Commons Sitting of 27 February 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Belfast Harbour Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.

NEW WRIT.
For the University of Oxford, in the room of the Right Hon. Rowland Edmund Prothero, M.V.O., now Baron Ernle, of Chelsea, called up to the House of Peers.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
ARMY ESTIMATES, 1919–20 (VOTE A).
Copy presented, of Estimate of the number of men on the Establishment of the Army at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India for the year 1919–20 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 30.]
ARMY ESTIMATES, 1919–20 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of Estimate showing the Vote on Account which is required for the year 1919–20 [by Command]; Referred to a Standing Committee, and to be printed. [No. 31.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SIR HENRY MACMAHON.
  Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason Sir Henry Macmahon, formerly High Commissioner in Egypt, is no longer employed; and why he is not in receipt of a pension?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGNAFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Sir Henry Macmahon is in receipt of his full pension from the Government of India. His period of service as High Commissioner in Egypt, amounting to two years and thirteen days, did not entitle him to a further pension under the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. Since his retirement from that position, His Majesty's Government have not been able to offer him suitable employment.
  Earl WINTERTON: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

  MR. PHILLIPS PRICE.
  Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Phillips Price, formerly correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," now editing a Bolshevist newspaper for circulation among British troops, receives an income from his estate in Gloucestershire; and whether he will take steps under the Defence of the Realm Acts to prevent this money being transmitted abroad for the purpose, of inciting British troops to mutiny?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first portion of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the negative. The question of taking steps, whether under the Defence of the Realm Act or otherwise, to prevent money reaching Mr. Phillips Price from this country is receiving careful consideration.

  RUSSIA.

    SHANKURSK (FATE OF INHABITANTS).
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the fate of the inhabitants of Shankursk and of other territory recently evacuated by British troops on the Archangel front?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: It has been reported that the town of Shankursk was pillaged and burnt by the Bolsheviks after evacuation by the Allies and Russian troops, and that many inhabitants of that town and of the territory similarly evacuated have been massacred by the Bolsheviks. Further information has been asked for.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not the case that in all previous cases of retirement the Russian population associated with the British troops have invariably been massacred?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should not like to answer that off hand.

  CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service with reference to the Foreign Office and the diplomatic Consular services?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Proposals on the general lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission have been under consideration for some time past, and it is hoped that it will be possible to give effect to them at a very early date.

  OVERSEAS TRADE.
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that agents in France and Italy are anxious to recommence business transactions with manufacturers in this country for cycles and motor-cycles; and whether, in view of the importance of re-establishing this industry and its overseas trade, he can use the good offices of his Department to secure the removal of the restrictions at present in force on importation into these two countries?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I can assure my hon. Friend that the position is being continually watched and every opportunity will be taken of promoting the resumption and development of British trade with the countries mentioned, consistently with the abnormal conditions in regard to finance and industry at present prevailing as the result of the War.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    DISABILITY PENSION.
    7. Major COHENasked the Pensions Minister what is the number of totally disabled officers, non-commissioned
    1924
    officers, and men at present in receipt of a 100 per cent. disability pension; and what is the estimated total, including all claims awaiting adjustment and all those at present in hospital?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): The number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men at present in receipt of retired pay or pension for total disablement is approximately 35,500. I have no sufficient data to enable me to reply to the latter part of the question.

    WAR BONUS ON OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister whether the Government have any intention of paying a war bonus on officers' pensions on the same lines as on the men's pensions?
    Sir J. CRAIG: This matter is still under consideration.

    WAR GRATUITY.
    Sir JOHN RUTHERFORDasked the Pensions Minister whether soldiers working on the land in uniform and under military discipline are not allowed to draw any war gratuity in respect of the time so served, even although they may be suffering from the effects of wounds or illness due to military service?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Myright hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Soldiers employed on agriculture work do not count such service for war gratuity after three months continuous civil employment. If they are suffering from disabilities due to war service which render them unable to earn a full civil wage, they can claim examination with a view to discharge to pension.
    Sir J. RUTHERFORD: Why is the time not counted after three months?
    Captain GUEST: After the three months they are in receipt of full civil pay. It is not considered reasonable that they should ask for a gratuity as well.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that there is considerable discontent with the war gratuity among the men who joined the forces at the commencement of hostilities, a larger gratuity can be given to those who enlisted in the early years of the War?
    Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The war gratuity, as already announced, increases with length of service. The scale was decided upon by the Government after very full consideration of all the circumstances, and I am not prepared to reopen the matter.

    VETERAN PENSIONERS.
    Mr. PERCYasked the Pensions Minister whether provision has been made, or is about to be made, for such increase of the pensions of the Indian Mutiny, the Crimean, and other veteran pensioners as will approximately correspond to the increased cost of living?
    Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Soldiers under the age of seventy who are drawing special campaign pensions have been granted an extra 2s. 6d. a week. Old age pensioners get an extra 2s. 6d. a week. Soldiers discharged as unfit through injuries or sickness as a result of service in wars prior to 1914 may be granted increased pensions by the Ministry of Pensions if totally incapacitated.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that that does not apply to any pension at all unless it is on the same scale as a specific disability pension; there are hundreds of thousands of men involved?
    Captain GUEST: This question deals specifically with Indian Mutiny and Crimean veterans.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is precisely what I am asking: whether my hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the veterans of the Indian Mutiny and the Crimea do not receive pensions now on this specific disability scale, and never did? Will he use his influence with the War Office to get them an increase on account of the increased cost of living?
    Captain GUEST: I shall be glad to submit that question to the Financial Department.

    CREOSOTE POISONING.
    18. Mr. MOLESasked the Pensions Minister whether Engineer-Lieutenant Wilson. His Majesty's ship "Ajax," was in 1915 invalided out of the Service because of creosote poisoning; whether in July, 1915, Lieutenant Heron applied for consideration of his pension allowance, and was then informed that the matter would
    1926
    receive attention; whether a further application in 1916 received a similar reply; and whether, as this officer is now in poor health, his case will receive early consideration?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The case of Lieutenant Heron was first brought to the notice of the Ministry in December last. It has been taken up with the other Departments concerned, namely, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Shipping, to ascertain whether the conditions of his service entitle him to pension.

    CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that Private F. Burrell, No. 2689, of the 2/24th London Regiment (The Queen's), was passed fit for service as an A1 man and joined the Army on 5th September, 1914, and was discharged on 13th July, 1915, as no longer physically fit; that after repeated correspondence it was ascertained that about two months ago the case was referred to the Appeal Tribunal; that up to the present time this discharged soldier has received neither pension nor gratuity; and will he take steps to have the case settled without further delay?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I have ascertained from the Pension Appeal Tribunal that this case is due to be heard on Monday week.
    Sir F. HALL: Has there not been an enormous and unnecessary delay in this case, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to speed up the machinery so that such delays will not occur again in the future?
    Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the local pensions committee and the medical referee in this case do not agree, and there is an appeal; consequently there has been delay, and this cannot be helped until we are able to extend the number of appeal tribunals.

    WAR SERVICE AND CIVIL PENSIONS.
    Brigadier-General WIGANasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the period spent by Civil servants who served in the Navy or Army during the War should continue to count towards their civil pensions?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am not quite sure that I understand the meaning of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. If he refers

    1927
    to pensionable Civil servants who are compulsory retained in the Navy or Army as part of the Army of Occupation and its naval equivalent, I can readily give him the desired assurance. But a Civil servant who, being eligible for demobilisation and required for early return to civil duty, prefers to remain with the Forces, must be regarded as being on leave of absence without pay from the Civil Service, the period of absence not to count either for increment or for pension.
    Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that all Post Office employéswho have been in the Royal Engineers or other branches of the Army during the War will be allowed to count their War service towards Civil pension if they return to civil employment?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would rather have notice of that question.
    Earl WINTERTON: This question has been put down ever since Parliament met, and we have been so far informed that the matter is receiving consideration. Is the hon. Gentleman aware there is grave discontent among the men in the Telegraph Companies of the Royal Engineers in consequence of the refusal of the Government to give an answer on this point?

  OFFICERS AND MEN.

    HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE CHARGES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the maintenance charges to officers and men in hospitals?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I cannot yet make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he can indicate when it will be convenient for me to repeat these two questions, which I have already put down twice?
    Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. Friend will understand that I myself am very anxious that we should be able to reply specifically to these questions. May I suggest that he should put them down again this day week?
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: In case of the Government doing this, will they make the payment retrospective, to make up for their delay?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I do not think there has been any undue delay. It is a very difficult matter to settle. It is a matter of policy, and my right hon. Friend will be in the House later.

    TRAINING.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if he can give any indication when the scheme approved by the Government for the training of officers and men, including disabled men of good educational promise, is likely to be sufficiently organised to enable him to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The Government scheme for training officers and men of good educational promise will, it is expected, be m full operation by the 1st May. In the meantime, however, it will be possible, at an early date, to make immediate payment of Grants to candidates whose cases are of special urgency.

  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there are at the present time any Consuls in the British service of enemy origin; if so, the number and to what posts they are attached; if any Consuls of alien nationality have been appointed during the last four years; if so, the number in each of the years 1915, 1916, 1917, and 1918, their names, and to where they were appointed; if he will state whether Regulations have been made to secure that in future British nationality and business capacity shall be the only recognised qualifications for such appointments; and if he will lay upon the Table the terms and conditions that now obtain in the matter?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): There are no Consular officers of enemy origin in the salaried Consular Service at present, if by enemy origin is meant a naturalised British subject of enemy birth. One or two unsalaried officers of alien nationality have been appointed in the last four years. These have, since the date of Lord Robert Cecil's pledge in the House of 22nd August, 1916, had the personal consideration and approval of the Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in accordance with the

  1929
  terms of the pledge. I am prepared to furnish the hon. and gallant Member with their names and the places to which they have been appointed. With regard to the latter part of this question, the old Regulations are still in force which precluded the appointment to the salaried service of any person not being a natural-born British subject. Lord Robert Cecil's pledge of 22nd August, 1916, further safeguards appointments to the unsalaried service.
  In reference to the final part of the question, a Selection Committee sits weekly to review candidates and ensure that existing vacancies are filled by the most suitable people. As regards the future, this question is dealt with in detail in the reform scheme mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen on the 13th instant.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come to get rid of all Consuls of alien nationality representing Great Britain?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer of a day or two ago to the hon. Member for Hackney. I do not think my hon. Friend can have seen it.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    DISABLED MEN (TRAINING).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether he has considered the advisability of instituting factories and village centres for the partially disabled who, owing to age or lack of educational advantages, cannot be trained in the ordinary way and who, with proper guidance and supervision, might, under such a scheme, become at least partially able to support themselves and their families?
    Sir J. CRAIG: In the division of training functions between the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour, men who still require medical care and attention, or whose disablement is such as to make it undesirable that they should take part in ordinary industrial life—as, for example, the severely disfigured—will be trained by the Ministry of Pensions, and the question of the manner in which this special training can best be given is engaging my right hon. Friend's attention. I am sending my Noble Friend a copy of the circular issued to the local war pensions committees on the subject.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the fact that the arduous character of work in mines makes it exceptionally difficult for the disabled soldiers to follow their employment and earn their pre-war wages, arrangements will be made by the Pensions Minister to secure means of an adequate livelihood for disabled men who before the War were engaged in mining or other forms of industry where heavy labour is necessary?
    Sir J. CRAIG: A disabled miner who is prevented by his disablement from following his former occupation is eligible for training in some new occupation suited to his physical condition. Men desiring such training should apply to their local war pensions committees. If a man so trained is still unable to command the wages he earned before the War, and his pension and children's allowances do not make good the difference, he is entitled to apply for an alternative pension.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Pensions Minister whether he is now in a position to state what arrangements, if any, have been made for the medical treatment of demobilised men, suffering from impairment of health due to war service, resident in Ireland; whether he is aware that constant complaints have been made that these men either have to seek treatment under the Poor Law medical service or pay for it out of their own pockets; and whether he will at once take steps to have proper treatment provided through the Irish Health Insurance Commissioners similar to that provided by the Insurance Commissioners in Great Britain?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I cannot yet make any announcement on this matter. It is under consideration and will, I hope, be speedily settled.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman promise to have it very speedily settled; it should have been settled when the aliens question was dealt with?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I will do my best.
    Captain REDMOND: Will the hon. and gallant Member say if any differentiation is made between disabled Irish soldiers and disabled soldiers in this country?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I will myself endeavour to jealously safeguard the interests of Ireland.

    GRATUITIES.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that long delays frequently intervene between the demobilisation of soldiers and the payment of their gratuities, and that such delays frequently cause much hardship; and whether he will take steps to accelerate the payment of these gratuities as much as possible, or to pay a substantial portion thereof immediately on demobilisation and to pay the balance as soon as possible thereafter?
    Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The gratuity due to a demobilised soldier is deposited for him in the Post Office Savings Bank, and the Savings Bank book should be ready for issue at the local Post Office on the due date, namely, the last day of the man's dispersal furlough on which day he ceases to be a soldier. Cases of delay at the present time are, I understand, quite exceptional, but if my hon. and learned Friend will give me particulars of any such cases I shall be glad to have them investigated.

    POSTAL EMPLOYES.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Law Officers of the Crown have expressed the opinion that the deductions which the Postmaster-General has been making from the pay of Post Office servants are illegal, and that refundment is to take place; whether these men volunteered in the knowledge that they were entitled to the usual gratuity on discharge; and whether he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the Army Council Instruction, issued in 1917, which varied the conditions of the men who had volunteered two or three years previously, and which laid it down that they were not to be paid the gratuity to which they were entitled under their term of enlistment?
    Sir F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether in the early stages of the War, when the Army was in need of trained signal personnel, an offer was made that Post Office officials joining the Signal Service would be granted full civil pay, in addition to their Army pay; whether officers now being demobilised are informed that, in consequence of this arrangement, they cannot be given any gratuity; if he will give the date on which these restrictions came into operation; whether officers who joined previous to
    1932
    any notification of exclusion of the gratuity are to receive the same; and, if not, on whose authority these gratuities are being withheld?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I beg to refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury on the 26th instant.

    TUBERCULOUS EX-SOLDIERS,
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Pensions Minister whether, in view of the difficulty found by tuberculous ex-soldiers to find employment, and in order to establish an effective system of treatment of such men, he will establish special work centres such as exist in New York, where they can work under hygienic conditions and medical supervision, and also a number of village settlements, where, as at Kinson Farm Colony and Papworth, the tuberculous can follow the occupation of agriculture or gardening, or any form of employment to which they are adapted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): I have been asked to reply to this question, as its subject-matter is within the province of the Insurance Commission and the Local Government Board. Both these Departments have been and are most anxious to encourage, under suitable conditions and on approved standards of efficient working, such centres or colonies as are referred to in the question.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not my hon. Friend think that the time has now come when a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the after-care of the tuberculous men?
    Major ASTOR: If it had not been that my presence was required here yesterday in connection with the passing of the Ministry of Health Bill I should have been presiding at a conference to go into this very subject. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is receiving constant care and attention by the Departments concerned.

  IRELAND.

    LAND PURCHASE.
    Captain REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Irish Convention reported unanimously in favour

    1933
    of a scheme to complete land purchase in Ireland; and whether he intends to introduce a Bill upon those lines?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Arthur Samuels): The Irish Convention did agree in their Report as to a scheme of land purchase, but it is not proposed by the Government to introduce legislation on the subject at present.
    Captain REDMOND: Is the Government going to allow the question of land purchase in Ireland, as well as every other question affecting Ireland, to drift?
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if unanimity of all parties in Ireland is an obstacle to getting legislation for Ireland?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Answer.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Captain REDMONDasked whether there is in existence a full Report of the proceedings of the Irish Convention; whether he proposes to have that Report published; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has no knowledge of any fuller Report of the proceedings of the Convention than that which has been already officially published.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary for Ireland has no knowledge of anything in Ireland?
    Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a full Report was taken of the proceedings at the Convention, that it was proposed to publish this Report, and that a small minority of the members refused to allow this Report to be published; and whether, in view of these facts, he will now give his assent to the wish of the overwhelming majority of the members of the Convention?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am not prepared to give any further answer on the subject.
    Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the question of copyright when he considers the matter of publication?

    HUNTING.
    Major O'NEILLasked what steps are being taken to prevent interference with hunting on the part of certain persons in Ireland; how many packs of
    1934
    hounds have ceased hunting as a result of such interference; and whether he is aware that in some cases firearms have been used with the result that at least one valuable horse has been destroyed?
    Mr. SAMUELS: In several cases hunting has been interfered with by parties of men who stated that they were acting on the order of the Irish Republic, and that hunting would not be permitted until the prisoners now interned were released. The particular hunts in such cases were abandoned, but it is not possible to say how many packs have ceased hunting. On the 19th instant the Ward Union Stag Hounds were prevented from hunting by a party of men who fired two or three revolver shots and wounded a horse belonging to one of the hunting party. The case is under investigation. This is the only case so far in which arms are known to have been used.
    Major O'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what protection, if any, is afforded at the meets of these hounds?
    Mr. SAMUELS: If it is anticipated that a disturbance will take place the police are there.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman let the prisoners out, and they can hunt as much as they like?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: In the interests of horse-breeding, will he do his utmost to protect these hounds?

    HOUSING.
    Mr. MOLESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the proposals of the Government for dealing with the acute shortage of housing accommodation in the principle cities and towns of Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to the question of the hon. Member for Falls Division of Belfast on this subject.

    POLICE (CASUALTIES).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will grant a Return showing the number of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police who have been killed, maimed, and wounded in the discharge of their duty from 1st January, 1916, to date, or to 31st December, 1918, if more convenient?
    Mr. SAMUELS: There is no objection to furnishing the Return asked for, but it will take some time to prepare. If the hon. Member will put down notice early next week he will get a written reply.

    RAIDS BY ARMED MEN.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the constant raiding and seizing of arms by parties of armed and masked men in all parts of the country; whether he is aware that on the 14th instant three men at four o'clock in the afternoon boarded the schooner "Gostone" lying in Cork, produced a warrant from the Irish Republican Army authorising the removal of any arms on the vessel, and proceeded to confine the captain in his cabin; and what measures are being taken to deal with this state of things?
    Mr. SAMUELS: A considerable number of raids for arms by parties of armed and masked men have been reported from various parts of Ireland. The facts as regards the incident in Cork are correctly stated except that the occurrence took place at 3.15 p.m. on 12th instant. No arms were found on the schooner raided. Every effort is being made to put a stop to these raids, but it is obviously undesirable to state precisely the police measures which are adopted.
    Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any raids have been made for arms upon the quarters of the Ulster Volunteers in Belfast or elsewhere?
    Mr. M'GUFFIN: Can he say if arms were received by the Nationalists from Germany?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson) dined with the German Emperor before the War?
    Sir E. CARSON: May I say that that is an absolute falsehood.

    TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS).
    Lieut.-Col. W. GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the committees of certain technical schools in Ireland have recently passed resolutions with the object of preventing discharged soldiers and members of His Majesty's Forces from receiving instruction; whether
    1936
    he will give a list of committees who have passed such resolutions, with dates; whether any steps are being taken to prevent such action; what amount of voted money is granted to such schools; and whether he is taking any action to have such grants withdrawn?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Two committees (county Clare and Tralee urban district) passed resolutions excluding "soldiers" from technical classes, whilst four others (county borough of Cork and county borough of Limerick, county Kilkenny, and Queen's County) decided to take no action upon letters received from the Department of Agriculture asking them to provide special courses of instruction for soldiers pending demobilisation, or where the numbers were small to arrange for their admission to the ordinary classes of the school. The dates on which the resolutions were passed, or decision arrived at, respectively, were county Clare 3rd February, Tralee urban district 4th February, Cork county borough 27th January, Limerick county borough 31st January, county Kilkenny 17th February, and Queen's County 17th February.
    Where committees have declined to organise special classes for soldiers pending demobilisation, the Department is seeking, as far as possible, to supply instruction directly in cases where the local statutory committees decline to co-operate.
    The Grants from voted moneys made to these committees are variable, the amounts for the past Session being approximately. county Clare £560, Tralee urban district £1,300, Cork county borough £5,500, Limerick county borough £1,550, county Kilkenny £1,150, Queen's County £130. These Grants are braced mainly upon capitation, and are made in accordance with the published Regulations of the Department. Any vindictive attitude adopted towards any section of the community, particularly towards members of His Majesty's Forces, is highly reprehensible, and the question of withdrawing Grants from voted moneys for technical instruction from committees adopting such attitudes is viewed in that light and will be considered.
    Sir E. CARSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having these demobilised soldiers sent to the North of Ireland where they could be trained in the technical institutes?

