, find that the police force in Ireland occupies a very different position from that occupied by the police in this country. But I do not propose to go into these controversial matters to-night, beyond saying that, even if we Nationalist Members find ourselves in complete disagreement with police methods, we, at the same time, hope we are fair enough to recognise that a man, whether he be a policeman or a civilian, ought to be paid for his work. I think I shall satisfy the House in a few moments that the pensioners of neither force are adequately remunerated, considering the very valuable work which they have done in Ireland. When I tell the House that the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are fixed by an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1883, thirty-five years ago, I think I have said
    2838
    enough to satisfy the House that the pensions should be adjusted and considerably increased. At the present moment some 8,000 pensioners come within the scope of the pension scheme, and I am informed that the full pension paid to retired policemen of either force in Ireland is £48. I have reason to-think that the Chief Secretary would not be opposed to these pensions being revised, but that the difficulty rather lies with the Treasury. I have gone into the matter with some care, and I find that if the entire demands of these pensioners were conceded it would not amount to more than £120,000 a year at the very-start, and that in a very short time that sum would be very materially decreased by deaths.
    It is not unprofitable to contrast the treatment that police pensioners receive in this country with that which obtains in Ireland. I have here a Return, which I believe is accurate, and I find that a head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary is entitled to a pension of £69 6s. 8d. I may mention that a head constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary is of the same rank as an inspector in the English police force. An inspector in Liverpool—a city which I take as being closely analogous to the city of Dublin—draws a pension, or drew a pension in the year 1913, of £113 6s. 8d. Similarly, a sergeant in the Irish force draws a pension to-day of £53 14s. 8d., whilst a sergeant of equal rank in the Liverpool police force, in 1913—I will show the House why I emphasise that year—drew £79 13s. 8d. Lastly, an ordinary constable in Ireland draws a pension of £46 16s., whilst a constable of similar rank in the city of Liverpool drew a pension of £67 12s. in the year 1913. But the point I want to make is that these English 1913 pensions have been very materially increased from time to time and have been increased as recently as a few weeks ago. It will be within the recollection of the House that, on the 24th of last month, the Home Secretary (Sir George Cave) introduced a Supplementary Vote in this House for the London police. He went into the figures somewhat in greater detail than I hope to do to-night, and pointed out that, in addition to the fixed pensions they were paid, which range from 30s. upwards and amounted on the average to 37s. 2d.—and the pension rates are estimated at 25 per cent. of the pay—constables are now receiving an average weekly pay and allowance of £3 13s. 4d. a week,

    2839
    or, with the value of increased pension rights, £4 6s. 10d. The only other reference I will make to the Home Secretary's speech is to read this one short sentence from it. He said:
    "With regard to the Vote now before the House, I can only add that the police authorities outside London have been encouraged to raise their scale of pay so as to bring it, where necessary, into accord with the present circumstances."
    If that was the advice tendered by a very responsible Minister of the Government to outside police forces in this country, when the police pensions are being applied by the Government in Ireland they ought to practice what they preach. I certainly think that an unanswerable case has been made out. I do not wish to weary the House at this late hour, but I do think that from the knowledge which the Chief Secretary possesses of the pension status of these unfortunate men, he will agree that an unanswerable case has been made out for a revision of the Irish pensions and for a very substantial increase. We all know that the sovereign is worth only about 9s. to-day, and to suggest seriously, as I take it he means to do, if he does not accede to the proposal to-day, which is to make a material increases in these pensions—to suggest that a man in this year 1918 ought to live or should be expected to live on a pension fixed in 1883 is nothing short of a scandal. For the Government to come down here and avail themselves of this opportunity of passing a Bill to raise the pay of constables and to refuse at the same time to avail themselves of the occasion to revise the obviously insufficient pensions is nothing short of a scandal. Of course I shall be told, as we have been told at several deputations on this matter, that it would be creating a precedent if these men should get these increases of pensions, and that other pensionable officers would look for them. But I do not see any good reason in that. If an injustice has been done to one man I do not see why that should go unremedied because another man had had an injustice done to him. As a matter of fact I believe there are precedents for such an increase. There was an increase, if I am correctly informed, of pensions payable to Scottish ex-teachers last year, and we all know, of course, that the sums payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act have been recently increased as a war measure. I do not
    2840
    see how the case of these pensioners is to be differentiated from either of those cases. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman very strongly about this matter. I believe that his sympathies are with the pensioners' demands, and surely he ought to be strong enough. The right hon. Gentleman claims for himself great strength in the administration of his office, and he now has an opportunity of proving his strength in meeting the just demands made.