    SINN FEIN MOVEMENT.
    Mr. MOLESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Report of the inquiry held by Mr. Justice Dodd at Belfast upon the alleged treatment of Sinn Fein prisoners in Belfast goal has yet been received; and, if not, when it is expected to be available?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The Chief Secretary has just received from Mr. Justice Dodd a Report of the inquiry recently held by him at Belfast under the Special Commission (Belfast Prison) Act, 1918.
    Mr. MOLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the amount of monetary damage done by these men?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question if he wants that information.
    Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister whether he will advise His Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission or some other suitable body to inquire into the relations established and maintained during the War and since between the Sinn Fein movement and its leaders, and German and other alien enemies of the British Empire, and persons engaged in fomenting disturbances in Government dockyards, shipbuilding yards, factories, and industries within the United Kingdom engaged in producing war material, contrary to the Regulations made under the Statute of the Defence of the Realm and other Acts providing for the public safety?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government do not think that any useful result would be secured by adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. LYNN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time the public knew of the facts with regard to the conspiracy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is very desirable to know the facts, but I do not think that a Commission would be more successful than the ordinary departmental machinery.
    Mr. LYNN: Will the Government prevent anything from being made public with regard to it?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Royal Commission to consider the relations between the Ulster Unionist party and the German Government before the War?
    Sir E. CARSON: May I say that I shall support any such inquiry.
    Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the unanimity of opinion—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It s really time to stop these nonsensical bickerings.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that T. S. Steed, a conscientious objector in Maidstone Prison, has been in a very bad state of health for more than a year; that constant representations have been made to the Home Office about his case without avail; that he is now suffering from dermatitis of the legs in addition to general weakness; whether the prison doctor refused to give him proper treatment; and whether he will order a special examination with a view to this man's release on health grounds?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The allegation referred to is contrary to fact. The prisoner is reported to be in good general health, free from any indication of organic defect, fit for military service, and not likely to be hurt by further imprisonment. He has increased in weight since reception. He has some eczema on his legs, but there is nothing in his condition to justify his discharge.
    Sir W. HOWELL DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether F. A. Lewis, a conscientious objector of forty-four years of age, now serving his second sentence in Winchester Prison, is in the prison hospital suffering from rheumatism; whether he is aware that this man has suffered terribly from this complaint for the last fourteen years, and will be entirely crippled if he is debarred from the necessary treatment; and whether he will order his release on health grounds?
    Mr. SHORTT: The report I have received on this man's health justifies his discharge from prison, and I have given instructions accordingly.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary in what prisons conscientious objectors are now being forcibly fed; when this form of discipline was introduced; is it increasing; and, if so, will he state the reason?
    Mr. SHORTT: Cases were reported last week from Newcastle and Pentonville. Forcible feeding is not a form of discipline, but a medical measure applied only for the purpose of preventing self-imposed starvation. As there is no such form of discipline, the last two questions do not arise.

  POLICE PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.

    APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Home Secretary if he has set up a Committee to deal with police pay and service; if he has, will he give the names of the members constituting the Committee; and whether he intends to grant facilities for the officials of the National Union of Police and Prison Officers to lay the case of the rank and file before them?
    Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir; the Government is setting up such a Committee. I hope to announce the names of the members in a few days. Representatives of the rank and file of the police will have facilities for laying their case before the Committee.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government now recognise the National Union of Police and Prison Officials?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed so to do?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

  POLICE (PENSIONS) ACT, 1918.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Home Secretary if, considering the greatly increased cost of living and the fact that some of the police who retired prior to the passing of the Police (Pensions) Act of 1918, after twenty-six years of service, are only receiving a pension of £l per week, he will take steps to place all those who have retired on an equality with those who come under the operation of the Act of 1918; and if he will consider as to the granting of pensions to widows of police who died prior to September, 1918?
  Mr. SHORTT: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to similar
  1940
  questions by several hon. Members yesterday and the day before. The proposal in the second part would involve a very heavy charge, which ought not to fall on police funds, and I do not see my way to initiate legislation for the purpose.

  METHYLATED SPIRITS.
  Major NALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the increased drinking of methylated spirits amongst women; and what steps he proposes to take to discourage or prevent this regrettable practice?
  Mr. SHORTT: I am aware that cases of methylated spirit drinking have recently been attracting public attention. It is, unfortunately, not a new evil. The question whether further preventive measures are practicable has received most careful consideration, but it is to be doubted whether any means can be found of protecting against themselves those addicted to the habit.
  Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what difference there is between methylated spirits and the whisky sold for public consumption?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have not tried methylated spirits, and I do not therefore know. [Hon. Members: "Try the whisky!"]

  CHILDREN ACT, 1908.
  Lieut.-Commander CRAIGasked the Home Secretary what has been the average annual number of infants who, since the Children Act of 1908 came into force, have lost their lives from burns or scalding in consequence of being left in rooms with unprotected fires?
  Mr. SHORTT: Figures are not available except for the year 1913. In that year returns made by coroners showed that 239 children under five years of age lost their lives as a result of burns at unprotected grates and stoves.
  Lieutenant-Commander CRAIG: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he fixes the age at five when the Act which provides inadequate protection for infants fixes the age at seven, and would he con-

  1941
  sider the desirability of giving an answer that has some relation to the law as it exists even if that law is inadequate?
  Mr. SHORTT: I have endeavoured to do so. This is the best information that I have been able to get up to the present.
  Lieutenant-Commander CRAIGasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the fact that a person who has the custody, charge, or care of any child under the age of seven years only incurs criminal responsibility for leaving such child to be in any room containing an open fire grate not sufficiently protected, if the child is killed or suffers serious injury, he will consider the desirability of amending the existing law, so that responsibility shall attach for exposing the child to risk, and that death or serious injury shall not form an essential ingredient in the proof of offence?
  Mr. SHORTT: This point was very fully considered in preparing the Children Bill of 1908, and was discussed when the Clause of that Bill was before this House, but it was held not to be practicable to enforce so wide a criminal liability. I fear that I cannot now reopen the question.

  UNDESIRABLE ALIENS.
  Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary what powers are, after Peace is declared, vested in him for repatriating or deporting German and other undesirable aliens and for prohibiting their admission to this country; and whether he has prepared a Bill for conferring on the Secretary of State, or on some other Government Department, adequate powers for these purposes, and will introduce such Bill at the earliest possible occasion?
  Mr. SHORTT: Apart from the powers conferred by the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, for use in time of war or imminent national danger or great emergency, powers of expelling or excluding undesirable aliens from this country are contained in the Aliens Act, 1905. I shall ask for full powers in the Bill which I recently said it is my intention to introduce at the first convenient opportunity.

  SUMMER TIME.
  Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Home Secretary for what reason summer-
  1942
  time this year is to be a week shorter than last year and a month shorter than in France?
  Mr. SHORTT: The Summer Time Committee recommended the second Sunday in April as the date when Summer Time should begin. Last year the date was advanced three weeks for special reasons arising from the air raids which no longer exist, but there are still strong reasons for selecting an early date, and the 30th of March was fixed after consultation with the Coal Controller and other Departments interested. To fix the 1st of March, as in France, would have inflicted great inconvenience on those who begin work early without any compensating advantage.
  Mr. BECKETT: May I ask whether, in fixing these periods, the right hon. Gentleman has taken into consideration the grave dissatisfaction which exists among large sections of the agricultural community on account of the period being fixed so long?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, that was considered.
  Sir F. HALL: With a view to a large saving in electricity and coal, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting the clock back another hour from the beginning of June to the middle of July?
  Mr. SHORTT: Yes, that will be considered.

  PATENT MEDICINES.
  Sir H. NORMANasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the increase of advertisements of patent and proprietary medicines of the classes described as contrary to the public interest by the Report of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines, 1914; if a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee has been drafted; and if it is the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill?
  Major ASTOR: My attention has been called to the advertisements referred to as contrary to the public interest in the Report of the Select Committee of 1914. By the Venereal Disease Act, 1917, effect was given to the recommendation in paragraph 57 (3) of the Report of that Committee, and it was enacted that advertisements of medicines and medicaments for the prevention or cure of venereal diseases

  1943
  should be prohibited. My right hon. Friend has the whole question under consideration.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    PROHIBITION OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Home Secretary whether, during the War, the only disability attached to the issue of new shares was that they could not be dealt in on the Stock Exchange unless their issue was made with the consent of the Treasury; and that since the Armistice Regulations have been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act prohibiting not only the issue and the sale and transfer of all new shares except with Treasury licence, but also making the prohibition of purchase, sale, or transfer retrospective, so as to effect stocks or shares issued within the last four years with no other disability than the refusal of the Stock Exchange to deal in them; and whether he will take steps to have this Regulation rescinded, if not wholly at least in so far as the same has retrospective effect?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It has frequently been publicly announced since the outbreak of war that it was regarded as essential in the national interests that new issues of capital should only be made after the assent of the Treasury had been obtained, and not only have dealings in stocks and shares issued without the consent of the Treasury been prohibited by the Emergency Regulations of the Stock Exchange, but all persons dealing in stocks and shares outside the Stock Exchange had been publicly requested to observe the same restrictions.
    The effect of the new Regulation is to make such dealings illegal except under licence from the Treasury, and I do not think that this can be regarded as a serious hardship to the promoters of or subscribers to such issues, regard being had to the repeated warnings which had been given that the issues made without Treasury assent have been throughout regarded by the Government as being contrary to the national interest.
    I may, however, observe that the Regulation is not an absolute prohibition of dealings in unauthorised issues, but only a prohibition subject to licence, and that the Committee acting for the Treasury
    1944
    will be quite prepared to give favourable consideration to applications for licences in all cases in which hardship to an innocent holder is likely to be created if permission to sell is withheld.
    The Treasury will also be prepared to give covering approval for issues already made in all cases in which the issue was originally made without the Committee acting for the Treasury assent owing to the requirement not having been understood, and where such assent could properly have been given if it had been applied for at the time the issue was made.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that this new Order is creating almost a panic in reference to many business transactions; is it not the fact that the only prohibition existing under the Defence of the Realm Regulations was that if these share transactions took place there could be no Stock Exchange quotation, and that there was no absolute prohibition, and is not the effect of the present Order by retrospective action to upset gigantic financial arrangements which have been entered into?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has not a great deal of debenture stock been issued under Section 123 of the Companies Act, and are not many of these shares and stocks practically unsaleable; is there not, in fact, about 200 millions of capital affected?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Lancashire many cotton mills are carried on by means of loans, and that under this Order a renewal of the loans is prohibited. Is he also aware there is almost certain to be a financial panic? May I further ask is it not the case that the Treasury have accepted money for the registration of these companies to the extent of hundreds weekly. I will ask the Leader of the House, as this is so important, whether he will promise us an early day to discuss this?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I will try and arrange an early opportunity to discuss this matter. My belief is that the scope of the Order is misunderstood. My impression is that it takes the form of the Defence of the Realm Regulation but enlarges its scope, and that certainly was the intention of my right hon. Friend.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my right hon. Friend, in order that we may get the matter made clear, consent to move the Adjournment of the House a little earlier to-night?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should very much prefer to hold the matter over till next week, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be present.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the moment the banks are unable to advance loans on shares or for renewals, and that this will mean certain financial disaster to thousands of people this week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really believe that there is a mistake about this. The arrangement was made by my right hon. Friend in consultation with people in the City and with the banks. I will at once see my right hon. Friend and consult him on the matter.
    Sir F. HALL: Pending the discussion, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Regulation?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It means ruin to many.
    Sir E. CARSON: Does not my right hon. Friend see that if his statement is accurate that this has been exaggerated, the sooner we have the Government explanation the sooner will the panic be allayed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I realise that. It is, however, really desirable that if possible the Chancellor should himself be here. I shall see him this afternoon, however, and will consult him on the matter.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement to-night after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is with the view of preventing Ireland participating in those transactions that the private wire between the Dublin Stock Exchange and London has been withdrawn?
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, having regard to the seriousness of this matter, he will suspend the Treasury Order or Minute until we have the full explanation and the matter has been discussed in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite obvious that the Government must be as anxious as any private individual not to have the evils which have been described. I will at once consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and some time to-night I will give a definite answer to the question.

  EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.
  Lieutenant-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether Article 22c of, and the fifth and sixth Schedules to, the Aliens Restriction Order prohibiting the employment of aliens in certain trades, industries, and occupations has recently been repealed; if so, will he state on whose advice this action was taken; if the policy adopted in this matter is intended to facilitate the finding of employment for British subjects who have become, or are likely to become, unemployed owing to the cessation of hostilities; and if he will undertake that no further sections of the Aliens Order shall be repealed until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the whole subject and the policy involved?
  Mr. SHORTT: I explained this matter in an answer to similar questions by the hon. Members for York and Ealing on the 18th of this month, and do not think there is anything I can add.

  SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
  Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial Graves Commission can be requested to reconsider their decision to deprive the bereaved relations of our soldiers of their rights as citizens, still allowed to the relatives of those soldiers who die in England, of choosing the form of memorial that should mark their graves abroad, a privilege never refused in any previous war?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley on the 18th February, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow on Monday last. Every effort will be made by the Imperial War Graves Commission to interpret public feeling rightly on this subject, and no hasty decision will be come to.
  Sir R. NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not possible for his Department to lay down what regulations may be desirable as to space and dimensions, and within those limits allow relatives freedom of design?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am ex officio chairman of the Imperial War Graves Commission, but I have only once presided over their meetings. I will open this subject to them at their next meeting, and will raise the different points which have been brought forward by questions in this House. It is possible that they may alter to some extent the view which they have taken that a uniform standard should be observed. I am not committing myself one way or the other, but I think the matter requires to be further discussed, and that the country and the House should participate as much as possible in the discussion.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (STATUS AND SALARY).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister if the Government is prepared to consider the raising of the status and emoluments of the post of Secretary for Scotland in view of the heavy responsibilities and multifarious duties falling upon the holder of that office?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject, together with the whole question of Ministerial salaries, is at present under consideration.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  Mr. HURDasked the Prime Minister what portions of the Ministry of Information are still at work; what are their functions and where are they located; and also what other official bodies or individual officials are now engaged in propaganda work?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first two parts of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question by the hon. Member for Montrose on the 24th February. The Members of the late Ministry of Information now working under the Foreign Office occupy premises in Norfolk Street, Queen's Gate, and
  1948
  Gledhow Gardens, South Kensington, but the Office of Works is endeavouring to concentrate the work under one roof as soon as possible. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Montrose on the 24th February.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, according to his promise, give a day for the discussion of this matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said I will give a day if there is a general desire for it. But I think it advisable to wait until the Government have a clear idea of what should be done.
  Mr. BILLING: Have we a Minister of Propaganda for enemy countries? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of creating such a post?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have not.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to set up a department of public information; if he is aware that the United States Department of Public Information has for some time past been creating in Allied and neutral countries favourable public opinion towards the goods made by the American people; and if he intends to see that the British Empire has no less efficient methods of making known the resources of our Empire than our American ally?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 20th February, and to the hon. Member for Montrose on 24th February. I am well aware of the very able and efficient commercial propaganda carried on by the United States Department of Public Information in foreign countries, and I trust that my hon. Friend will find that the Foreign Office will, in conjunction with the Department of Overseas Trade, not be unsuccessful in making known to foreign countries the resources of the British Empire.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. JOHN DENNISasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the repudiation of the proprietorship by the Government of blighted potatoes in the hands of the growers thereof; whether this repudiation is

    1949
    contrary to the pledge given by the late Lord Rhondda at a public meeting at Bristol and by the then Director of Vegetable Supplies at public meetings convened for the purpose of inducing farmers to devote as largo an acreage as possible to the 1918 potato crop at Edinburgh, Cardiff, Doncaster, Boston, Spalding, Oxford, Maidstone, Dunstable, Taunton, and Banbury; and whether he can make any statement on this subject?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The Food Controller does not propose to repudiate any pledges officially given with regard to the potato crop of 1918. The late Director of Vegetable Supplies has agreed that the pledges given in respect of this crop are embodied in the Report of the Potatoes (Growers' Prices) Commission dated 18th October, 1918. This Report, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, does not include any reference to blighted potatoes.
    Mr. DENNIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a public meeting at Spalding the present Director of Vegetable Supplies has, on the part of the Government, repudiated any ownership in blighted potatoes now in the hands of growers?
    Mr. PARKER: I am not aware of the details of these things at all, and will bring the matter to the notice of the Department.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of small-holders who grew potatoes expecting them to be taken over by the Government are in great financial difficulty through the potatoes not being taken over and paid for?
    Mr. PARKER: I have no information as to that.

    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL KITCHENS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether Mr. T. D. Jones has been appointed Director of National Kitchens; and what were the special qualifications of this gentleman for this post?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Mr. Jones was selected for this position owing to the ability which he showed in the work which he had already undertaken for the Ministry of Food as Director of Ships Stores.

  IMPORTS (RESTRICTION).
  Captain STANLEY WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether, as a consequence of foreign agitation, the Government propose to allow the import into this country of manufactured goods which will interfere with the turnover of home factories from war to peace conditions and, consequently, gravely affect unemployment?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I have recently given to questions on this general subject, namely, that the matter is being carefully considered by His Majesty's Government.

  PETROL CONTROL.
  Captain GANZONIasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take any steps to put an end to the Petrol Control Department; and, if so, when?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. As intimated on Monday last in reply to the hon. Members for Ashford and Pontypool, legislation would be required to remove the existing obligation on petrol users to take out licences. It will not be possible in anticipation of the Budget statement, to make any announcement regarding the termination of the work of the Petrol Control Department.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Pending the Budget Statement, will my hon. Friend do his best to reduce this petrol nuisance as soon as possible?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As far as it is in my power.
  Colonel C. LOWTHER: Seeing that this was a war emergency measure, is not the continuance of this control causing inconvenience and hardship to engineers and others who use petrol?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry, but it is not a question for the Board of Trade.

  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the increase in the cost of living at the present time is about 130 per cent. compared with the period before the outbreak of war;

  1951
  whether any increase has been made in the pensions scale of Civil servants to assist in meeting this increase; if not, whether the Government has the matter under consideration; and what action they propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot accept 130 per cent.—which is merely the amount of the average change of retail prices—as the correct figure for the increase in the cost of living, which was found by the Sumner Committee to be only 80 per cent. in the case of urban working-class households. The question of an addition to the pensions of Civil servants has been carefully considered by both the present and the late Governments. The Government is not prepared to introduce legislation to secure the proposed increase, the cost of which would be prohibitive.
  Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the pensions were created on the basis of a sovereign being able to buy £l worth of goods, and, considering the present value, cannot something be done to alleviate the sufferings of these people?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The matter has been very carefully considered.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the Government consider it further?

  GERMAN WARSHIPS.
  Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the desirability of utilising German ships of war as foundations for breakwaters, groynes, piers, or for other constructional purposes rather than sinking them in the open sea, and of putting forward proposals for this purpose at the Peace Conference?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the final disposition of the German ships of war is being considered by the Peace Conference, and every purpose to which they may be put is being examined.

  FORESTRY.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the need for the prompt setting up of the new Forestry Authority, in view of the probable shortage of seedlings in the near future and the acreage of recently felled woodlands which will require replanting; and
  1952
  whether any steps are now being taken to provide for that shortage, in view of the delay in setting up that authority due to the need for special legislation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of the desirability of early legislation on the subject of forestry. The Interim Forest Authority are authorised to acquire seeds and to arrange for their planting, and they are taking active steps in this direction. Unfortunately, seed supplies are very short, as last autumn was extremely unfavourable both here and abroad for bringing seeds to maturity.
  Major LANE-FOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when this legislation is likely to be introduced, in view of the urgency of the question?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; in the immediate future.
  Colonel YATE: Will steps be taken to establish a regular school of forestry in this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Legislation on this subject is now being prepared, and I hope will be introduced in the immediate future.

  PEACE CONFERENCE (OFFICIALS).
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a Return showing the names of the officials attending the Peace Conference, the offices they are filling, and the salaries which they are drawing?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall consider whether it is possible to grant the Return asked for.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Will it include allowances as well as salaries?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I promised to consider whether the Return could be given, but it is not easy, because the head officials come and go. They do their work partly here and partly in Paris. I may say that before I left Paris, at the request of the Prime Minister, I carefully examined the numbers and strict limitations were introduced.
  Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of public comment on the size of the Mission, and a good deal of doubt as to whether most of them can find a full

  1953
  day's work, and is it not desirable that the Government should give the public information?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I have promised to consider whether we can give it.
  Mr. BILLING: Are Government cars being employed to take members of the Conference to theatres and other places?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
  Mr. BILLING: I can show the right hon. Gentleman the order.

  COMMERCIAL TELEGRAMS (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Prime Minister when the Censorship will be removed on commercial telegrams between this country and neutral and Allied countries not adjacent to enemy countries; whether he is aware that the present delays in the delivery of telegrams seriously affects British merchants in international commerce; that business formerly done between India and South America is passing into the hands of Japanese and American houses, because telegrams can be sent viâ New York in about forty-eight hours, whilst owing to the action of the Censor telegrams sent from South America to London merchants and transmitted to India take eight to tea days and the same for replies; and that, under these circumstances, international trade is being driven from British control to foreign control?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Government is very desirous of abolishing the Censorship as soon as it is possible to do so, but it is essential that it should be maintained for the present. The serious delays in the delivery of telegrams do not arise mainly from censorship, but from congestion of traffic owing to interruptions of cable and other causes independent of censorship. In so far as telegrams between India and South America may reach their destination more expeditiously viâ the United States than viâ London, this also is due to the same cause, as shown by the fact that such traffic is equally subject to censorship by whichever route it is forwarded.

  CIVIL SERVICE (WHITLEY COUNCILS).
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that for over fifteen months the Civil Service Alliance has been urging the Government to set up a Whitley Council for the Civil Service in order to establish satisfactory relations; between the Government and its servants, and that whilst the Government has been urging upon all employers and employés the desirability of setting up Whitley Councils and committees no such council has been established for the administrative Departments of the Civil Service; and will he state the reasons why the Government have not yet applied the Whitley scheme to the various State Departments; and (2) whether the Interdepartmental Committee which was set up last year to consider the application of a Whitley scheme to the administrative Departments of the Civil Service has submitted its Report to the Treasury; if he is aware that the Civil Service Alliance, comprising seventeen organisations representing the main classes of salaried Civil servants, gave evidence before this Committee in November last; and will he take into consideration the desirability of setting up some kind of a joint conference pending the production of a Whitley scheme in order to remove the discontent amongst Civil servants at the present time?
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to convene a joint conference between employers and employed to discuss the revision of Civil Service salaries and other matters connected therewith?
  Mr. BALDWIN: A Sub-committee of the Interdepartmental Whitley Committee has been considering the application of the recommendations of the Whitley Report to the administrative Departments, and has taken evidence from numerous associations of Civil servants. I understand that this Sub-committee is about to report, but until the proposals contained in its Report have been considered by His Majesty's Government it would be premature to set up a joint conference as suggested.
  Major PRESCOTTasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that schemes for the reorganisation of the Civil Service are now being considered, and that reconstruction measures have

  1955
  already been adopted; and whether it is within his knowledge that Civil servants are now placed in the position that whilst they are awaiting the production of a Whitley scheme, which would give them a measure of influence in determining their conditions of employment, the Treasury, without any consultation with the rank and file of the Civil Service, are carrying on the very reconstruction work which a Whitley Council or Joint Conference is alone fitted to do, and conditions are being determined now which will affect the entire Civil Service for years ahead?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware that any measures of reconstruction have been adopted beyond those recommended in the Reports of Lord Gladstone's Committee on the Recruitment of the Civil Service after the War. It was necessary to give effect to these particular measures, and I do not think that their adoption will prejudice the objects which the institution of Whitley Councils are destined to secure.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL STAFFS).
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister what was the number of persons employed on the clerical staffs of Government Departments prior to the Armistice, and what is the present number so employed?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The numbers are not available in a collected form and could only be ascertained by an exhaustive inquiry from the various Departments.

  PETROL (WAR TAX).
  Major O'NEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to discontinue the special war tax of 6d. per gallon on petrol?
  Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any announcement on this subject in anticipation of the Budget Statement.

  CURRENCY AND FOREIGN EXCHANGES.
  Major O'NEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recom-
  1956
  mendations of the Reconstruction Committee on currency and foreign exchanges contained in their first Interim Report have met with adverse criticism in responsible quarters, notably from the chairman of a well-known bank; and whether he is considering such criticisms in connection with his proposals for the reform of the currency?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will, of course, give full consideration to all criticisms on this important matter.

  GOLD COAST (OIL, SEED, AND KERNEL LEGISLATION).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the introduction in the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast of the oil, seed, and kernel legislation met with the unanimous opposition of the unofficial members; that the Governor stated that in these circumstances he would refer to Downing Street for instructions; and if he will say whether any instructions have been sent which will have the effect of forcing this legislation upon the Colony and Protectorate?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Amery): The facts are as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend in the first part of his question. No instructions have yet been given in the matter.

  POST OFFICE (EX-SOLDIERS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Postmaster-General what steps are to be taken, in view of the present alteration in the conditions of the entry for permanent employment in the Post Office of ex-soldiers, to enable the regular soldier, who has already registered his name on the register for permanent Post Office employment, to obtain the employment for which he was registered under the authority of the Official Guide to Civil Employment, issued by the War Office?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am not aware to what alteration the hon. and gallant Member refers. The registration and primary selection of ex-soldiers for Post Office employment has for many years been carried out under the control of the War Office, and that arrangement is still in force.
  Colonel YATE: Does that apply to the Regular soldier only?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: To all of them, I understand.
  Colonel YATEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the importance to recruiting, and to the fact that a large number of Regular soldiers have already registered their names for permanent positions in the Post Office, it is intended that the 50 per cent. of vacancies in the Post Office reserved in the past for the Regular ex-Service men will still be reserved for them?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: All vacancies for postmen and porters which are not required for ex-boy messengers will be given to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. I hope that the 50 per cent. proportion will be exceeded during the period following the end of the War.

  POSTAL FACILITIES, BARNSTAPLE.
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the closing of the post office at Barnstaple every dinner-hour causes great inconvenience; and whether, now that the reason for such closing, shortage of labour, is removed, and there is an adequate supply of labour available in the borough, he will put an end to the practice?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I hope that it may shortly be possible to discontinue the midday closing arrangement at the Barnstaple Post Office.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider closing them for one hour? Most post offices close for two—from 1 to 3.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUELasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the people of Leiston, Suffolk, and the district by the present restricted postal service, he will consider the immediate restoration of the facilities they previously enjoyed?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him yesterday.
  Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: In view of the fact that this most important service has been discontinued on grounds of national
  1958
  economy, will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the offer which has been made?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As soon as it is possible, of course, facilities will be restored, but I will ask the hon. Member to exercise a little patience as, up to the present, the conditions are practically the same as they were during the War. My anxiety is to restore all facilities at the earliest possible moment.

  POST OFFICE EMPLOYES (SICK PAY).
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Postmaster-General whether, when a Post Office employé receives sick pay, the amount to which he is entitled under the Insurance Act is appropriated by the Government; and, if so, what benefit the employé derives from his weekly payments, in view of the fact that before the passing of that Act he got, without any weekly payments, the same amount of sick pay that he now receives?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Under a decision applicable to ail unestablished persons employed in the Civil Service, a deduction is made from sick pay to correspond with the sickness benefit payable since the Insurance Act of 1918 came into force. The question of compensating the Post Office servants affected for the disadvantages suffered as a consequence is under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to announce a decision at an early date.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary to the Treasury when proposals will be laid before Parliament to amend the Superannuation Act of 1887, so as to remove the injustice to officers who have been retired on pension owing to sickness or disability of having 10 per cent. deducted from the pay of any civil employment they may afterwards obtain in any public department, and to place officers on the same footing as the men in this respect?
  Mr. BALDWIN: A Bill is in course of preparation, and will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

  ENTERTAINMENTS TAX (COUNTY CRICKET).
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the efforts that many county cricket clubs are making to start county cricket again under considerable financial difficulties; and whether, in view of the national importance and value of cricket, county matches will be exempted from the Entertainments Tax?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I see no reason for granting exemption from tax on payments for admission to county cricket matches which would not apply to other forms of outdoor entertainments, and in view of the sacrifice of revenue that would be involved, I regret that I am unable to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if this tax is applied it will stop cricket in London altogether?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know why it should affect cricket more than football and racing. We have not found it has made any impression on those forms of sport.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at Lord's cricket ground a great deal of money is expended in the hire of professionals to teach men and boys to play cricket?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have heard something of the kind.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman make himself further acquainted with the matter, as it is one of considerable importance to a very large number of people in this country?

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to appoint the Royal Commission charged with investigation and report into the working and results of the National Health Insurance scheme, which has now been seven years in operation; whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists among nearly every section of persons connected with the working of the scheme, as well as among the insured persons, with regard to its
  1960
  financial implications; and whether he will institute, without further delay, the complete and exhaustive investigation promised?
  Major ASTOR: I have been asked to reply to this question. No information is reaching the Government of dissatisfaction as to the financial implications (as the hon. Member states) of the present working of National Health Insurance; its finance was, in fact, the subject of prolonged and minute investigation by a very strong Departmental Committee quite recently under the chairmanship of Sir Gerald Ryan; their recommendations were adopted with some small modifications by the Government, after consultation with the Advisory Committee, including representatives of approved societies, whose full concurrence was obtained; the proposals were subsequently passed by Parliament, in the Act of 1918, accompanied by an annual Exchequer Grant of £400,000. This Act only came into force in July last, and its full effect requires not only the test of time but the completion of the actuarial valuation of approved societies which is just about to commence. In these circumstances there seems to be no present ground for the appointment of the Royal Commission for which the hon. Member asks.

  INCOME TAX.

    WAR GRATUITIES.
    Lieutenant-Colonel ALLENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when considering the question of granting officers war gratuities without deducting Income Tax therefrom, he will also consider the question of abolishing Income Tax on pay and pensions of all officers in His Majesty's Forces as a permanent memorial to their courage and devotion to duty in the great War of 1914–18?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

    INQUIRY.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been come to as to the form of inquiry into the methods and procedure of the Income Tax which was promised when hostilities should have ceased; and whether, in view of the questions affecting women that will be involved, he will take

    1961
    care that women are included in the committee or commission to be set up for this purpose?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I may refer my hon. Friend to my reply on the 17th instant to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

    REPAYMENT (MARRIED WOMEN).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether repayment of Income Tax due to a married woman is made not to her but to the husband?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is open to a married woman to make an application for separate treatment in conformity with the provisions of Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1914, and, if she does so, any repayment due in respect of her income is made to her direct. In other cases the repayment is made to the husband, unless he has given an authority for the repayment to be made to his wife.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If the repayment is made to the husband instead of to the wife, is she able to sue for the money?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must take legal advice.

  CAPITAL ISSUES COMMITTEE.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the object of setting up the Capital Issues Committee was to maintain national credit and conserve national resources; if so, whether it will be made clear that the Capital Issues Committee is not to interfere in cases which do not violate these conditions; what financial authorities were consulted before the issue of the latest Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act; whether he can say in what respect national credit is weakened or national resources diverted by financial transactions which do not involve an appeal to the public for subscriptions; and whether, in order to allay commercial irritation and resentment, the energies of the Committee will be further and definitely limited?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Regulation was made after full consultation with the financial authorities
  1962
  most competent to advise in the matter. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, it is clear that capital can be diverted from a purpose of more urgent to one of less urgent national importance by means of a private no less than a public issue, and I do not think it would be in the public interest to restrict the powers of the Committee in the manner suggested.

  ROYAL REVIEW (HYDE PARK).
  Captain SPENDER CLAY (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State, for War whether accommodation will be available to Members of Parliament who wish to be present at the Royal Review at Hyde Park on Saturday next?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be glad to make arrangements for a certain number of Members of both Houses of Parliament.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SEATING ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. BILLING: May I ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether, having regard to the increased number of Members of the House, you will consider the advisability of including the cross benches in places from which one may address the Chair? Coming late, as one occasionally has to do, it is almost impossible to get a seat to ask a question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should not like to make any change in what has been the time-honoured arrangement ever since the House was built. I think it will very soon be found that the pressure will be relieved.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH [SALARIES AND EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Salaries, Remuneration, and Expenses payable under any Act of the present Session to establish a Ministry of Health—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Lord E. Talbot.]

  BILL PRESENTED.
  Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill,—"to make provision for

  1963
  the maintenance of such Forces of the Crown as may be required to meet exigencies arising during the year after the termination of the present War, and with respect to the conditions of service of such forces, and for the purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Churchill; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. John William Wilson reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Sir Archibald Williamson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Representation of the People (Returning Officers' Expenses) Bill).
Mr. John William Wilson further reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had agreed to the following Resolutions:
"That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel may be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place temporarily in case of necessity.
That, in the absence of the Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, the Panel may be convened at the request of any two Members of the Panel."
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have agreed to,—
Coal Industry Commission Bill,
Air Navigation Bill,
Re-election of Ministers Bill, without Amendment.
Dock and Harbour Bills,—That they have agreed to the Resolution of the Commons proposing that the following Bills be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons:—

Blyth Harbour Bill.

Bristol Corporation Bill.

Dublin Port and Docks Bill.

Manchester Ship Canal Bill.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill.

Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill.

Swansea Harbour Bill.

Tees Conservancy Bill.

Tyne Improvement Bill.

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill.

SELECTION.

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir Samuel Roberts reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir Charles Henry and Sir J. A. Lister.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Ministry of Health Bill): Dr. Addison, Major Aston Sir Thomas Bramsdon, Sir Watson Cheyne, Major Farquharson, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Sir Edgar Jones, Sir Philip Magnus, Mr. Arthur Samuels, Mr. Sitch, Mr. James Henry Thomas, Mr. George Thorne, Sir William Whitla, and Sir Robert Woods.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Members: Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Captain Charles Craig, Major David Davies, Mr. John Murray, Mr. Onions, Lieutenant-Colonel Raw, Sir Alfred Warren, Colonel Wedgwood, Colonel Weigall, Mr. Daniel Wilson, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Sir William Ryland Adkins. Major Barnes, Mr. Barrie, Mr. Betterton, Major Birchall, Colonel Bowles, Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Cape, Major Cayzer, Mr. Clynes, Brigadier-General Colvin, Mr. William Coote, Viscount Curzon, Mr. A. Davies (Clitheroe), Mr. J. Davison, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Joseph Green, Mr. Greer, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Hartshorn, Sir EvanJones, Mr. Lunn, Mr. M'Guffin, Major M'Micking, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Major Morrison-Bell, Major Newman, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir John Norton-Griffiths, Mr. Pretyman, Mr. Purchase, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Albion Richardson, Colonel Stephenson, Colonel Sir Alan Sykes, Sir Joseph Walton, Mr. Charles White, and Lientenant-Colonel Sir Mathew Wilson.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Sir Samuel Roberts further reported from the Committee, That in pursuance of

  1965
  the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twelve Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir Henry Craik, Major Glyn, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. John Deans Hope, Sir JohnM'Callum, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Macleod, Major M'Micking, Mr. Sturrock, and Mr. Wilkie.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: May I ask what will be the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday we shall take the Array Estimates;
  Tuesday, further Supplemetary Estimates;
  Wednesday, the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill; and on
  Thursday, the Vote on Account.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will a statement be made next week with regard to the serious question of housing?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member will put a question to me on Tuesday, I think I can give him a definite answer.
  Sir F. HALL: If the Government do not find it necessary to use Fridays, will they consider the advisability of keeping Friday as a private Members' day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already discussed that with my Noble Friend this morning, and, if we find it is possible, we shall make an announcement at the beginning of the week.
  Sir C. HENRY: Is it intended that the House shall sit to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it will meet the general convenience, if we get through the Estimates to-night, that the Motion in the name of my Noble Friend should be moved, and that we should not sit to-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1918–19.
    [MR. WHITLEY IN THE CHAIR.]

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,770, 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 Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    Mr. HOGGE: I hope my right hon. Friend when we come to each of these
    2006
    questions will do as he has done in previous years and avoid a certain amount of criticism by saying something in regard to each Estimate. If we take the one with which we are now dealing, Diplomatic and Consular buildings, hon. Members will see that there are several unexplained items involving a considerable outlay of money in addition to what was originally estimated. The first thing is the provision of new bathrooms, etc., at Lourenço Marques, for which the original estimate was only £150. The revised estimate is now £370. That is a small item, and my right hon. Friend will perhaps avoid a considerable amount of criticism if he explains matters like that. I notice that at Berne there is a sum of £3,400 to be expended for the purchase and adaptation of a new Legation. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us what has come over the old Legation house that was there before. What has been done with it and what is the necessity for this new expenditure? The same with regard to £6,900 at Elizabethville. There there is a proposed increased expenditure of £900, but no information is given as to the old Vice-Consulate at that port. If he can answer these questions, so far as I am concerned he can have the Vote.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: In connection with these Consular buildings at Elizabethville and LourençoMarques, I should like the Government to take into consideration the fact that it has a very considerable effect upon the prestige even of a great country like this if its Consular representatives are not properly housed. In the past when new Consular buildings have been erected they have only too often been on a much smaller scale and much less imposing than the Consulates of other Powers, notably of the United States of America. As two of the items in these Estimates appear to be for new buildings will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee an undertaking that the buildings are of a style and dignity fitting to house His Majesty's representatives?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): I am very glad to receive the support of the Noble Earl in this matter. I quite agree that it is important that our Consular Service should be very well housed. In regard to the questions put by the hon. Member for

    2007
    East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), the item with respect to the Consulate at Lourenço Marques refers to an estimate made a good many years ago. The price of labour and materials has increased very much since then, and more work has been found necessary than was thought to be necessary when the estimate was first made. That explains the increase. In regard to the Consulate at Berne, owing to the great pressure of work we have had to acquire additional premises which are to be used as an extension of the Legation house. This was the most economical way of doing it. We either had to construct a permanent addition to the existing premises or to hire additional premises outside the Legation grounds. In regard to Elizabethville, the present Consulate has been severely attacked by the white ant. I do not know how much damage has been done through the ravages of that insect, but it is considerable. The Consulate was not erected by the Government, and it is a very unsatisfactory building. In 1917 the condition became so bad that it was condemned as uninhabitable by the local authorities. My hon. Friend will agree that that is not a suitable building for a British Vice-Consul. Some time ago we decided to erect a new Vice-Consulate there, and I think the Committee will agree that it is quite time it was done.
    Earl WINTERTON: I should like to emphasise the point I have already made. What has just fallen from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman is evidence of the scandalous way in which our Consular buildings have been protected in the past. As one who has spent a good deal of his time in different parts of the earth, in places where our British Consuls are situated in unhealthy and little-known spots, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do this work at once, when this Vote has been passed. Would it be possible without great expense, when these new Consular buildings are undertaken, either under supplementary or ordinary Votes, to place upon the Table of this House some plan showing the type of building proposed to be erected, in view of the importance of having our Consular representatives properly housed in these different places?
    Sir A. MOND: The Noble Earl may rest assured that we will proceed with the work without delay. I will consider the
    2008
    last proposal he has made. I cannot give an answer now, but I should think it is possible to do what he sugests.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £19,300, 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 Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
    Mr. HOGGE: I wish some Minister would explain these Votes and save questions having to be asked. We are going to spend a great deal of money this afternoon. This Estimate asks for £19,300 additional to the original Estimate. I have looked this up in the old Estimates and I find that the original Estimate for this Research Laboratory was £120,000, of which £25,000 had been expended before 31st March, 1918. The Vote required for 1918–19 is £95,000, and they come down this afternoon and ask for a further £19,300 without giving us the least explanation as to why this money is required. Before we vote this additional money inside of a couple of minutes we ought to have some explanation from the Treasury as to what developments are taking place and what has arisen to require this further expenditure of £19,300.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir A. MOND: I should explain that this is merely a re-vote of an unspent balance of a sum provided in last year's Supplementary Estimate. The fact that it was unspent was largely due to the delay caused by it being impossible during the War to proceed with the erection of the experimental station for research. It is really not an additional payment, but really a re-vote of a sum that was not spent last year and will be spent this year. It has been extremely difficult to frame this Estimate at all. The project covered a very large scheme for experimental fuel research to be carried out near Teddington, including experiments in the carbonisation of coal at low temperatures and high temperatures. When we started building we found the foundations were very bad, and a great deal of trouble was experienced in getting the foundations ready. Therefore it was very difficult to put in any one year a given estimate, and we did not spend as much money in 1917–18 as we expected.
    An HON. MEMBER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that when there is an unexpended balance of a Vote that that automatically lapses and a re-vote is necessary?
    Sir A. MOND: Yes; certainly.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SURVEYS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,300, 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 the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
    Mr. HOGGE: If the Committee will look at the notes at the bottom of page 5 they will see that £3,500 is to be taken for the pay and allowances of non-commissioned officers and sappers. I have looked back to the original Estimate, and find it was for three non-commissioned officers and only two sappers. I think we ought to have some explanation from the Committee as to what they mean to do in the forthcoming year. In the same way I find that in Item C the original Estimate was for 1,348 civil assistants and 100 other assistants. I should like to know what the Committee are now going to do in that way. Will they take the £1,300 for them? It would save a good deal of time if someone who knows the business of the Committee would say what the extra money is taken for and how they mean to spend it.
    The PARLIAMENTARYSECRETARY to the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am responsible in the House for this Vote, and the explanation is quite simple. During the War the work of the Ordnance Survey was largely reduced because they worked principally through non-commissioned officers and sappers of the Royal Engineers, with a certain amount of labourers and civil assistants. During the War, naturally, the Royal Engineers were wanted for military duties, and the work was cut down very materially. Last November the Armistice took place, and the work is being expanded, and, as these men who used to work on the Ordnance Survey and who were temporarily engaged in military operations return, they are taken back on to the Ordnance Survey Vote, and as they come back naturally the number of civil assistants and labourers and others employed in the Ordnance
    2010
    Survey is correspondingly increased. Of course, when this Estimate was made, it was expected that the War would last for the present financial year. The Armistice and the consequent demobilisation has made it necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate. It is hoped by degrees that the Ordnance Survey Department will get back to its original strength and carry out work on a scale similar to what it used to do before the War.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I would like to ask your ruling, Sir, as to raising questions of discontent among the civil assistants for whom pay is now asked in this Vote?
    The CHAIRMAN: That will come on the main Vote for the year. The present Supplementary Vote is confined strictly to items for which the additional money is required.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Therefore I shall not be in order in raising questions such as how this money is to be employed?
    The CHAIRMAN: No; the occasion for that would be on the main Estimates for the year or on the Vote on Account.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,500, 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 Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
    Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I would like to ask on what basis these Grants-in-Aid are made. I have never been able to understand it. I have a large number of Government buildings in my Constituency—I do not know whether any of them are included in this Vote—but I never could understand why it is these buildings do not pay rates like anybody else?
    The CHAIRMAN: That would really raise the question of policy, which belongs to the general Vote. The Debate on the Supplementary Estimates must be confined to reasons for dealing with the supplementary amount unless some departure of policy is involved.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): May I invite the hon. Member to come and see me on the point. The explanation of the increase we are asking by Supplementary Estimate is a very simple one. It arises entirely from the increased poundage from which ratepayers throughout the United Kingdom are suffering to-day. In making the Estimates last year we made what we thought was a liberal provision to cover any anticipation in this respect, but we found that our calculations were upset by the actual increases which occurred. In London alone the increases of rates which have to be paid by the Government owing to the increase of poundage amounts to something over £40,000. In the City of Dublin there has been an increase of 4s. 6d. in the poundage, which has raised the Government payment from £30,000 to £50,000. The only other item which I think might interest members of the Committee is that of the Appropriation-in-Aid, and it might interest many Members who have not been used in previous years to following the form of Government accounts to know that these appropriations consist of repayments which are made by the Ministry of Munitions on behalf of the Ordnance Factory, the practice being for the Ordnance Factory to make their charges inclusive of the cost of rates. It really becomes a mere book-keeping entry. In regard to the rates of houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers, we have arrangements with them by which they pay a certain amount towards the rateable value for the premises occupied just as we do on behalf of premises which we occupy in foreign countries. This is the simple explanation of the additional amount we require, and I trust the Committee will allow it to pass.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I put two questions on two items on the Paper? The first is as to the provision of working capital for the management of the sugar
    2012
    beet estate. That apparently has cost £51,000. The receipts from the sale amount to £11,000 and the losses are £40,000. I am sure my hon. Friend will be able to give us some explanation of such a large loss as this on that amount of capital. Perhaps he can also tell us where the estate is, and what are the reasons—they must be very unusual reasons—why such a very large loss has been made during the last season when the prices of these articles must have been high. My second question is more local because it refers to the West of England in which I am more interested. It relates to the question of rabies in dogs. The Board say that they have guaranteed the manufacturer a sum of money for manufacturing dog muzzles. I do not quite understand what that guarantee is. I have had the misfortune to have to buy several dog muzzles during the last twelve months, and my impression is that the price charged to me is full market value. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us whether the manufacturers are charging both the Government and the people who have to buy the muzzles. It looks very much like it to me. This outbreak of rabies is causing much inconvenience, and, naturally, much irritation, but it is necessary that there should be regulations. The disease was introduced from abroad by the ships coming from abroad. Men without cognisance of the seriousness of the offence brought in dogs affected by hydrophobia. Can my hon. Friend assure me, and assure us in the West of England, that the regulations are now being carried out and are sufficiently strict to prevent any unauthorised dogs coming into the country and spreading still further the disease?
    I would like also to get some information as to how long these restrictions as to the movement and muzzling of dogs are likely to last in Devon and Cornwall. Naturally the public there are greatly inconvenienced. Every dog has to be muzzled and no dog can be taken away, and if my hon. Friend can say approximately when these restrictions will end it will add to our information and satisfaction in these counties. On the question of expense the stamping out of rabies is, after all, a national question. It is not a matter for which the counties of Devon and Cornwall are responsible. Is the whole of this cost to fall upon the Board of Agriculture Vote? The question of