    Mr. NUGENT: There are one or two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. In supporting the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green, I do not want to travel the ground he has already covered so fully, because really it comes down to this. These pensions were fixed in 1883, when things were half their present cost, and the then cost of living was taken into consideration. You might put it another way, and say you have reduced the pensions by about 50 per cent. We all feel that whatever opinions there may be amongst parties, it is the desire of everyone, I think, that every officer of the Government should be treated fairly and justly, whether he is Unionist or Nationalist, and that there should not be discontent caused among them owing to their treatment. The second point I have is the case of the widows of the men who have died in the service. These people are receiving—I am sure it will surprise the House to hear it—the large sum of £10 a year. Surely that is a scandal! My hon. Friend reminds me that the English Bill provides for £26 a year. But if this Bill is intended to remedy a grievance, and if it is not intended merely to create discontent, why are the men who have gone out of the force not receiving the same treatment as the men in it? There has been a serious grievance in the case of the widows. I think this is one which, if there is a spark of humanity within us, should appeal to us. I should like to put that question before the Chief Secretary, because, not having the Bill, we do not know what it contains. I have received a number of letters. I will give you a case in point. This man says, "I was deprived of my lodging allowance of 13s., and I had to pay 4s. 4d. a month until I had paid off what was overdrawn." What was overdrawn was this: that he was given the ordinary allowance until they discovered—the man was living outside

    2841
    the barracks and having to support a family—that he had a child of 16 years of age. Under some regulation he is to be deprived of lodging allowance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how this can be relevant to this proposal on which a Bill is to be founded for giving pensions to the Police. The point which the hon. Member is raising is some point of a policeman having been improperly fined. That is a question of administration.
    Mr. NUGENT: This is no question of a fine. This is a question of a regulation. This proposal is going to increase the salary of policemen, and one of the matters to which I am referring is interfering with the salary of the policemen. This is not a question of a fine, but of a regulation already in existence. I respectfully submit that this is a question which the Chief Secretary should deal with and take into consideration when he is dealing with the Bill.
    Colonel McCALMONT: We have often been told from the Front Bench—at least I have been told quite recently—that there is one subject upon which all Irish parties agree, that is, without giving examination to the question, extracting money from the British taxpayers. I do not think this is an instance of that. Whether we are going to get more or less money, or whether people who more or less deserve it are going to get it or not, I really rose to support what has been said from below the Gangway with regard more especially to the claims of the old pensioner—that is, the man who has already left the force. Listening to the figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, I could not help being struck by the fact that, although the policeman in England carries out far less onerous and certainly far less dangerous duties than does the policeman in Ireland, whether of the Dublin Police or of the Royal Irish Constabulary, yet the pensions paid to them seem to be in entirely inverse ratio to the services they perform. I do not think this is an occasion on which we can go into details. I think if my right hon. Friend would give us some indication of how this money is to be spent he would facilitate the passing of the Resolution and enable us to get to bed.
    Major NEWMAN: I should like to back up the remarks made by my hon. Friend below me and below the Gangway. I have taken a great deal of interest in the question
    2842
    of these pensioners, and I cannot understand why we cannot get this Bill. Day after day I have tried to get a copy.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill cannot be brought in until this Resolution is passed.
    Major NEWMAN: I understand that these old pensioners will not be within the scope of this Bill, and when the Money Resolution is passed we shall not be able to raise their case. As one who has lived in the South of Ireland I consider that the demands of these men should be allowed to be brought within the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. BYRNE: The Members on this Bench are very much in the dark as to the meaning of the Bill, and to show you how very much in the dark we are, the hon. Member for College Green had to be called to order on one very important point which he raised, which the Chief Secretary mentioned at the beginning of the Bill was supposed to contain. I wish to state that there was a Bill passed giving increased pensions and pay for men who are going out on pensions in 1914, and I am informed that the old pensioners would be well satisfied to go under the new scale of pensions.