    2013
    stamping out rabies which was introduced from abroad is a national matter, and it would be unfair that any of the cost should fall on the ratepayers of the localities where the outbreak occurred.
    Major HAYWARD: I would like some information as to the working of this estate on which sugar beet is grown. Apparently this is a new departure in the policy of the Board. I would like to know the nature of the whole expenditure, whether this is a national experimental estate, who administers it, and I would like to get whatever particulars the right hon. Gentleman can give. If it is a new departure the Committee would be glad to have full information about it.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Supplementary Estimate arises in consequence of what are practically two new services which have come into being since the original Estimate was made. The first is the expenditure on the estate which has been referred to. This estate is near Newark in Nottingham. The second is as regards this most unfortunate outbreak of rabies in the West of England. The estate referred to was purchased towards the end of 1917 by a body known as the British Sugar Beet Growers' Society, Limited, a body which obtained for the purposes of purchase a loan from the development fund, the objects being to make full experiments in every detail as to the possibility of growing sugar beet commercially in this country. The project was not started by the Board of Agriculture, but by this society which has always had the moral support of the Board of Agriculture. Its operations were suggested by a Sub-committee on Agricultural Reconstruction of the Reconstruction Committee over which Lord Selborne presided, and which recommended that a full trial of this important development might take place. The estate was purchased by this body, but owing to the War it was impossible to carry out the necessary financial arrangements at once, and consequently the Board agreed under a joint arrangement to use part of the estate simply for the purpose of food production for the time being. Altogether something in the nature of 2,000 acres has been cultivated during 1918 by a committee of management appointed by the Board and on which the society is represented.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is the size of the estate?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Over 5,000 acres. This cultivation has taken place over about half the estate. On the other half the tenants still remain, though I think they are going out on Lady Day this year. That part of the estate is being farmed by the original tenants, and the other part which is farmed by this management committee is the part which the tenants have already left. In order to carry out cultivation it was necessary to borrow money from the development fund and £40,000 was borrowed. My right hon. Friend opposite called attention to what looks a very serious matter—that £51,000 was expended and only £11,000 was received against that, and exactly the same point struck me. But the point is really this: that the £51,000 included all the other outgoings of a capital nature as well as working expenses for the year and £11,000 is the revenue.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the £51,000 include the purchase value of this estate of 5,000 acres?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; but it includes the stock, implements, fertilisers, interest on mortgage, and compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act to the tenants who left their holdings, and also labour and cultivation far the year. It includes everything of what you might call capital expenditure as well as working expenditure for the year.
    Major HAYWARD: What is allocated to capital and what to profit and loss?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not in a position to give those figures. I am merely making a statement as to what is included in the £51,000 which has been actually expended, as against which we are able to place £11,000, the proceeds of produce of the estate during the year, making the net increase in the estimate of £40,000. That is purely a temporary arrangement. It is anticipated that financial arrangements of the British Sugar Beet Growers' Society will be such very shortly that they will be able to pay that £40,000. They will then take over this land that has been cultivated, to full production during 1918, and the experiment of growing sugar beet and working the factory to be erected for the manufacture of sugar will be carried out They are to take it over precisely as it stands.
    Mr. HOGGE: With the liabilities?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: With the liabilities. If we have made profits, they will take it. That is to say, if the value of the stock increases, they will take it. If, on the other hand, there is a loss or a liability, they will take that. Our liability is limited to this £40,000. That is as far as the present financial year is concerned. If anything has to be included in the next financial year, it will appear in the Estimates for that year.
    Captain STANLEY WILSON: Is this estate the property of the Government?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It was bought by the British Sugar Beet Growers' Society, Limited. For the time being they were not able, owing to the want of labour and material, to get on with the experiment, and part of the estate has been, for the time being, used by the Government for the purpose of food production.
    Captain WILSON: Have 2,000 acres been used for sugar beet?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They have not been used for sugar beet, but they will be used. I now come to the question of rabies in the West of England. This has been a most unfortunate outbreak. For practically twenty years we have been without rabies. The Regulations that were carried out proved thoroughly effective. Unfortunately, owing to war conditions, somehow or other, we cannot say precisely how, rabies was introduced, probably by a dog which had been imported contrary to Regulations. It must be remembered that during the War, there was great congestion at places like the docks in Plymouth, and the police force all over the country was depleted, and, in so far as rabies has been introduced, there has been a breakdown in the Regulations in this particular instance. But every possible means has been taken to stamp out the disease, and, on the whole, I think with good results, having regard to the depleted state of the police force in that part of the country.
    Captain TUDOR REES: Has the person responsible for the breach of the Regulations been discovered?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; it has been quite impossible to find out with absolute certainty the person, the dog, or the date.
    Major O'NEILL: Is there any foundation for the very current belief that the rabies was introduced by dogs being brought into the country in aeroplanes?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have heard that statement, but believe that it is mere rumour or surmise. My own view is that it is far more likely to have been introduced at a port; but be that as it may, it has been a very serious outbreak. It is impossible to say what was the actual origin of it. The first definite information, as far as I know, was on 19th August, but my right hon. Friend will remember the report that it had been introduced some months before, but it had not been thoroughly diagnosed. At all events, since then there have been 119 cases—ninety-five in Devonshire and twenty-four in Cornwall—and it has been necessary to impose very severe restrictions. There are two areas, an inner area, with Plymouth more or less as a centre, where the more severe restrictions are enforced; and an outer area, which comprises the rest of the counties, Devon and Cornwall, where there are also restrictions which are not so severe. My only answer to the request to give an approximate date as to when the restrictions may be taken off is that we can give no such date. We have got to wait until the disease is stamped out first. I believe that the general rule is that restrictions cannot be taken off in any case until at least six months after the last reported case. I am sorry to say that there was a case reported only within the last few days at a place called Yelberton, somewhere between Plymouth and Tavistock, so at the best we cannot expect the restrictions to be taken off in less than six months. I trust the Committee will support the Board in seeing, having regard to the grave danger which this is, that every possible means is taken to stamp this out in the most effective manner and as soon as possible.
    My right hon. Friend asked about a certain payment to manufacturers in respect of muzzles. When the disease broke out it was discovered that the stock of muzzles in the country was exceedingly small. We had not had rabies for a long time, and we hoped we might never have it again, and, as well as that, manufacturers were unwilling during the War to embark upon a big scheme of manufacturing muzzles, partly because they were afraid that they might have a large amount of unused muzzles left on hand when the outbreak came to an end. In order to get a large stock of muzzles immediately, because it was necessary to have sufficient to ensure the proper carrying out of the Regulations, we made to the manufacturers a

    2017
    payment from the Treasury of 1s. on every muzzle they had in stock, and they agreed to go to work at once and manufacture them. The result is that we have sufficient quantities now. At the beginning there was an absolute deficiency, and the ordinary wire cage muzzle was very scarce, and all kinds of substitutes had to be used. By making this really very small payment we were enabled to ensure an adequate supply of muzzles, which, of course, materially helped in dealing with the disease.
    Mr. LAMBERT: What about the price to the buyer?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Though I commiserate with my right hon. Friend, yet if we had not made that payment he might possibly have had to pay more. Speaking generally, I should like to say that we realise the gravity of this outbreak, but in the last few weeks and months things have undoubtedly been better, and, although the local police are working still short-handed and under great disadvantages, I think they have done everything possible to assist to stamp out the disease.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the Regulations at the ports are now being carried out to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture? The disease was brought in through the ports, and is the Board satisfied that the Regulations prohibiting the entry of dogs are being carried out?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We think they are being carried out quite satisfactorily. I am afraid I cannot give an absolute guarantee that some way or another another dog may not be smuggled in. It is very difficult, especially when soldiers, quite naturally, I think—and I sympathise with them myself—would like to bring in their pet dogs, dogs, perhaps, who have been over the top with them, and so on. The danger is much greater now than ever before but at the same time we believe that the Regulations, which are drastic, are being properly carried out.
    An HON. MEMBER: Will there be a local inquiry held as to this outbreak of rabies? I think if you brought the people locally into consultation you would find that they would be able to stamp out the disease much quicker. I am informed that there are dogs going about at night now without any muzzles.
    General Sir I. PHILIPPS: I think we had a rather extraordinary statement from the Parliamentary Secretary, in which he told us that in order to increase the supply of muzzles 1s. was paid to the manufacturers for every muzzle they had in stock. It stands to reason, therefore, that those muzzles were made before the War, and at a low price. Therefore, the State actually gave 1s. bonus per muzzle to the manufacturers for muzzles that were in stock. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert) asked the very pertinent question as to what conditions were made so that the public were not to be taxed, not only with that 1s., but also the profiteering on the muzzles. We have not got any information on that point. It is the most extraordinary business arrangement that has ever been put before the House, to pay 1s. for every muzzle in stock made at a low price, so that they could sell at the original price, get the 1s. bonus, and, as well, the ordinary profiteering addition. Therefore I think we are entitled to ask at what price were those State-subsidised muzzles sold to the public. I think when a complicated farm problem like the sugar beet estate is put before us we ought to have some memorandum explaining what the position is, as otherwise the time of the House is unnecessarily taken up in discussing questions of the kind. As we now understand the matter, this is a private farm of 5,000 acres, of which 3,000 is still in the hands of the tenants. Two thousand acres were to be used for a sugar factory, but were not so used. Therefore, the Board of Agriculture very properly stepped in and decided to farm it themselves. We have got no details of the £50,000 expenditure, but that amounts to £25 per acre. I do not think that is very high if there were good implements and cultivation, but we do not know what the receipts from sales were, or any details. Farmers now are required to produce very detailed accounts, and I do not see why the State should not submit proper accounts to this House. I think this is a most irregular way of putting forward this proposal, with a mixture of capital and annual expenditure. I think we should get a promise from the President of the Board that he will supply to the House, by a White Paper, or whatever it is called, details showing exactly the stock on the farm and what steps have been taken for its proper cultivation. What we have got now is useless. This is a big farm operation, and capital expenditure and

    2019
    ordinary wages ought not to be lumped together. I think those expenditures ought to be divided. What have we got for our money? Did that money pay for the outgoing tenant's crops, hay, straw, and so on?
    Mr. KILEY: Did we get any sugar at all?
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: It is going to be devoted to sugar in the future, I understand, but at present it is being cultivated I as an ordinary English farm. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider as to whether he can give us some figures on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: This is an entirely new Vote, and we are entitled to have from the Government a statement with regard to policy on this question of this sugar beet estate. I have been listening to the speeches made and the questions put, and, without having any knowledge of the estate or its whereabouts, I must confess I do not know really what this amounts to or what it means. From the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary I understand that before the outbreak of war there was some kind of company in this country which wished to experiment in the growing of sugar beet, and that for that purpose they had chosen this estate of about 5,000 acres. Since the War broke out that company has been unable to follow the experiment, and the Government, through the Board, has cultivated 2,000 of these 5,000 acres. There has been set aside for that, £51,000 for the working capital and management of that 2,000 acres. The other 3,000 acres are, I understand, in the hands of the private company, and we have nothing to do with them. There has been a sum of £11,000 made out of sales from this farm, but we do not know what those sales were. We are not told whether they were vegetable produce, or potatoes, or other crops. We therefore have no guidance for arriving at any conclusion as to whether this farm has been carefully or well managed. We were all urged to cultivate, from the back garden to the public parks, and we were told if we did we would be able to supply ourselves with food which otherwise would be very dear to buy.
    What has the Board of Agriculture done? To meet the deficiency of £40,000 the Board has gone to the Development
    2020
    Fund, and I suppose the amount they obtained from them is to be paid back. If that is the transaction, the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say whether the £40,000 has been got out of the Development Fund by the Board of Agriculture. If that is so, that is using the Development Fund by the Department for a purpose for which the Fund was never created. The Development Fund certainly was never created in this House to enable the Board of Agriculture to take over 2,000 acres from some private company which wanted to grow sugar and in order to produce food. That was not the purpose of the Development Fund, and I should like to know whether that is the real meaning of this transaction or not? As this is a new Vote, the House is also entitled to know whether the Government have any policy with regard to the future of this estate. It may or may not be—and I offer no opinion on this point, as I am not qualified—a good or a bad thing to attempt to grow sugar beet in this country. There may be some hon. Members who do know. But we ought to know from the Government, in view of promises which have been made in other directions of bonuses to all kinds of interests, whether the Board of Agriculture, before the surrender of the 5,000 acres, are going to subsidise this experiment of growing sugar beet in the country, and is that to be supported by the Government as part of their policy? This is the first opportunity we have had of getting an answer to that question and of understanding what the Government's policy is in regard to it. I do not think it is sufficient simply to tell us the kind of details which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us with regard to the outgoings and incomings of a part of the estate. I think the House is entitled to have answers to the kind of questions I have put, and I hope there is someone opposite who can give them.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the question of future policy arises here unless the money really involves future policy, in which case it would be open for discussion.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This item has nothing to do, Sir, with future policy. It only has to do with what has been expended over and above the original Estimate during the current financial year, and that is in relation to the ordinary

    2021
    working of part of this estate as a farm. It has got no relation to the future of the experiment with sugar beet cultivation. I shall be only too glad at the proper time to give any answers as to what is proposed to be done, but I could not give a complete answer now because negotiations are proceeding. In any case, I submit that it does not arise here. In regard to the other point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, what he said is perfectly true. In order to work a part of this estate £40,000 was borrowed from the Development Fund, and that is the only item we have to deal with to-day. I think the Committee will agree with me that it would have been a grave misfortune if this land had not been properly cultivated when we were in a position to make good use of it. I quite appreciate the desire expressed by hon. Members for a more detailed statement of accounts and I hope I shall be able to give them a more detailed, statement, although I am not in a position to do so this afternoon. For the time being, what I say is that we made the best possible use of the land, it was thoroughly well worked by a joint committee of the Board and this association, it was useful from the point of view of food production, and I think we were thoroughly justified in obtaining this loan, without which the estate could not have been worked.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am willing to accommodate my hon. Friend, but I would like to suggest that as he thinks as a result of the discussion Members should have a more detailed account, the Government should not take this precise Vote to-night. There are a large number of Votes on the Paper and if the Government themselves think further particulars ought to be supplied they ought not to take this Vote now. On the point as to whether or not future policy is involved, this £40,000 is being taken out of the Development Fund, which was constituted in order to encourage various attempts in this country, such as this particular experiment, if it were approved of, to be proceeded with, and my objection is this, that for the purpose of providing food during the War, when means could have been got otherwise, the Development Fund was encroached upon to the extent of £40,000 to meet that loss. I want a definite statement from the Government
    2022
    that this does not mean more than what appears on the face of the Estimate, and will the Government explain that before they would assist this company to proceed with the experiment the House would have the opportunity of discussing and determining that policy?
    Lieutenant-Colonel MOORE BRABAZON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will explain the reason why six months' quarantine is now required in regard to the outbreak of rabies, seeing that four months used to be the prescribed period. If four months was long enough before, why are we taking six months to-day?
    Sir C. HENRY: My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) spoke as if the £40,000 was a loss, but is it a loss? Is it not a fact that this is a substantial asset, and that it is not a trading loss at all?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: May I suggest, on the point of Order, that this opens up the future policy of the Board, because the Board could not have expended £50,000 on the capital and management of the estate without committing themselves to the future development of the estate. I do not want to go into that, but to raise another point. This is apparently the very first occasion on which the Board of Agriculture have taken over the management of an estate. I do not remember anything like it before. [An Hon. Member: "Bushey Park!"] That was the Board of Works, and not a very successful experiment either. The Board of Agriculture has taken over this estate from a private company for the purposes of food production, but surely there is a food production committee in each county which could have taken over this matter, and I do not understand why it is that the Board of Agriculture itself should have taken over the management of this farm. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that if he was criticising this Vote instead of supporting it he would think his explanations have been singularly obscure. I hope that before this Vote comes before the main Committee of the House, by some means or other, we shall have circulated some idea of what the Board's commitments and proposals are in regard to this method of farming. The question of the nationalisation of land is being raised a good deal nowadays. If the land