    The fact that the pensions of the Dublin Police and of the Royal Irish Constabulary are such that members of it go out after thirty years' service with a miserable pension of only £48 a year is really sufficient for me to get the support of the House for my case. I may also mention another point, which is, and I have no hesitation in saying it, that there is a prejudice in Ireland against giving employment to any man holding a pension. There is that prejudice, and I am afraid I share it myself, against the man receiving a pension, and I suppose it is due to the fact that we have not enough employment for our ordinary civilians, who have large families to keep and have no pensions. Thus, when there is a small position going, prejudice comes in to prevent any pensioner getting it where it is a police pension. I myself would not support a pensioner getting a position as against a man who had no pension. If there was-sufficient employment for them all, I would certainly give it to a pensioner; but until all our civilians who have no pensions at all are properly employed in Dublin you will find that the prejudice of which I tell you exists, and it will continue to exist. After twenty-eight or

    2843
    thirty years' service, representing the best years of a man's life, the Government ought to see that these men get a decent living.
    Mr. SHORTT: The Resolution as it appears speaks for itself. It is one upon which a Bill will be based providing for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for pensions allowances and gratuities to members of these forces, their widows and children, and for other purposes in connection therewith. This is by way of amendments of the existing Acts and administration. The question of the widows has been raised. The pensions provided by the Bill with regard to them will approximate to those appertaining in England.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will they be retrospective?
    Mr. SHORTT: I will deal with that in a moment. The pay which it is proposed should be given in future is also approximately that which appertains in England. You cannot take the English pay by itself and compare it with the Irish pay, because conditions differ in that there are allowances in Ireland which do not exist in England and that there is in England a provision for reduction for pensions which does not exist in Ireland, but speaking generally the proposal is that the pay should approximate in Ireland to the pay in England. With regard to pensioners, it is a more difficult question. It is true that most of the existing pensioners are under the 1883 Act. Whether they are all or not, one may be sure at all events that a lot of them are; and it is equally true that they have a very strong case for recognition and for relief. But to go into the question of the pensioners or even into the case of the widows of men who have died is to open a very large question which would very likely jeopardise the whole Bill if it were pressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is very important that the police should receive this increase of pay. There is in England or Scotland no necessity to proceed in this way because there you can by administrative act increase the pay, and therefore Parliament does not matter; but in the case of Ireland you can only deal with it by an Act of Parliament—that is the only way by which the pay of the police can be increased. This Bill must
    2844
    be got through this week or the Bill goes, and the police do not get their extra pay. Is it advisable to prejudice it by opening up the bigger subject as you would do, I suggest, by opening up the subject of the pensions. We regret it because I realise that the case made on behalf of the pensioners is a strong case, but it is quite impossible to put anything appertaining to that subject into this Bill. With that explanation, and having regard to the lateness of the hour, I would ask the House to pass this Resolution.
    Captain CHARLES CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained to us what is the difficulty in his way in bringing in these pensioners. Is it a Treasury difficulty, an administrative difficulty, or what? We are all very anxious that this Bill should be passed because it is undoubtedly a grievance that the policeman in the matter of pay and pension in Ireland should be receiving less than policemen in this country, or in Scotland. This question of the pensioners is quite as important as the question of pay. I must confess that I do not see that the Chief Secretary has given us any reason in the world or any explanation of the difficulties which he experiences in this matter. I think it is a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs. I do not suppose anyone will vote against the Resolution to-night, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the fact that he wants to get the Bill through this week, that we shall want to raise these points at a later stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Shortt and the Attorney-General for Ireland.
    CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL,—"to amend the Law relating to the pay and pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police; and for other purposes in connection with those forces," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Resolved, "That the Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of

  2845
  Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1918–19 be approved."—[Colonel Sanders.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after One o'clock.