    2023
    is nationalised it will presumably be managed by the Board of Agriculture, and apparently this is not a very favourable commencement. I would ask my hon. Friend to give us that information. If it is a question of food production in the counties, surely it was a matter for the War Agricultural Executive Committee, which is charged with this special duty in each county.
    Major HAYWARD: When the hon. Gentleman does give us details I hope he will also tell us what the Government proposals are for the future. I gather from the Paer that£51,000 as been taken fr farmig somebdy elses estat, and w have oly £11,00 retured up t the present. I hope, therefore, when the hon. Member gives us further details, he will let us know the nature of the tenancy.
    Mr. KILEY: Has there been a loss at all on this experiment? If so, what is the loss? It is not clear at all that there has been any loss as far as I can gather. But if there has been a loss, why should there be on food cultivation in this country at the present time? Prices were never more satisfactory and never likely to be more satisfactory, and, therefore, before we pass this item, we ought to have a more complete explanation.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am really very sorry if I have been obscure. I am sure the Committee will believe that I have not wished to be obscure. There has been no loss of £40,000 at all. In order that this land might be cultivated, £40,000 was borrowed from the Development Fund. [An Hon. Member: "On what security?"] On the security of the land. The land belongs to the British Sugar Beet Growers' Society, and they were not in a position to start operations owing to the War. A certain part of the estate had no tenants on it, and the question was what was to be done with that land. The association had not got the capital at the time to start and cultivate the land, and they came to the Board. I am speaking now to the best of my ability, but hon. Members will recognise that I was not myself on the Board at that time; but the Board said they would endeavour to see them through. A joint committee of management of the Board and of the society was arranged, £40,000 was borrowed from the Development Fund for working capital, stocking, and so
    2024
    forth, and as soon as ever the arrangements of the society are complete for starting on their sugar-beet experiment they will repay the £40,000, so that there is no loss whatever. The question was this: Were we to allow the land to remain derelict? And the best way was for the Board of Agriculture to assist by making this loan out of the Development Fund. I have not got further details at present as to the profit and loss account, but I am informed that it has been exceedingly well managed. This is a mere transitory item, and it is not likely to occur again, because I hope that shortly the association will be in a position to start with their proper experiment and to repay the loan.
    Mr. HOGGE: How much is the loan?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Forty thousand pounds. It is wrong to suggest that there has been a loss of that money. With regard to the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite about muzzling, I think he was right in saying that four months used to be the regular period for muzzling, and now it is six. This unfortunate outbreak of rabies has taught us to believe that four months was not a sufficient time and that it was necessary to keep dogs under control nd obsevation or a loger perod, and therefoe the fur monts was atered tsix moths. I ope tha after his expanation the Committee will allow me to have the Vote.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have listened to a great many of these discussions on Supplementary Estimates and have never yet heard of us getting rid of an Estimate in which the Government were lending £40,000 to some private individuals who may, or may not, succeed in repaying that money. Supposing these circumstances arise. Supposing this company cannot do what it sets out to do, or supposing there are sufficient influential people on this company to induce this or any other Government to give them a grant of money to develop their estate so that they can repay the £40,000. What is the policy of the Government? I respectfully suggest to the Committee that we are parting with something we do not understand if we let the Government have this Estimate now. I again appeal to my hon. Friend to leave it there. It is not essential to take the Estimate to-day. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree at once that it

    2025
    is not necessary to take it to-day, and I think my hon. Friend should agree, in view of the conversation we have had, to put the Estimate back until we have these other details. If there is something in it, then the House retains its hold upon this money.
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would suggest that the far better course is to let me have this Vote now, and the matter can be raised again on Report.
    Captain WILSON: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has appeared this afternoon in an entirely new character, as a champion of agriculture, and I do not think he has shown that he knows very much of the subject on which he has talked. I very much hope the representative of the Board of Agriculture will not listen to the representations the hon. Member has made. The explanations which my hon. Friend has given to the Committee are as clear as they can possibly be, and I congratulate him and the Government on the action they have taken in regard to this matter.
    Mr. C. WHITE: May I ask who are the Sugar Beet Society, how much of this £51,000 was working capital, and how much was used for the management of the estate?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The hon. Member has quite as easy an opportunity of ascertaining the names of the Sugar Beet Society as I have. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are one or two hon. Members in this House connected with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I cannot, in reply to a question, give the names of everyone connected with it, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to put a question to me as to who are the directors or managers of it, I shall be only too glad to answer it.
    Question put,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1919, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Agricultural Wages Board, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 49.

    Division No. 7.]

    AYES.

    [5.3 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Ainsworth, Captain C.

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Henry, Sir Charles S. (Salop)

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldort

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Howart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dennis, J. W.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Denniss, Edmund R. B.

    Hinds, John

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Barker, Major R.

    Dockrell, Sir M

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

    Donald, T.

    Hood, Joseph

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Berwick, Major G. O.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Johnstone, J.

    Bruton, Sir J.

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Jones, Sir E. R. (Merthyr)

    Burdon, Col. Rowland

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Kerr-Smiley, Major P.

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Kidd, James

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Gould, J. C.

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Carr, W. T.

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Greig, Col. James William

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Gretton, Col. John

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

    Lorden, John William

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

    Hailwood, A.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hallas, E.

    Lowther, Col. C. (Lansdale, Lancs.)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Lyon, L.

    M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Preston, W. R.

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Purchase, H. G.

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Thompson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor-

    Townley, Maximillian G.

    Mason, Robert

    Reid, D. D.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Renwick, G.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Moles, Thomas

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wallace, J.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Walton, J. (York, Don Valley)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.

    Rodger, A. K.

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Rogers, Sir Hallewell

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Morris, Richard

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Whitla, Sir William

    Mosley, Oswald

    Rowlands, James

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

    Williams, Col. sir R. (Dorset, W.)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Williams, T. J. (Swansea, E.)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Samuel, A. L. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Wilson, Capt. A. (Hold'ness, Yorks.)

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, W.)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Seager, Sir William

    Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

    Seddon, J. A.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Seely, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. John

    Winterton, Major Earl

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Palmer, Major G. M.

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

    Woolcock, W. J. U.

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Simm, M. T.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Parker, James

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Starkey, Capt. John Ralph

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Perring, William George

    Stewart, Gershom

    Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hayday, A.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hirst, G. H.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Briant, F.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Kiley, James Daniel

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

    Cape, Tom

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Wignall, James

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    O'Grady, James

    Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Onions, Alfred

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Redmond, Captain William A.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Green, A. (Derby)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Sexton, James

    Hogge and Mr. Neil M'Lean.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    SECRET SERVICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000, 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 His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    Mr. BALDWIN: I regret to say that this is the seventh time I have had to stand at this Box, and introduce a Supplementary Estimate in connection with this Vote. Why I used the words "I regret" is that the expenditure of this particular Vote is withheld from me. The Vote, by its name, is a secret Vote. The Committee of the House of Commons, by
    2028
    sanctioning the passing of the Vote under the title it bears, surrenders its claim to inquire into the purposes for which the money is issued. It may, however, be of interest to new Members amongst us to know that no money is parted with under this Vote except under a certificate from a responsible Minister of State to the effect that the money has been properly expended, and that certificate is examined and certified by the Controller and Auditor-General, who reports in due course that he has satisfied himself and the Public Accounts Committee as to the authenticity of the payment. I may also say that in this Vote any money not expended at the expiration of the financial year,

    2029
    31st March, is surrendered to the Exchequer. I noticed that in last July, when I introduced the first Supplementary Vote for half a million pounds I said, that, although I hoped that that sum might be sufficient for the latter part of the year, I could give no undertaking that it would be so, for it might be necessary to introduce a further Supplementary Vote. Such a proceeding is not a matter for surprise when one considers the period through which we have passed, nor that this Vote is a large one. There may be some satisfaction in hoping and feeling that this may be the last time on which I shall have to introduce a Vote of this dimension.
    Mr. ALFRED SHORT: Probably the hon. Gentleman will remember that in the course of the life of the last Parliament, during the period of the War, there were many rumours current regarding the employment of spies in our workshops and in our industrial centres. Can he tell us that none of this money is being used to-day, for the purposes then stated, in connection with industrial purposes and industrial unrest?
    Mr. KILEY: We have already been told that we cannot get special details. There are many items, no doubt, which are justly and properly expended in a Vote of this character. One cannot but express a profound sense of disappointment at the ever-increasing demands from time to time, yet one cannot very well press the point for some information. I think, however, one is justified in expressing the desire that this will be certainly the last, for a considerable time to come, of any further demands upon the taxpayers of this country for a Secret Service system.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I fully sympathise with the remarks of my hon. Friends opposite. As to the point put to me by my hon. Friend opposite, the reason I am unable to answer him is that I have absolutely no knowledge of the question, or as to where the Secret Service money goes. That is not within my province. I should, however, like, very earnestly, to point out this, that there is nothing easier than to make allegations as to where the Secret Service money does go, because confirmation one way or another cannot be given. If it were possible for me to stand up here and to explain in a measure where Secret Service money is expended, then, by a process of exhaustion, hon. Members would be able to find out exactly what it is meant they should not find out. Questions might be
    2030
    asked as to whether the money was used for this, that, or the other, and thus particulars might come out. I myself feel perfectly confident as an individual that no use of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is ever made in this country.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Only in Ireland!
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is against the spirit of our people. Last year the hon. Member for East Mayo made a number of charges, but I do not believe such practices as suggested would be sanctioned by any of the Ministers who have the spending of the money. I give that as a personal opinion. It may be that I have said too much. I only hope, however, that hon. Members will realise what this Vote is—that it is one upon which money is granted under the age-long practice of this House, and that rumours of all kinds may be raised reflecting upon the Executive which the Executive, from their very position, are not able to contradict.

    CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.—CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not know whether it is meant, but the sandwiching of this Vote between the Vote for mad dogs and the Vote for lunatic asylums shows that there is a certain British sense of proportion in relation to Irish affairs which we never before appreciated. What I want to know is: Why there should be this additional thousand pounds for travelling expenses for the Chief Secretary for Ireland? The entire Estimate is for £l,800. That is the cost to the State for matters connected with, and having a foreign gentleman travelling from this country to Ireland and travelling back again. I am not a very subtle commercial man, but I only say that this is about the most unprofitable transaction that even a British Government engaged in. Why should the Chief Secretary for Ireland have gone to one thousand pounds more expense in travelling to Ireland this year than in any other year of administration? I should like an explanation of how this £1,800 has been spent. There was not any need for the Chief

    2031
    Secretary to travel to Ireland at all. It would have been far better for Ireland if he stayed in this country. Who is this Chief Secretary? Who is any Chief Secretary? What is a Chief Secretary? What functions does he discharge? What powers has he in administration or in Government? I do not know. Hon. Members do not know. He himself does not know! I asked the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland once—I think within the last eighteen months—who governed Ireland? He replied that he did not know. Yet he was the chief executive authority in that country. The present Lord Lieutenant is complete master of the destinies of Ireland in the interest of this country. I see that you are wagging your head, Sir Edwin. I am not going to take advantage of your lack of experience in the Chair; therefore I shall keep as closely as possible to the Vote. I see the Attorney-General here, the prolific defender of indefensible causes in Ireland. I may venture to address to him a series of fiscal interrogatories. I want to know why the Chief Secretary travelled to Ireland? I want to know why he travelled back? I want to know what he was doing when he travelled there, and what he was saying when he travelled back here? What was he doing in Ireland? During last year the Chief Secretary travelled backwards and forwards, and I am not aware that he did anything but make promises. Not one of his promises has materialised. He created nothing. He invented only the German plot.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall): That point is not in order. The hon. Member must discuss the question before the Committee, which is as to the provision of an additional £1,000 for travelling expenses.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, Sir, but what I contend is, that while the Chief Secretary was travelling he invented the German plot.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not come in for discussion on this Vote.
    Mr. DEVLIN: With all respect to you, I do say that as a Member of this House, sitting here as a representative of the wronged taxpayers of this country, I am entitled to discuss the value we have got for this thousand pounds. I say all the value we have got was the excuse given to the Coalition Government by inventing the
    2032
    German plot, which was invented in order to put a number of gentleman in Ireland in gaol without trial?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should not be doing my duty if I allowed this discussion.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It seems to me we cannot discuss the matter of the labours of the right hon. Gentleman who gets this £1,800. Therefore I shall not proceed further except to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made two hundred promises during the time he was travelling to and from Ireland, that each promise cost the State £5, and that we are getting nothing for the expenditure.
    Mr. SAMUELS: The only question we have to discuss is this extra sum required for travelling. It includes not only the Chief Secretary's travelling, but also the staff of the Irish Office, who very frequently have to cross between England and Ireland. We all know that the cost of travelling has risen enormously, and during the Session the Chief Secretary had to cross the Channel thirty-three times.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I had to cross thirty-four times.
    Mr. SAMUELS: This Estimate also includes certain expenses in connection with the Under-Secretary for Ireland.
    Captain REDMOND: Why is it that it has cost the Treasury £l,000 more during last year for the Chief Secretary than it did before?
    Mr. SAMUELS: It has been necessary to provide for the Chief Secretary visiting Ireland more, and he has very frequently had to return to attend Cabinet meetings.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Motor cars.
    Mr. SAMUELS: Yes, there is the hire of motor cars and the increased cost of petrol; and many other expenses have been enormously increased.
    Captain REDMOND: Are they going to increase next year?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I do not know.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The Chief Secretary seems to be about the most expensive and useless luxury that we have got either in England or Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Do the lunatic asylums come under this Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary?
    Question put, and agred to.

    PRISONS, ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, 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 the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."

    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £57,955, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I do not know whether the Secretary for Scotland is here, but I gave him notice that I would ask a question. Perhaps the Minister in charge of the Estimate will convey the point I wish to put. My point is whether this supplementary sum for reformatory and industrial schools in Scotland includes the very necessary amount which is required to raise the salaries of the teachers and the attendants in those institutions?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I will convey to the Secretary for Scotland what has been said by my right hon. Friend. This particular Estimate, however, does not deal with the point he raises. This Government Grant is entirely for the schools and is conditional on the Local Government Grant being of equal amount.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The new scale which extends to these voluntary schools has necessitated large changes being made in all the schools in Scotland, and if the status of the teachers at the reformatory schools is to be kept up to the level of the others then this Grant is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. KILEY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if this increase is due to extra cost of maintenance or extra inmates?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: This Estimate is to meet alone the rise in the cost of living. I quite agree as to the importance of the subject which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities has raised, but it does not arise in this Supplementary Estimate.

    COUNTY COURT OFFICERS, ETC., IRELAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,644, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland."

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,500, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £134,105, 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 the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
    Captain WILSON: I think there must be a mistake in the last column of this Vote. It says, "Appropriation-in-Aid: deduct from the gross total £5,837 on the gross total of £128,268." I notice that they are added together and this makes £134,105. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is correct or not. It appears to me that these amounts have been added instead of being deducted. Whether it is a misprint or error I do not know. I submit that the sum which you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, have put is the wrong sumand ought to be reduced.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I think I might throw a little light upon this point. These Appropriations are sums which have accumulated and are paid in, and the office in question has no power to deal with them except by way of a special Grant.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In regard to the Appropriation-in-Aid the hon. Member will see that the original estimate was £41,910 and the revised Estimate £36,073. Therefore the amount of the original Estimate was not realised by the Appropriations-in-Aid, and the amount of £5,837 has to be added.
    Mr. SAMUELS: The hon Member will find this point explained in Note Q.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Is there an increase in the wages of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Yes, that is so.
    Mr. GRAHAM: How much do they get?
    Mr. SAMUELS: The sum that is mentioned is an additional sum up to last September.

    DUNDRUM CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, IRELAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, 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 the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

    BOARD OF EDUCATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £225,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: There is one item of this Vote which has a very special interest, and that is the item which appears for the first time, as I understand it, in any Vote presented to this House. I refer to the Grants towards expenditure in connection with the education of demobilised officers and men, amounting to £75,000. I just wish to say, and I think everybody will agree, that that, sum will be most gladly granted by this House, and no money which is used in this way can be otherwise than most fruitful and productive expenditure. I will only make one point. Time is of the essence of the real usefulness of such a Grant. These men are coming back to civilian life, or the largest proportion of them, after a period of enforced idle-
    2036
    ness in the Service waiting for demobolisation, and go where you like throughout the length and breadth of the country you will see demobilised officers and men without any definite occupation. The trades to which these men have gone are of a nature which affects the very root of their vital energy, and the longer they are allowed to go without a proper clear cut opportunity of adapting themselves to civilian life the greater the injury to them. I express the most fervent hope that this money will be used as swiftly as possible, because every day this devitalising process goes on and these men become more and more unfit to take advantage of the scheme which is mentioned here.
    Mr. HAYDAY: I do not object to the additional sum of £150,000 in respect of certain Grants to certain educational authorities, but I would like to have some information as to the causes that have made it necessary for the original Estimates to be increased by almost 100 per cent.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I am fully sensible of the very weighty considerations which have been brought before the notice of the Committee by my right hon. Friend (SirD. Maclean). It is, as he says, of the utmost importance that this assistance which the Government are proposing to give to ex-officers and men of like education and standing to enable them to avail themselves of the higher educational institutions of this country should be forthcoming as rapidly and as promptly as possible, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that object is in a very fair way of accomplishment. Already a number of ex-officers are receiving grants under the scheme and have gone to the universities. They will receive interim grants not exceeding £35 per term until their circumstances have been fully inquired into, when grants will be given to cover their education during the whole of their university course. We have already received between 900 and 1,000 applications for grants from ex-officers and men, and these are being attended to as rapidly as possible. With regard to the Grants to necessitous areas, I may perhaps explain that the necessitous areas Grant was started in the year 1906–7, and that the sum granted was stereotyped in the financial year 1915–16. There are a number of areas where the circumstances have been

    2037
    very exceptional. The increase in their expenditure has been mainly due to the demands which have been put forward for increases of salary on the part of the teaching staff. These areas, which are very poor and whose rateable value is very low, are mainly in the neighbourhood of London—West Ham is a classical instance—and they suffer in the teachers' market by the competition of the very wealthy adjoining districts of London. These areas consequently have been put to a very considerable strain, and my hon. Friend will realise what that strain is when I tell him that the education rate in West Ham now stands at 3s. 7d. against 2s. 6d. for 1917–18. Consequently, a very strong appeal was made to the Board of Education to meet the special circumstances of these poor areas.
    Hon. Members may perhaps ask why these needs were not sufficiently met by the Supplementary Grant which was introduced in 1917 and which was framed upon a formula especially devised to assist necessitous areas. The reason is that the Grant has had to be calculated upon the expenditure not of the current year, but of two years ago, the other figures not being available. Next year the Supplementary Grant will be calculated upon the figure of that year. Consequently, we have this situation: A certain number of areas, twenty in number, will be faced with an exceptional demand and will be burdened with an exceptional rate, whereas the Grant will not be adequately adjusted to meet their needs. That is the reason for this Supplementary Grant.
    Major HAYWARD: Apparently, this item of £75,000 for the education of demobilised officers and men is a new Vote and represents a new departure, and, that being so, I think the Committee would be glad to have some further information. I should like to know the institutions to which this Grant extends. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the universities to which ex-officers who have the benefit of these Grants may go. I am quite sure that the Committee would be interested to know under what conditions the Grants are given, how the officers are selected, and who selects them. This seems a very wide and important matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman could give us some fuller information I feel sure that the whole Committee would be grateful. I think on this Vote we are entitled to open up the question
    2038
    of policy, and, if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what is the policy of the Government on this matter, I for one should be exceedingly glad, because it is a matter in which I am keenly interested, as I am sure are other Members.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I ask if it is intended to confine this Vote to officers and men of like standing, because I would remind my right hon. Friend that there are thousands and thousands of young men who will be demobilised, and who have just as great a claim for further education as officers and men of like standing. There are thousands of young fellows of promise who have had their lives broken into, and whose mental capacity has remained more or less stagnant. If the War had not broken into their lives they would be occupying very prominent positions, but now they will have to take inferior positions. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do for them? They have just as great a right to a better education as ex-officers and men of like standing.
    Mr. KILEY: I rise to endorse the appeal for some further information with regard to these Grants. We all rejoice to see this item, but we should like to know a little more as to what will happen to these men if they are successful, say, in obtaining their degree after spending their time at a university. What facilities will be provided for them obtaining some position? Will it be possible for them to link up with the Ministry of Labour, which, I understand, has a number of professions and occupations that will be available? I hope they will not be sent to the university, kept there for a certain period, and then be allowed to leave without means. I should like to be assured that when they obtain their degree there will be some profession open to them.
    Mr. C. WHITE: I should like to ask how many officers and how many men who are not officers are receiving the advantages of this higher education, and what is the meaning of the phrase "men of like standing." Why is that qualification put in? I should be very pleased to support a Vote of double this amount, but I want to know just the position and just how the selection is made?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I make no complaint of the questions which have been asked me, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of giving a further explanation to the Committee upon a matter which neces-

    2039
    sarily is of very great interest and importance. This scheme is the outcome of a Report made by a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Alfred Keogh, a Committee winch was appointed by the Presidents of the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Education and the Ministers of Labour and of Pensions, under the name Officers (University and Technical Training) Committee, to advise the Departments concerned upon such courses of education and training as it might be desirable to arrange for ex-officers and persons of like standing, particularly with a view to fitting them for suitable appointments after the War. On 14th November the Committee submitted to the Ministers concerned a scheme of assistance towards the educational training of ex-officers and men of like standing. This was considered by the Demobilisation Committee, and a scheme was submitted to the War Cabinet on 6th December, 1918. The Treasury approved the finance of the proposal, and the War Cabinet directed that effect should be given to it. On 14th December, 1918, an official announcement was issued by the Controller-General of Demobilisation and Resettlement, and the general arrangement was that the Board of Agriculture and the Education Departments in England, Scotland, and Ireland should provide courses of higher education in educational institutions—not only in the universities but in the technical institutes and higher educational institutions—that the Minister of Labour should arrange for additional courses of practical training in offices, works, and professional employments, and that the Board of Agriculture and the corresponding Departments in Scotland and Ireland should arrange for practical training on farms. The Minister of Pensions was to co-operate in the working of the scheme on behalf of disabled officers and men who would be eligible for maintenance under it. The provisions of the Royal Warrant as to the training of the disabled was to remain in force so far as they were more beneficial to the candidates than the provisions under the scheme. On 20th January, 1919, the Board of Education issued to university institutions an announcement of the terms upon which they were prepared to make interim grants to ex-Service officers and men desirous of pursuing
    2040
    courses of higher education during the term which was then commencing, and, if necessary, during the summer term. The object of these interim grants was to enable suitable men to commence or resume their courses of education at once without any waiting. That answers a point made by my right hon. Friend when he pleaded for immediate action. We are making interim grants to meet that particular difficulty. The interim grant is limited to the amount of £35 for the spring term and a similar amount for the summer term, if necessary. It is believed that a cash payment of that kind for each of the terms will be sufficient to enable a man to carry on. The responsibility for recommending the award is placed on the university or institution concerned. Under this arrangement some 900 or 1,000 applications have been received in respect of men who desire to enter or resume their education in a university during the coming year. In a certain number of cases a smaller sum than £35 has been awarded. Generally speaking, the heads of institutions have performed their duties in this respect most carefully and conscientiously, and an examination of their recommendations shows that all the men recommended are well qualified by educational attainments to benefit by university education, but they really need assistance. Many of them come from very poor homes, and whatever sacrifices their parents have made to enable them to qualify for university education, there is no doubt that many of them would not have reached their present stage of education without the assistance of scholarships and exhibitions granted by local education authorities and by governors of endowed foundations. Not a penny of the money is expended on ex-officers or other persons of like standing who do not require financial aid, and most careful inquiry is made into the circumstances of all applicants. No doubt a good deal still remains to be done to improve and widen the avenue to the universities. I think the Committee may rest satisfied that this money is being wisely and properly spent on people who have served their country in the War, and only on them, and on men who are fitted to profit by higher education at our universities and technical schools. It is spent only on men who really want the money and could not undergo the course of training without it.
    Mr. WHITE: My object in raising the question was to see that as far as possible the money went only to those men who cannot help themselves.
    Sir J. D. REES: My right hon. Friend said that every possible inquiry was made before any grant was given under this head. But I did not understand from him what kind of inquiry is made, or exactly to what kind of person the grants were made. Are the grants made to persons who ordinarily would not have received them or who, but for serving in the War, would not have gone to a university? Why is the money given to one man more than to another? Is it a sort of rung in the ladder of education of which we have heard so much in late years, and what kind of discrimination is exercised in regard to it? I confess that, although I listened to the right hon. Gentleman with very great attention, it is not quite clear to me what exactly is being done. I understand some 400 young sailors have been sent to Cambridge—
    Mr. FISHER: They are not included in this Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am still in some doubt as to the class of persons to whom the grant is given. Officers and men who have been demobilised have been mentioned, but it is extremely difficult for me to understand how this public money is being distributed. I do not complain that my right hon. Friend has not explained it to my satisfaction, but I do want to know is the money going to officers and men who, while serving, exhibited very exceptional educational abilities or potentialities, so as to make it desirable that the taxpayers should pay for their education when they are demobilised? I should like to have it made more clear what discrimination is exercised.
    Mr. KILEY: The Minister did not deal with the point which I tried to raise, and that is, as to what happened to the student after he had gone through one or two terms at the university. Is he debarred from going to the Ministry of Labour and availing himself of the possibilities offered there? I am under the impression there is a time limit at the Ministry of Labour, and that applications are not received from men who have been demobilised more than six months. I want to know if the university man will be debarred availing himself of these opportunities by that time limit?
    Colonel YATE: I wish to say how glad I was to hear the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, and how pleased, too, I am that the education of these officers and men is going on so satisfactorily and offers such good promise. I for one welcome expenditure of this kind. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to physical education in the schools, and what help he is going to give in that direction. I understand that some of the inspectors have been away serving with the Colours. I want to know if more are to be appointed, and what Grants are to be made in this respect in the future.
    Mr. FISHER: I think that does not arise on this Vote.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is a matter for the main Vote of the year.

    SERBIAN RELIEF FUND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £12,500, 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-in-Aid of the Serbian Relief Fund."
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should like to say a word on this Vote, as no explanation appears on the face of it. The Government have sanctioned a Grant of £25,000 a year for three years and the payment for the first six months falls into this Supplementary Estimate. There will be a full Grant of £25,000 in the next two financial years, and in the third financial year the balance of £12,500 will be provided for. The amount is to be paid over to the Committee of the Serbian Relief Fund, to be expended entirely within their competence in affording educational facilities to young Serbians, irrespective of class, who may happen to be in this country as refugees and in need of education. The advantages are two-fold. In the first place, we ensure that young Serbians who otherwise could not have the benefit will be educated to fit them to assist in the reconstruction of their unhappy country. Secondly, I think that those who are educated in England will go back to Serbia firm friends of this country, and I believe that the action the Government has taken, endorsed, as I am sure it will be, by the House of Commons, will cement the alliance between that country and ours.
    Sir J. D. REES: I yield to no Member of this House in my admiration of the gallantry of our Serbian Allies. But it is somewhat strange that the British taxpayers should be called upon to pay for the education of young Serbians in England. Will my hon. Friend say how many are to be educated and who they are? Are they to be the future Ministers of Serbia? If so, on what principle are they to be selected? Is this really a Grant-in-Aid of the Serbian Relief Fund? One is fairly lost in admiration of the gallantry of the Serbians, for a more gallant race never lived. No nation ever displayed greater patriotism and gallantry, but still I do not understand why we should educate them.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does my hon. Friend begrudge the money?
    Sir J. D. REES: I presume it is to come out of the taxation of the country and therefore it is competent for any hon. Member to ask why a Grant is made for this particular purpose.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Of course my hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly within his right in putting the question, and with much pleasure I will try to answer him. He will remember that there are a number of Serbians in this country. Amongst them naturally there are a number of young men whose education has been interrupted, and it would be a lamentable thing if their time in England were to be spent without any profit to themselves. The Serbian Relief Fund, which raises money from the charitably-disposed in this country, were unable to raise sufficient money to do all the work they desired to do. The claims on the purses of the charitable in this country during the War have been very great indeed. When the Government were approached to see if they would give a modest Grant of this nature for the specific purpose of education and education alone, they consented with pleasure, and this £25,000 is in each year to be handed over at the discretion of the Minister. My hon. Friend will see that the money is not to be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but it is to be entirely within the competence of the Committed for distribution, provided that it is given solely and entirely for the education of these young men, so far as the amount will carry them.
    Sir J. D. REES: I take it this Vote will come up year after year, and that the present Grant is only for a period of one half-year.
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,876, 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 Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."

    TREASURY CHEST FUND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £31,022, 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 making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1917–18"
    Mr. KILEY: I should like some explanation of this Vote. I see an Estimate was not required in 1917–18, while the transaction in 1916–17 resulted in a net gain of £737. I should like an explanation why, while there is a net gain of £737 in one year, there is a deficiency in another year of £51,000.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be very pleased to give my hon. Friend the information he requires and to take this opportunity of saying a word about this fund which may not be out of place in a new House of Commons. The Treasury Chest Fund consists of a capital sum of £700,000, created by Act of Parliament for the purpose of making temporary advances for any public service and repaid to the fund out of money voted by Parliament to such services or other money applicable thereto. It is, in practice, a banking fund, with a head office in London, for remitting money to all parts of the world where there are British garrisons or troops. No expenditure is finally charged on the fund, and each year, when the accounts are made up, it shows either a profit or a loss. If there is a profit, that is transferred into the Exchequer; if a loss, the amount is provided for out of a Vote by Parliament. With regard to the point my hon. Friend raised, the loss this year has been made almost entirely on the exchange with Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been during the

    2045
    War a very large naval station. There has been a very rapid rise of the dollar, I and, in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee of this House which reported in 1913, the dollar in the East is issued at a fixed rate, determined each month on the average for the preceding month of the exchange rate in Hong Kong for telegraphic transfers on London. When you get a rapid rise, as occurred in the autumn of 1917, then we lose on the exchange. The loss that we show amounts only to a fraction of 1 per cent. on the very large turnover that had been made in the Treasury Chest Fund during the year. In some years we get the benefit of the exchange and we make a profit. That was the case in the preceding year to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope it may be possible that the process from which we suffered in the year 1917–18 may be reversed in the course of the present year, but, of course, that is a thing over which we have no control. We have also often made a profit on the account, but we have more often, over a series of years, at any rate in recent years, made a loss. That is the explanation of the transaction. We have sundry amounts which have been brought into credit in places where the exchange has been favourable, and a sufficient balance has been accumulated to provide interest, which also comes to the fund. Hon. Members will notice in the statement of accounts that a particularly large sum came from Capo Town this year. There was a reason for that; it was because those who were managing the matter there were apprehensive of the amount which might be required to help to make payments for the troops in South Africa. There we had a substantial payment of interest on money we had accumulated, which is brought to the credit of the fund. In all the circumstances the loss that has been made is one that need not cause us any anxiety, and I do not think the Committee need feel any reluctance in voting this Estimate.

    MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, 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 certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain."

    GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, 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-in-Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: It will be recollected that on a previous occasion there was a considerable discussion in Committee on the subject of some disclosures in a Report which was issued by a Committee set up with regard to financial control, and that gave rise to a very large amount of public dissatisfactionas to the supervision, if I may so put it, which was exercised by the proper authorities over not only the amounts but the manner in which those large sums were paid. Be it observed here on this Estimate that there is a very large additional sum of £60,000. I suppose we all quite realise that at a time like this, when this country in general and London in particular is a sort of junction of the world at a time of world crisis, there is necessarily a great amount required for Government hospitality. The Committee would not for one moment grudge proper expenditure in that way. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell us if any new system has been devised, and, if so, what it is, whereby this expenditure will not be liable to the gross scandal—I do not hesitate to use those words—which certainly occurred under the previous system of administration?
    Sir A. MOND: My right hon. Friend knows very well that this is a Vote which the House has been in the habit of granting without disclosing a large amount of details. I can quite understand, in view of the fact that it has grown to a much more considerable figure than used to be the case in the past that my right hon. Friend and hon Members generally would like a word or two of explanation on this Fund. It is, of course, in a somewhat anomalous position. I am the Minister personally responsible for its administration. It is no part of the work of any Department. It is a personal responsibility cast on myself, and I am responsible for the expenditure incurred under it. I can assure my right hon. Friend, and I think he will take it from me, that it occupies a considerable part of my time. I have done my best in every way to check any tendency to needless expenditure. It is obvious that when you have a very large number of important missions from all

    2047
    over the world, of which London has been the centre now for so long, missions of the highest importance, and including men of the highest importance, it is difficult, and I am sure the Committee would not wish me to exercise our hospitality in a small or curmudgeonly manner. We have made arrangements, through the secretary I appointed for the special work—the work grew so that I had to create a special staff for it—with the leading hotels to give us special rates. We have endeavoured on all occasions in that way to economise.
    There are a good many things added to this Fund which formerly were not laid upon it. Various functions have been transferred from the Ministry of Information, which had a hospitality department of its own, to this Fund. In fact, a centralisation of Government hospitality has been taking place. Various Departments have had little funds which have been administered by those Departments which have probably escaped review by the House. The Government have wisely endeavoured to get all this work under one hospitality fund. Another matter which has scarcely been alluded to is the ordinary hospitality which occurs every year. A large part of this sum relates to the Imperial Conference and the Imperial War Cabinet. On that we realise that there is a large standing expenditure for the distinguished Prime Ministers and the Ministers of our Dominions Overseas. The expenditure for their accommodation and entertainment has been borne on this Fund on the instructions of the Cabinet. Coming, as they do, with great inconvenience to themselves, to assist us in most responsible work, that is an arrangement which ought to be maintained. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the work is carefully supervised. On more than one occasion I have felt it to be my duty to warn Departments that the Vote is getting a very large one, and that their laudable desire to entertain everybody who comes over here and to ask large numbers of people to meet them must be curtailed. I think this warning has had some effect. On the other hand, of course, there has been a very large increase in the cost of provisions from which we all suffer. Therefore, even with a small amount of entertainment, the cost of it has been swollen by the large amount of the cost for food in the last twelve months for giving even modest entertainments. I do not think I
    2048
    can add anything useful to my statement, except that I shall keep a very sharp watch on this Vote so long as it is under my charge.
    Sir J. D. REES: This Vote is a very necessary one, and from all I see, it has been very well administered. It is obvious that the demands on the Government in this respect must be enormous. I heard this Vote once discussed, and those who took part in the discussion were under the impression that all the money was expended in hospitality in London. I believe that is by no means the case. Is that so?
    Sir A. MOND: Some of it is provincial expenditure.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £196,456, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916."
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am very disappointed that my hon. Friend (Mr. Wardle) is still too unwell to be here to-day, and the Minister of Labour will not be able to take his seat until Monday, by which time the Royal Assent to the new Ministers Bill will be obtained. Therefore, we are deprived at present of the two Ministers who are in charge of the Vote. I am in a little difficulty if we cannot get the Committee stage of the Vote—it is awkward to take it out of its course—and I rather appeal to hon. Members opposite I would suggest one of two things, either that we should have our discussion now, and I will give an undertaking that the Minister of Labour on the Report stage will reply fully to everything that is said, or that we should take the Committee stage and reserve the whole discussion for the Report stage. There is no new material in this except the point my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) wishes to raise, which might be discussed on the Report stage equally well. If he feels strongly that it cannot be, I do not wish in any way to press him, but I hope it may be satisfactory to the Committee if the Minister of Labour replies on the Report stage.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I quite agree with my hon. Friend in what he says as to the great disadvantage which the Committee must be in with regard to discussing such an item as the training of demobilised officers and men of His Majesty's Forces. It raises the whole question of policy, and it is a matter which is urgent and ought to be in some way, for the satisfaction and guidance of the public, dealt with by the Ministers who are in charge of that most important matter. Whatever criticism we addressed to my hon. Friend he could not say anything else, with the best will in the world, than that he would take a note of it and press it upon the attention of his colleagues. I think that would be quite a fruitless discussion, and with regard to his suggestion that it might be raised on the Report stage I do not know when that will be. In all probability not for another month at least. I do not know when they are going upstairs. I think the Committee has not yet been set up. Perhaps I might ask you, Sir, would it not be possible to put the Vote down again on some other day along with some other discussion? I am certain I could promise for all my Friends that the discussion would be very businesslike and the speeches would be brief, and every opportunity would be given to the Minister to develop his policy on a matter which is certainly a subject of the deepest interest to hundreds of thousands of men and their relatives.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): Yes, a Motion can be withdrawn, and brought up on another occasion.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am only too willing to fall in with my right hon. Friend's suggestion. I see the difficulty from his point of view, as he was good enough to see mine. I shall have no objection, to withdrawing this and my right hon. Friend assures me I shall be able to get it put down in the course of next week.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure the whole Committee is very much indebted to my hon. Friend and the Patronage Secretary for the very courteous way in which they have met us. I can only repeat the assurance that the time we take in that discussion will be brief and businesslike.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    TREATMENT OF TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL GRANTS).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray
    2050
    the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for the Payment of Grants towards the Cost of the Extension of Sanatorium Benefit to the Dependants of Insured Persons under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and of the Treatment of Tuberculosis generally."
    Major ASTOR: It may assist the Committee if I explain that there is only a very narrow point to be raised on this Vote. The money is really only a Grant in aid of rates. There is no expenditure for the treatment of ex-soldiers. That is paid through the Ministry of Pensions and through the Insurance Fund. This is merely a Grant-in-Aid for additional treatment.
    Sir K. WOOD: The deficiency in the insurance funds for tuberculosis, especially in the case of discharged soldiers, is causing a great deal of anxiety to insurance committees and approved societies up and down the country. During the last fee, the Association of Trade Union Societies recently met and passed a very strong resolution with reference to the deficiency in the sanatorium funds. Other associations have met almost as recently, and the matter is of very great importance because a large number of persons are not obtaining the treatment for which they paid. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether this £25,000 is capable of meeting any of the difficulties which I have indicated. There are several insurance committees which at present have considerable deficiences in their funds. For instance, in Leeds and Lancashire, owing to the deficiency in the sanatorium fund, many insured persons have died whilst they have been waiting for beds which have not been able to be obtained, partly on the ground of want of funds and partly owing to lack of accommodation. I should like my hon. Friend to tell me whether any part of this £25,000 would be available for making up that deficiency. There are other cases, particularly in Liverpool, where discharged soldiers and sailors have been recommended treatment in sanatoria, and again, owing to lack of funds, they have had to return to their homes, which are actually on the scheduled list of houses which are unfit for occupation. I want to know whether any part of this £25,000 is available for making up that deficiency. Again, there are the cases of the insurance committees of Staffordshire and of Bath, where no provision at all is being made for ad-

    2051
    vanced cases. In fact, all over the country there are complaints of the absence of Parliamentary provision in respect of treatment for the most difficult of all these cases—namely, the advanced cases; and I should like my hon. and gallant Friend to tell me whether any portion of this £25,000 is available for that purpose also. There is also the important case of London, which I know my hon. and gallant Friend has given some attention to, where for the last four years there have been hundreds of insured persons waiting for treatment owing to lack of funds, and I want to know again whether there is any portion of this sum going to the London Insurance Committee in order to meet what I call a very grave scandal. All these people have been compelled to insure under the Act. They have been recommended for treatment, and have not obtained the treatment to which they are entitled. Is it not possible by some means or other for part of this sum, at any rate, to be available for that purpose? Not only in London, but all over the country, the insurance funds have been wholly deficient in respect of what is known as domiciliary treatment, and hundreds of people have been refused any treatment whatever for which they have paid, owing to lack of insurance funds, and for that purpose I should like to know whether this sum will also be sufficient and available for all these cases.
    The CHAIRMAN: Most of these points are a matter for the main Vote of the year, but the Parliamentary Secretary will, no doubt, explain them again.
    Mr. HOGGE: I was astonished to hear the Parliamentary Secretary explain that this £25,000 is only for Grants towards the rates. The Estimate does not say so. It distinctly says the reason for coming to the House for this Supplementary Estimate is due to the fact that the amount allocated to the Local Government Board has proved to be insufficient owing to the additional treatment in residential institutions which has been given, and the higher cost of such treatment. As a matter of fact the treatment of tuberculosis, so far as the discharged soldier is concerned, has been transferred from the Ministry of Pensions to the Local Government Board. That is a departure in policy which the House has never approved, just as the same departure was made in regard to the training of dis-
    2052
    charged men in transferring it to the Ministry of Labour. If the Local Government Board has had that function passed over to it, we are surely entitled to know, when they come for extra money in order to secure additional treatment and to meet the higher cost of that treatment, what they are paying with regard to those men who are now placed under their care since they came to the House for their original Estimate. We all know the deep interest the hon. and gallant Gentleman takes in this question, and we know that the oversight of these men is in very capable hands. We should like to know what provision the Local Government Board is doing for these men and whether they are able to deal with them, because last year there were long waiting lists of men, 40,000 or 50,000, suffering from tuberculosis who had been discharged from the Army without getting adequate, treatment. Before we part from this Vote the House is entitled to get that information.
    Major ASTOR: This money is limited to Grants in aid of the rates, in respect of the treatment in sanatoria during the past year, and also the treatment of tuberculosis under what is called the Hobhouse Grant. It only refers to expenditure during the past twelve months and up to the end of March. Therefore, it does not deal with next year, and it does not refer to the treatment of ex-soldiers. As the Committee knows, the cost of living and the cost of treatment, and, in fact, the cost of everything, has gone up during the War, and it is not necessary for me to explain that. This additional £25,000 for which we are asking means that an additional £50,000 have been spent, because every £1paid out of the public Exchequer is supplemented by £1 out of the local rates. In regard to the points raised by my hon. Friend (Sir Kingsley Wood), there is, so far as the Treasuryis concerned, no limit to the amount of money which is available; and, in so far as it has not been possible for people to get treatment through inadequacy of institutions, it is not due to any inadequacy of funds as provided by the Treasury. As he knows perfectly well, when sanatorium benefit is extended, or where it is necessary to provide for the treatment of the population as a whole, that is done under the Hobhouse Grant, partly out of the rates and partly out of the Treasury, and there is no limit placed on that. Therefore, if treatment has not been available for any member of

    2053
    the community requiring it, it is not owing to lack of Treasury money. I say, quite frankly, that it is to a certain extent due to lack of institutional facilities.
    Sir K.WOOD: Such arrangement as the hon. Gentleman indicates is in existence in London, and, as he knows perfectly well, the London Insurance Committee have constantly applied to the Insurance Commission because of deficiency in funds and the absence of a complete scheme for London.
    Major ASTOR: I know the point which my hon. Friend raises, and as he knows, we are going into that. I do not think that arises on this Vote, which is an additional grant to the Estimate originally made by the Department to meet expenditure for the year which comes to an end in March. I want to be quite frank with the Committee. I do not come here to say that I am satisfied with the provision which is now available for the treatment of consumption or tuberculosis generally. But we are not here discussing the future. Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board nor I say that in our opinion the provision of residential accommodation is adequate. At the present moment we are doing all we can to develop it, and if it had not been for the discussion yesterday on the Ministry of Health we should have had a discussion on farm colonies, a very necessary development especially applicable to ex-soldiers. But I do not want to be drawn into a discussion which would be ruled out of order. That raises a big question of policy as regards the future. I am particularly anxious not to embark upon that, because I know perfectly well that you, Mr. Whitley, would quite rightly rule me out of order. As regards this particular sum I think it is very gratifying that in spite of the War, in spite of difficulties due to the War, in spite of the fact that the War Office required institutions for the treatment of wounded soldiers, in spite of the fact that there was all round a reduction of staff both of the Local Government Board and of the local authorities, in spite of the fact that the Treasury limited their loans very strictly and rigidly during the War, and in spite of the fact that it was difficult to get additional buildings put up during the War, we come to this Committee to-day and ask for additional money to meet the additional treatment in residential institutions—that is to say, that our
    2054
    predecessors at the Local Government Board and the local authorities have in fact been able to provide more residential treatment than was originally estimated by the Department, and to that extent the position is more satisfactory than it was hoped would be the case. But I hope the Committee will not think that we look upon the present provision as being adequate. The Committee may be assured that we are going into the question very fully both as regards its effect upon the civilian population and its effect upon the ex-soldiers who, as hon. Members know, are now under our care.
    Lieutenant-Colonel RAW: Does the Estimate include the treatment of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors for the past year? I am sure the Committee is very grateful for the hon. Member's sympathetic consideration for soldiers and sailors and we shall be glad if he would tell us whether he thinks the institutional accommodation for the treatment of tuberculosis is sufficient or adequate, because I know, as a matter of fact, that hundreds of people are at the present time in workhouses in this country simply because there is no other accommodation available. I am sure no Committee of this House would wish this to happen in the case of discharged sailors and soldiers.
    Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman say if he has any knowledge of the number of discharged soldiers and sailors who have been refused treatment owing to lack of funds during the year?
    Major ASTOR: I thought I had made it clear to the Committee that this money does not at all refer and was not used for the treatment of ex-soldiers and sailors. It is purely money for the extension of sanatoria benefit, and ex-soldiers have not been treated in this manner and through this machinery in the past. The money provided for the purpose has come partly out of the Ministry of Pensions and partly out of Treasury Grants. As regards the other point raised, I have already said, and I say again quite frankly on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself, that we sincerely trust that during the coming twelve months there will be a great deal more accommodation available. That is the best answer to all questions as to whether we consider the present provision adequate or not.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): Without a word of explanation no one will possibly understand this Vote. It is a purely book-keeping Vote, and really requires no money at all. What has happened is this: The expenses of the Ministry of Munitions have never been put before the House in the form of detailed Estimates any more than during the War the Army and Navy Votes have been given in detail. They have been defrayed out of Votes of Credit. In order that the Ministry of Munitions administration might come before the House for review, it was necessary to put some figure down, and, accordingly, last year the figure of £1,100 was put down. Of course, it would have been absurd for anyone to think that that was the total Vote to the Ministry of Munitions. No one could tell what the Vote would be during the War, so the figure was put down for technical purposes. The actual cost, of course, has run through scores of millions. The money has been found out of the Vote of Credit. In order that the matter should appear in proper Parliamentary form, and in proper accounting form, it is necessary to show these particulars now. Therefore, another £100 has been put down in order that tins might be presented in the proper way, and that the necessary appropriation account may follow. No more money is required and no new question of policy is involved in this Vote. The same applies to the other Vote which follows.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (ORDNANCE FACTORIES).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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 the Expenses of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Ministry of Munitions, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc."
    Brigadier-General COLVIN: I have put down the Motion which stands in my name, to reduce the Vote by £100, in order to draw attention to the very great hardship that will be imposed upon Waltham Abbey if the Royal Gunpowder Factory there is closed.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that does not arise on this Vote. This is purely a Supplementary and book-keeping Vote. A question of policy like that raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be raised on the main Estimates of the year.
    Colonel BOWLES: The object which I had in view in putting down my Motion to reduce the Vote by £10 is to draw attention to the number of men likely to be affected at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, and to draw attention to the question of gratuities and pay to those men who are considered to be of old age. I do not know whether you would rule out of order the suggestion that the gratuity that we used to give to men in pre-war time should be increased because of the very large increase in the cost of living.
    The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is a matter of policy which should be raised on the main Estimates.

    MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.
    Resolved,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Shipping."

    MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £9,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Reconstruction.''
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. HOGGE: T do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can render any explanation of this Vote, but apparently it is one of a number of schemes upon which the Government have embarked, which may be more or less successful. I understand in connection with boring for oil that the Government have already made certain concessions, the results of which are yet to come. In this Estimate we have an extra sum of £9,000 taken for a coal

    2057
    boring scheme at Lough Neagh. I think some Minister might, at any rate, give us, before we pass another £9,000 for continuing the experiment, some information as to what has been the result of this boring. I know nothing about this particular locality, and I do not venture to address the House on the merits, but before we hand over another £9,000 so easily as we have been handing over money this afternoon, the Ministry of Reconstruction should tell us whether they have found any coal, whether the coal is likely to be profitable when it is discovered, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is himself satisfied that there is ground for spending this considerable sum.
    Major O'NEILL: I happen to live for a considerable part of every year on the shores of Lough Neagh, and it would be of great interest to myself and to many people in that part of the world which I represent, to know, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, what is the result of this experiment, and whether it is going to be carried on and whether coal is likely to be produced of any advantage to the Government. I have been abroad for the last year, and I do not even know exactly where it is. I should like to know that, and I think it is certainly due to us to be told how this experiment is being carried on what its results have been?
    Mr. R. M'LAREN: As a mining engineer, before this Vote is passed, I should like to ask a few questions about it. First of all, it appears to me that £9,000 is an excessive sum to spend on any quantity of bores. I would like to know how many bores have been put down; what the depths have been; how many seams have been passed through, and the thickness of them; and the quality of the coal. I should like to know also, whether, before the question of boring was considered, the Geological Survey of Ireland were consulted in the matter. Have they tried to estimate what measures were underneath the land, whether millstone grit or whether there were any carboniferous measures; and how much below the surface of the land and the measures they have penetrated. I think it would be a great mistake, when putting down a bore, to cease boring if coal was not got, because they might be able to get not only coal but shale at a good distance, which might be profitable. We ought to know if this money has been well spent or not. Before the Vote is passed we ought to be told
    2058
    distinctly what the results have been, whether there has been any benefit to the country, and whether or not they expect to do any more boring in the district. It appears to me to be a most important thing that before deciding to put down any more bores the Geological Survey should be very certain they are boring in the proper measures, because if not, they will certainly not strike coal. There must have been a very large number of bores put down if £9,000 have been spent. I am very glad, indeed, that the Government are adopting this method of boring not only for coal but for other minerals in Ireland. In some parts of Ireland it would be well worth putting down bores occasionally, not only for coal, but for other minerals. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for this information. We ought to know how the money has been spent and whether or not we have had value for the expenditure.
    An HON. MEMBER: Before the Minister of Reconstruction replies will he tell us whether the Government hold any option over any area of this land? If they spend this money, this £9,000, and find coal, to whose advantage will the expenditure of this money be? Have the Government got an option, and will the benefit accrue to them, or will the profit for the Government's boring go to the landowner in the vicinity?
    The MINISTER for RECONSTRUCTION (Sir Auckland Geddes): This question of boring at Lough Neagh is one which originated over a year ago. The Government, through the Irish Commissioners of Education, possess certain land round and in the neighbourhood of Lough Neagh. According to the geological experts of Ireland there was reason to suppose that there might be minerals in these Government lands. It is quite obvious that if that be the case it would be to the interests of the country to have these minerals developed. It was, I understand, not only coal that was thought might be there, but also shale and, I believe, certain deposits of potash. This proposal was put forward and considered by the experts, and the money to carry out the boring was advanced in anticipation of Parliamentary sanction from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The actual boring was carried out by the Ministry of Munitions; the Department concerned. The future responsibility passes to the Irish Government, so that the Ministry of Reconstruction is merely

    2059
    concerned in a technical sense with the particular question. According to the information which we have received from the engineers in charge of the work, the first bore has reached 800 feet towards the thousand feet at which depth coal is supposed to lie. The second bore, I understand, is just being commenced. So far as the information which I have received goes nothing of any real value from the point of view of minerals has been discovered so far. It was not expected that it would be. Geological experts said that 1,000 feet was the level at which the first valuable discoveries might be expected, so that at the present moment the bore has not yet reached the level at which results or information of interest or value could be expected to be obtained. That is the position with regard to the bore. With regard to the land on which it is being carried out, it is Government land, and I have informed the Committee what the Government was advised by its experts might be discovered in that district in the way of minerals.
    An HON. MEMBER: Could the Minister give us the area of the land which the Government own? Is it a big tract of land, or merely sufficient to put down the bores?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I understand it is a considerable tract of land, but I do not know the acreage.
    Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very interesting story, but he has not told us anything. They want to find the possible existence of a concealed coalfield. Our purpose is to find the possible existence of a concealed reason in the minds of Ministers why they want this money. The right hon. Gentleman says £1,000 has only taken the bore down so far, but he did not tell us how far.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Eight hundred feet.
    Mr. HOGGE: Well, if it takes £1,000 to get a bore down 800 ft., why take another £9,000 to get it down another 200 ft.? I think the Committee is entitled to know a little more about what is going to happen if, at the end of the bore, anything is discovered. I understand from what my right hon. Friend said that this is Government land, and that they are prospecting for three minerals, coal, shale, and potash. Does the Ministry of Reconstruction, or some Government Depart-
    2060
    ment, think that if they discover this that they are going to work it? Are they going to set up a Government coal mine on this land; are they going to work the shale; or to secure the potash and sell it or use it in their factories? Are the Government, as a matter of fact, going to set up as public owners of these minerals if they are discovered? Before the Committee gives the Ministry of Reconstruction this £9,000, which will make £10,000 in all with which to do this prospecting, we ought to know if they have some purpose in view if these minerals are discovered. Otherwise, on another occasion, they might come down to the Committee and ask for another £10,000 for prospecting all over the country. They might waste a lot of money in this way.
    Mr. R. M'LAREN: Am I right in assuming that you have got 800 feet in one bore and that you are starting the second? It appears that if one bore has only gone down 800 feet, and you are starting another one, at a cost of £9,000, that there is extravagance somewhere. The work should have been done at a less cost. I would suggest that you should not stop at 800 feet, but that the bore should go on. I understand it would be a diamond bore, and I think it ought to go on. It would cost another £1,000 or £2,000, but we should know what lies below, and it is perfectly possible that below 1,000 feet there may be some valuable minerals, such as graphite, or something which would eventually pay the Government. I am very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have told us that it has cost £9,000 to put down a bore 800 feet. No practical man would think of spending £9,000 on one bore.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Speaking as a miner, I would like to say that when we bore we have the sections marked, and I would like to ask the Ministry what sections they have had. As we bore we always remove the material and take the coal out. This ought to be shown on a sketch or a map. I would like to know who is the mining engineer who has been advising the Government, and also is this the harbinger of nationalisation of the mines?
    Major O'NEILL: It has been suggested that it is desirable for the Government to proceed with this work because they might at some greater depth come upon valuable minerals. Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know how far it is intended to go in

    2061
    this matter? It is proposed now to spend £9,000. How much more is going to be spent, and at what depth are the Government going to come to a final decision as to whether they will or will not go any further?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hogge) must have been misled by something that I said. He spoke of this bore having cost £1,000, and a farther £9,000 being found. The money now being asked is to pay back what was borrowed, at a date subsequent to January, 1918, from the Civil Contingencies Fund. It is not a question of spending £9,000 anew. This amount has been transferred to the Ministry of Reconstruction Account. I am afraid that I may not have been very clear on the subject of boring. What I said was that the first bore had already reached a depth of 800 feet and was proceeding, and no really interesting or valuable results were expected until it reached 1,000 feet. That is the level at which the geological experts who have been advising the Government in this matter suggest that it is likely or possible that minerals of value would be struck. As to the future of the bore, how deep it will be carried, that is a matter on which expert geological opinion that is being consulted will decide according to the results of the various sections of the bore. It is quite impossible to say now, not knowing the result, whether it would be worth while going on or not. It might or might not be. If the experts advising the Government say that it is not worth while going on, naturally we would not go on, but, according to the advice tendered to the Government by the experts, there is every reason to expect the discovery of minerals in this district. I am sure that every member of the Committee will agree that in face of that advice the Government would be neglecting its duty to Ireland and the whole of the possible development of that part of Ireland had it not accepted that advice and gone forward and spent some money.
    The next point is as to what is to be the fate of minerals if they are found. The question was put by another hon. Member (Mr. Cairns) as to whether this was the harbinger of nationalisation. The arrangements to be made for working these minerals, if they are discovered, will naturally depend very largely upon the report of the Commission that has been set up to inquire into the future of
    2062
    the mines. It is quite clear that the Government would not be wise if that Committee reported in favour of nationalisation to say that we shall not nationalise these mines or, if it reported the other way, to say that we shall work these mines as a national undertaking. If the Commission report that nationalisation is not right and not the best economic way of doing it then the Government might be well advised—this is what has been suggested—in allowing the mines to be worked by a company to be formed, which would pay royalties to the Government. Obviously, at the present moment when the Commission which this House has set in motion this week is going on, it would be rashness on my part to express a definite opinion as to the proper way of dealing with these minerals after they are discovered.
    Mr. HOGGE: As I understand the position now some department of the Government has taken upon itself to sink a bore on Government land with the prospect of discovering minerals. We are not told who did that. We are told now that it is under the control of the Ministry of Reconstruction for which this Supplementary Estimate is set down, and we are told that the £9,000 down here has already been spent, that it has been borrowed by somebody from the Civil Contingencies Fund and has to be paid back, but we are not told where the subsequent money is to come from to continue the operations. Are the operations suspended? If the £9,000 is simply to cover money already spent and if operations are suspended, are not the explanations of my right hon. Friend all of no use? Is a Government Department, the Ministry of Reconstruction for instance, to be allowed without consultation with and permission of this House to sink bores anywhere with the idea of prospecting for minerals, and if it is what is the policy? My right hon. Friend said he did not know what the policy was because he had not found his minerals. Then he went on to suggest that as it was Government land it may or may not be nationalised. He further suggested that it might be given to a private company who would have to pay royalties. It seems to me that we are permitting a Government Department an extraordinary licence of operation if it is going to be allowed to do this kind of thing. I think that the Committee ought to pay much

    2063
    more attention to a Supplementary Estimate of this kind, because it is probably the beginning of a very large scheme which may be right or wrong, which is not within the cognisance of the House, and has not got the authority of the House.
    Mr. CAIRNS: I think that it is for the Government to do prospecting for coal. I know fifty men who spent all they had prospecting for coal and lost all their money. It ought to be on the back of the Government of the country to do this work.
    Mr. SWAN: From the area of the land which the Government possesses and the money which the Government is expending in their boring, is it likely to be worth the effort in the event of coal being found, and should coal or any other mineral be found, what arrangements have been made with the owners of land adjoining as to royalties, or the right of the Government to purchase such royalties?
    Mr. MOLES: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question which he has not answered. No doubt he is well aware that upon more than one occasion the whole of the North of Ireland has been officially surveyed by the Department, and the records are perfectly well known to some of us. The particular region in which I apprehend this boring has been carried out is particularly well known to me. I imagine that it must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of Coalisland, in the county Tyrone. That is known as a coal-bearing region. Some men whose opinions count for much in the coal industry have the belief that the coal deposits there are really well worth the working. We have had some explanations of the class of thing that appears to be going on in this region and elsewhere with disastrous consequences. An hon. Member opposite has told us that he knew of a syndicate of some fifty men who had spent all their money. I happen to know of one syndicate who did not spend their money. They spent other people's money, but the result was the same. I cannot help thinking that the class of performance that has been carried on here is somewhat typical of an old song pretty well known in my country:
    "On Lough Neath's banks, as the fisherman strays,
    When the clear cold eves declining,
    He sees the round towers of other days
    In the waves beneath him shining."
    2064
    It appears to me that some of these geological experts are seeing visions pretty much like the fisherman's in the song. I have not the smallest objection to £9,000 being spent in my country, provided it is spent among my countrymen, but, with great respect to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, I "hae ma doots" as to whether it is being spent on Irishmen. I should like to know where exactly this boring is being carried on, because if we once knew the locality we would have the means of testing what kind of wisdom is really behind all this business. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us where this is going on?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I thought that I had done my best to explain in what conditions this investigation was started and with what sense of duty the Government acted. It is clear that if there be in this part of Ireland valuable minerals, on this Government ground, it is in the interests of Ireland and of the whole United Kingdom that those minerals should be discovered. Naturally no Government is composed entirely of experts in every subject. No Government pretends to be composed entirely of health experts, who at the same time are mining experts and legal experts. A Government has got to be guided by the best expert advice it can get. In this case the Government was guided by the best expert geological advice it could get. The advice was laid before the War Cabinet over a year ago and the policy was decided that on this Government land, where the experts said the prospect of finding minerals was good, prospecting for those minerals should take place. That seems to me to be the absolutely necessary policy for the Government to follow. I do not seek to defend that policy. I said it is the right policy and the only proper policy for the Government to adopt. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite that because this money was spent, therefore nothing more was being done—
    Mr. HOGGE: That was not my point. We were told that £9,000 had been spent on boring, and that that was still going on. We ought to know how much this is going to cost. Perhaps in the next financial year it might be £20,000.
    Sir A. GEDDES: The £9,000 is the expenditure for the last financial year, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, new Estimates will have to be submitted before any work is to be done next year. That will not be on the Ministry of Reconstruc-

    2065
    tion, but the new Estimates will come before the House, which will have the opportunity of deciding whether it approves of the Government trying to develop and increase the prosperity of Ireland or not.
    Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Lough Neagh is the largest fresh water lake in the United Kingdom, twenty miles long, and twelve wide?
    Mr. MOLES: One hundred and forty square miles.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, having come with a Message for the House to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned,
  MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
  Air Navigation Act, 1919.
  Re-Election of Ministers Act, 1919.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Reconstruction."
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved,
  "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    PROHIBITION OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS.
    Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can make the reply he promised at Question Time on the subject of the new issues?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House (imperfectly heard): As I promised I have gone into this question fully with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am afraid I must occupy a few minutes of the time of the House in explaining the position as well as I can. The Regulation to which so much exception was taken was made on this ground: During the continuance of the War the various Governments under the advice in each case of representatives of financial interests, came to the conclusion that free issues could not be permitted without gravely endangering our chance of getting the money which was necessary to carry on the War, and that system continued until the end of the War. The other day a new Regulation was issued which seemed to be, and judging by some of the questions put at Question Time, is being found in fact to be, more restrictive than the custom which existed during the War. Let me point out to the House that that was not the intention of it. The intention was exactly the reverse. The Government realised that now that actual hostilities had ceased there must be greater freedom in allowing issues than had been permitted while the War was going on, and with that object in view the Government had not only given new terms of reference but terms of reference which are specially directed to facilities being given for finding money for anything which would help to restore trade or industry, or facilitate the public utility works. That is the object, but it so happens that purposes during the War have been served without a definite Defence of the Realm Regulation. That dates from a very early stage in the War. The first of these Regulations was made early in 1915, practically as soon as the Stock Exchange began its functions again, and at that time my predecessor was advised that all that was necessary was not to forbid by Statute or by Regulation these issues, but to make arrangements with the Stock Exchange

    2067
    that they would not deal in anything that had not received Treasury sanction. It was believed that that would serve the purpose, and to a large extent it did. When hostilities came to an end a great many more issues were made without the sanction of the Treasury, and the representatives of the Stock Exchange came to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and pointed out how unfair this was to stock exchanges all over the country, and I think it is only right to say that not only the London Stock Exchange but all the exchanges in the Kingdom did exactly what the Government wanted throughout the whole period of the War. But the net result was that these new issues which were carried out without Treasury sanction were being dealt with by outside sources, and members of the Stock Exchange, who had so loyally supported the Government, were debarred from dealing even in issues which in ordinary course would be dealt with on the Stock Exchange.
    It was evident, therefore, and every hon. Member will agree with me, I am sure—as a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend consulted me in the matter, and therefore I share his responsibility—that it was utterly impossible with any fairness to continue an arrangement which allowed issues of this kind to be made without Treasury sanction, and dealing in which was confined to those who were not members of the Stock Exchange. That was the sole reason for issuing a Defence of the Realm Regulation now which had not been issued during the War. On one point the Government are quite decided, and I may add that everyone whom my right hon. Friend has consulted takes the same view, and that is the need of borrowing. The necessity of money coming into the State is just as great now as it was at any time during the War, and I would point out to the House the reasons which make it specially difficult to get money now. Personally, I always thought that the end of the War would find the difficulty in raising the money far greater than during the War, and I am quite sure my successor in that respect will have a harder task than devolved on me when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, I am sure, will be obvious to the House. For one reason the patriotic feeling which had so much to do with the loans and different methods by which we raised loans cannot
    2068
    be relied upon to quite the same extent. People feel that the War is over and therefore they are more inclined to make investments in the ordinary way which seem to be best from the point of view of the ordinary investor. In addition, so long as industry in this country was in full swing and every factory was used and profits were being made, the money which was borrowed came largely back to the Treasury in the form of loans or Treasury Bills. But to whatever extent, the change of industry from a war to a peace footing leaves a smaller sum available for loans. In spite of the cessation of hostilities the amount of our expenditure has not fallen to anything like the extent which we hoped when peace actually came. That is not surprising. The Army is not demobilised yet, and the expense of demobilisation is very great. As a matter of fact the falling off in our daily expenditure is only something like a million less up to the time of the Armistice.
    I think it is necessary to say this in order to convince the House that it would not be possible to leave issues perfectly free now and to allow every kind of speculation which would inevitably come if they were. Not only is there difficulty in raising money, but if the issues were perfectly free it is almost certain—everyone who has discussed it with me and is competent to judge tells me it is so—that there would be a great number of issues, not for home investment only, but issues abroad, and in addition to the difficulty of raising money one of the great difficulties of the Exchequer is the question of exchanges, and I am sure the House will agree that it is absolutely impossible at this moment to allow perfect freedom in these issues. But while all that is true, the one greatest preoccupation of the Government at this moment, the greatest of all our anxieties, is connected with employment in this country. We realise as fully as any hon. Member of the House that the only chance of getting back to reasonable conditions is that trade and industry should be revived with the utmost possible speed, and we believe that that cannot be done unless there is much greater freedom in giving money for these purposes than was the case while the War was going on. It is necessary, therefore, to try to hit on an even course between giving complete freedom and, on the other hand, making the issue of new capital for really useful purposes far more easy than

    2069
    it wag before the War. For that reason we have not only altered the terms of reference, as I have said, but we have appointed three Committees and will appoint more, if necessary, so that there shall be no delay, and, in addition, a facility is going to be given now which was not given during the War—that is to say, those who have their case will be permitted and encouraged to state it themselves in person; so that it may be certain that there will be neither delay nor any unreasonable refusal of money required for reconstruction purposes. So much for the general principle. Beyond that, we are quite satisfied that it would be in the highest degree detrimental in the public interest to remove some of the control over these public issues.
    Now we come to another aspect of the question which was specially raised at Question Time, and that is the retrospective effect of the Regulation which we have issued. I would like, if I may, to put the point of view which induced the Treasury to issue the Regulations in that form. It is this. An appeal was made to everyone not to make any issue without the sanction of the Treasury. The great majority of people responded to that appeal, but some did not, and it therefore seemed to the Treasury that it would be unfair to those who had loyally helped the country to give them now facilities which they had obtained by acting against the advice of the Treasury when those facilities were not given to those who loyally supported the Treasury.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Why not issue a Regulation to make it impossible?
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The weakness of that position has been touched upon by my hon. Friend. His case is, that if we intended at any time to make dealings in these shares illegal we ought to have made the issue of them illegal. That at once puts the Government in a weak position, but I hope the House will not judge us too harshly in that respect. These Regulations to which I have referred were made at the beginning of the War when the Stock Exchange was first open. They seemed to be effective. Nobody knew how long the War would last, and nobody wished to add new restrictions if they could be avoided, and week after week, month after month, the matter was allowed to go on because they thought no great harm was being done. But it does after the position when it can be said
    2070
    that you are in effect taking action which is retrospective, and damaging people for doing that which was not illegal. We feel there is great force in that. I think the House will understand this if I give an illustration. If two people (A and B) applied for the same kind of issues, and A was refused, but B went on with it without sanction; now, if you recognised B's transaction, the result would be that A, who had loyally carried out the wishes of the Government in the interest of the nation, would be penalised, whereas B, who had not responded to the appeal of the Government, would be given an advantage. Naturally a sense of justice made us feel that that was hardly fair. After all, in a case of this kind we have got to consider really, not so much the abstract question, as what is in the national interest at this moment. I have had a long consultation to-day with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers, and we have come to the conclusion that the question of abstract justice is not so important as the general interest of the community, and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend for stating that he intends to issue a new Order removing the retrospective effect of the new Regulation. I am sorry my right hon. Friend who has succeeded me at the Treasury is not here, because he is not a legal Member of the House now. I do ask the House—and I speak here with great knowledge—to realise that in all these questions it is very difficult to come to a right decision, and very often, with the best desire of consulting everybody, it is not possible to find out all the information which would lead us to come to a decision. My right hon. Friend himself has come to the conclusion that it is right to make this concession, but, in making it, I do appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House to realise that the general restriction on the issue of securities is absolutely essential in the interest of this country, and that, having made this concession, they will accept it, without desiring still further to alter our Regulations, which have been made, I am sure, in the best interests of the trade of this country.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: We are very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for acceding to the generally expressed wishes this afternoon that he should give an opportunity for the discussion of this

    2071
    matter to-night. I am grateful to him for the opportunity he has given us. Let me say at once, I think he has done the right thing in meeting the criticism with regard to the retrospective part of the new Regulation to which he has just referred. I think on consideration he will see that it would have been absolutely impossible to defend it, and the mere fact that it has been issued shows to me that not sufficient consideration was given to this whole matter. I do not want to give away any secrets, but I should be surprised to hear the principal officials of the Treasury knew anything about the Order before it was issued.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, they did.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Not all of them. What I desire to point out to the House is this, that since the very beginning of the War commerce has been severely handicapped so far as its financing is concerned. The business community accepted it in the spirit of patriotism, but at a cost of which the country has no conception. Take a case I knew myself at the beginning of the War. A friend of mine had a document sealed and signed before war broke out to find £1,000,000, I think it was, in connection with the financing of a great concern within a mile of this very building. He had got all his money but £200,000. He was under contract to find the whole amount. He had the money, and was prepared to provide it within two months' time. He lived at the Treasury, because it meant his financial ruin if he were not allowed the liberty simply to carry out his contract. They refused it. What was the result? He lost 200,000 sovereigns in hard cash because of the Treasury Minute. I am prepared to give names and particulars to everyone concerned. I say that was a very hard and cruel case, and it is a case in which toleration ought to have been shown. I am only alluding to it as an instance of some of the injustices that have been committed under the Treasury Regulations. Another injustice has happened. It happened not very long ago in a concern in which I myself am interested. We knew that the War would not last for ever. Every part of our undertaking was employed in war work. We desired to devote £500,000 of our own money—we did not ask the public to subscribe, but subscribed amongst ourselves—in order to prepare for the transformation of the works when
    2072
    peace would ultimately come. We were denied the opportunity of using our own capital for that purpose, and what is the result to-day? That applies not to one firm, but to scores and hundreds of firms throughout the country, and to-day important hotels here are full of trade missions from all parts of the world who are prepared to deliver the very goods which the British manufacturer was prepared to deliver had he been allowed to do so. Today, in the papers, Japan is advertising cotton for sale in Manchester. In all parts of the world they are prepared to deliver goods which British industry would have provided had it been allowed to use its own capital.
    There have been grave injustices with regard to the Regulations which have prevailed up to the present time. One injustice was that no explanation was ever given, and the trade was never allowed to see the Committee. You handed in your application, and the Treasury asked all sorts of questions by correspondence. You were never allowed to have an interview with any member of that Committee. Hundreds of thousands of pounds we returned down, and had to be obtained privately in order to keep businesses going. That is unjust and unfair, and I am glad that is recognised by the permission now to be given for oral evidence to be taken. But there is another injustice. From what I hear, there are certain men put on this Committee who are identified with great and important commercial undertakings. I say, is it fair that representatives of a particular company should have to go before the head of a competing company and explain all the reasons and all the ramifications which induce them to desire to introduce fresh capital? It is unjust and unfair, and it is creating great alarmand concern in the commercial community. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises exactly how the Regulation will work, even with the retrospective Clauses taken out of it? Loans are not to be renewed. If I have £100,000 to-day from the bank, and I want to have it renewed to-morrow, I cannot have it renewed. That is a very serious state of things. Not only that, but if I have deposited securities which were issued with the full permission of the Government, and have obtained advances upon them, all that is cancelled. No bank is to be allowed to lend money on any of these shares. No bank is to be allowed to lend money on any of these

    2073
    shares that are retrospective and have been dealt in during these four years. I do beg my right hon. Friend to pay attention to that particular point, because, as I indicated at Question Time, the cotton people in Lancashire live on loans, and, if not allowed to renew, there is nothing to prevent the Receiver coming in, and taking over the business. That is why this thing is so urgent. If a loan is coming to an end to-day and it is desired to get it renewed, no bank under this Regulation will renew it, and I venture to say that some businesses will go crash in the present week as the result of the disturbance taking place.
    Take another case. Some people were able to get permission—I do not want to go further into details; I have no doubt the Committee acted according to their wisdom and in every way correctly—but with regard to some of these companies, in order to keep their businesses going, without asking the assistance of the general shareholders at all—because the Government denied that—certain men took financial responsibility and advanced money themselves under a certain consideration. They found, say, half a million of capital on condition that they got, say, 50,000 shares. What is the case under this Regulation? The person forfeits the consideration, because the Minute distinctly states that no shares shall be issued of any sort or kind. These were floated with the full approval of the Government, and the Government have been taking thousands of pounds every day in the week, and it is not for them, after taking the money and providing the opportunity, now to go back and say, this thing ought never to have been done. The real truth of this matter is—and I say it with regret—that in my opinion I think the Government are going to the wrong quarter for advice. The right hon. Gentleman tells us the Stock Exchange has supported him. I wonder who on the Stock Exchange has supported him. The old-fashioned stockbroker, who goes to his office at eleven o'clock and leaves at three, and only carries out orders sent, may object to more enterprising competitors. The business of the stockbroker, however, is not only to buy and sell shares, but to finance and assist business throughout the country by his enterprise. This is a triumph for the lazy stockbroker, and against the interests of every enterprising stockbroker in the country. It is a triumph also for the banks. I think
    2074
    that Lord Cunliffe has far too much influence over the Government in regard to these matters. He has occupied a great position throughout this War, but Lord Cunliffe, let us be frank and say, does not possess the confidence of the business community in the City of London or this country.
    By some means or other he seems to have mesmerised the Government. It is the duty of Lord Cunliffe to protect the interests which he himself represents. Lord Cunliffe is a banker. He has been doing his duty, I have no doubt, as he sees it, according to the highest patriotism and the best of his ability. Yet it must not be forgotten that the bankers have been very favourably treated by the Government throughout this War. What is the position at the present time? If you want to deposit money with a bank you get 3 per cent. If, on the other hand, you want to borrow—it may be the same money—you have to pay 5 or 6 per cent., so that the banks are protected to that extent, while all the time they may be using to the full the deposit to make money. They do not desire too many attractions for the investor, though such may be for the urgent advantage of the country itself. I say that in my opinion—and I desire to speak quite frankly about it because I have had opportunities for discussing the matter with those who know—this new Regulation, put out, as practically admitted, without due consideration, because the vital factor in it has already been withdrawn—I say it is going to do more injury to the trade of this country than I believe my right hon. Friend has any conception of.
    Talk about unemployment! What business man is going to risk his money at the present time in the unsettled condition of affairs? He does not know what his excess profits are going to be. He knows if he does make excess profits it is taken from him at both ends, and he says to himself: "Have I got to take the risk? What inducement is offered to me for investing my capital in new enterprises?" I say to the Government that unless they do something more to encourage the development of industry in this country we are going to have a financial position of which at present one has absolutely no conception of. At the present time a business man does not know whether or not he is justified in asking for capital. Under this Regulation if I want half a million of money

    2075
    to-morrow, I have first of all, I suppose, to give something like five or six thousand pounds in order to register before I am permitted to ask for my licence. I have to pay all the legal fees, and everything of that kind, and then I have to stand in a queue outside the Treasury to know whether I am going to get a licence to employ my own capital in my own business! That is a very serious state of affairs. You may have two competing industries in a town which desire capital to extend their operations. They go before the Committee. One of them gets a licence; the other does not. That sort of thing causes very great alarm and very great disquiet.
    I am not one of those who say for a moment that you can at the present time give up all control of issues. I do not think you can. But I say that the greater freedom you can give the better it will be for the country and the better it will be for the National Exchequer. No real explanation is given as to why a permit has been refused. I would very humbly represent to my right hon. Friend that he should carry out the spirit of what was understood to be this new Regulation—that money should not be allowed to go abroad at the present time, but that every facility should be given for home industries to get capital to provide employment. If my right hon. Friend can tell us that that is going to be the governing spirit of the policy of the Committee, then, I think, he will go a long way to allay the alarm that has been created. But we are up against this proposition, and I repeat it: unless you afford facilities for commercial concerns to utilise their own capital and the capital of their funds in developing all our industries your markets one after another are bound to go. They are going to-day. They are going to be secured by countries who were never competitors before. It is of vital interest to the State that as few Regulations as possible should be put upon the free flow of capital. I hope, therefore, before the Debate closes, or to-morrow, that my right hon. Friend will tell us what is going to be done in regard to loans, contracts which are not completed, and the other matters to which I have alluded.
    Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I desire to add a very few words to what have already fallen from my right hon. Friend. I do not think the Government, in making their old Regulations, which have been
    2076
    superseded, or in making the present Regulations, have realised what they were doing. I am quite sure they do not realise the terrible effects of the new Regulation with which we are now threatened, and which is practically to-day in force. It is the fact even that a private firm in the City of London to-day can go to its bank and give a security for money in half an hour, if it has any securities to give, whereas this Regulation, as imposed, makes it impossible for a limited company to do anything of the sort. A large number of the principal activities in England, both in the City of London and elsewhere, are to-day, for convenience sake, embodied in limited companies. Why they should suddenly be handicapped, not only in their finance, but in all their internal arrangements, it passes the wit of man to discover. The facilities for doing a variety of things which every limited company has always had in this country has suddenly been cut off. If such a company desired a few thousand pounds for the purpose of some transaction, in order to give security for that money it must give debentures, or issue some of the further debentures it is already authorised to issue. It cannot now do that. It must, forsooth, make a written application, and fill up a schedule giving about ten different explanations. It then launches that schedule at the Government Department, and waits for the decision of the Department. During the past two years these restrictions have only applied in the cases where shares or debentures were sought to be authorised, and where these were going to be sold or quoted on the Stock Exchange.
    The new Regulations make these issues absolutely illegal without the consent of this new tribunal. The other tribunal was one of the most astounding arrangements that the mind of man could imagine. It sat in the darkness. It refused to listen to anyone who wanted to say anything, or to put his case. Nobody knew who it was. Decisions were given without reasons. One company got its permission, and another company, in exactly the same position, was refused. Weeks, in some cases months, elapsed before the decision could be received at all, and then you probably were turned down altogether.
    I confess that I am one of the last men in this House to embarrass the present Government, or the late Government, while the War was on, or to stand here and say anything that I ought not to say.

    2077
    But I do say that in my experience in the city, which has extended over the whole of the War period, and a good many years before that, I have never known anything like this before. If anybody had told me such a thing could exist I would not have believed them. If the Government could tell us of it to-day, and if they could next week make a whole lot of simple operations outside the Regulations, so that they may be freely done without having to go and get these consents, it would be well. Why, for instance, should not a company, if it desires to do so, split its own shares? Companies have been refused permission to split their £10 shares into ten shares of £1 each. They have not been told why. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told us just now that the whole object of these arrangements was to enable the State to borrow money, and to prevent the whole lot of loose money being used up by speculative operations which might prevent the free flow of money into the Treasury. We understood that was the object, but why has this Committee turned down simple amalgamation. Two companies are competing with one another, and they want to amalgamate in order to make one concern stronger and go on with their manufacture. They have applied to the Committee for permission to amalgamate. They do not want a single sixpence from the public, but they simply want to amalgamate. They have to go through six months of constant filling up forms, answering all sorts of stupid questions, and then there is a refusal without any reason given and no appeal. The Star Chamber we read of in history is nothing to this burden, which is certainly most incomprehensible, which is being thrown upon the business community of the Kingdom.
    There is another aspect of the question. The Leader of the House has not been fair to those concerns who have issued their shares in spite of the late Treasury Minute. They were frankly told that unless their shares and debentures were intended to be dealt with on the Stock Exchange there were no restrictions, and that they could have commissions. They went to Somerset House and paid the money and got permission. Why should they now be penalised. It is ridiculous and outrageous, and I was very glad to hear the observations we have had from the Leader of the House that at all events in the schemes up to the present he is
    2078
    pledged that that shall be modified in that respect. I would like to know what is going to be done in regard to all sorts of current business. Money has been paid and contracts entered into under which debentures have to be issued. These people have their options, and thousands of people hold debentures which they have a right to convert into shares. They have been in some cases to this very Committee and asked to be allowed to exercise their option, and it has been refused. What difference does it make to the finances of the country or to the War whether Mr. A, who owns 100 debentures, should go and say, "I exercise my right to have my shares"? And why should the company have to say, "We have applied to the Treasury Committee, and they will not let us issue those shares"? It seems to me to be so preposterous that you have only really to put the proposition to show how unreasonable and outrageous the behaviour of this Committee has been, and is going to be.
    With regard to amalgamation, if two concerns want to amalgamate and issue paper between one another in order to make a stronger concern to enable them to pay all the taxes which are being thrust upon them, why should they not be at liberty to do that? I had a case two months ago where two concerns desired to amalgamate and to drop two large flotations of shares on the Stock Exchange, and this was refused. Now shall we be allowed to go again to this tribunal to meet those gentleman? I do not know their business capacity, but I should like to ask what are their grounds for refusal. Why should you stop our business? The patience of business men on this subject is exhausted. They have seen with dismay this new impediment put in the way of their business, and it has been exceedingly difficult for many of us to carry on our businesses, and if we are not to be allowed to use some lubrication, and if we are to have a piece of iron put into the cogs, what is to become of the country?
    The difficulties of arranging business are to-day very grave and very serious. I have a case in my own mind which illustrates this point, and I will put it very shortly to the House. Four British companies are carrying on business abroad. They have done so under very great difficulties, and have made great losses during the War, and they desire to amalgamate. The terms have to be discussed with the boards and after-

    2079
    wards go to meetings of the shareholders and debenture holders of those four concerns. That means no less than twelve meetings of debenture holders and shareholders to carry out those arrangements. Are we to apply for permission first, or are we to bring thousands of shareholders from all over the Kingdom to meetings in London to carry out these arrangements, and then come to the Treasury and find they cannot give permission? Therefore, I suggest to the Leader of the House that the position in regard to this matter is intolerable.
    The Treasury Committee and those responsible for its Regulations are not people in active business who understand the difficulties of dealing with such matters. They meet in private and secrecy for days and weeks in order to decide whether a few shares or debentures are to be issued or not. Why should these people have to wait at all, if they do not want money subscribed? We ought to have an assurance to-night from the Leader of the House that these Regulations will be immediately altered so as to allow all kinds of transactions to be carried out which do not demand the public subscription of money. If it is to protect the Treasury and secure money to pay our debts, that is one thing; but if it is to interfere with all the internal arrangements of industrial concerns all over the country to stop them splitting their shares, and to prevent them amalgamating and giving their shareholders the shares and debentures they had contracted to give them years ago, I protest against it. I consider the matter so important that it transcends the question of party loyalty, and if there is an opportunity of expressing my disapprobation of the course pursued, which I am afraid is still going to be pursued, unless we have some assurance to the contrary, I shall feel myself bound to go into the Lobby in support of the views I have expressed.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: In the first place, this Clause was supposed to be a relaxation of the old practice, which was only a recommendation, and everybody understood it applied to public issues, and that the newspapers were not to be filled with such advertisements in the future. Nobody ever dreamt that it applied to small business concerns. Four-fifths of the business of the country is carried on by private persons who do not care a button for the Stock Exchange.
    2080
    Who are not in the least concerned with the Stock Exchange, do not believe in Stock Exchange matters, and who pass on their shares through the secretary of the company. Of course, these people are enormously annoyed that the Stock Exchange should interfere with their activities at all. If the Government intended to stop these issues it was not their business to give good advice, but to enact a law. If showed that B was a man of much stronger character and preferred his own opinion to that of Treasury officials and probably that he could conduct a more successful company. What I dread about these Regulations is that they will stifle capital altogether. How are we going to develop our country and our Empire if we do not have capital? This cribbing and confining of enterprise is not British finance at all, and it is bound to injure our activities. After all, capital is simply credit, and if enterprise is to be kept down and new industries are not to be developed, where are you going to get that opportunity for employing that mass of workmen now coming back? If this were restricted to foreign or even Colonial enterprise, there might be something to be said about it, but what about starting works of our own in this country? There must be any amount of new genius ready to undertake new developments of all kinds, men who are not going cap in hand to Treasury officials, who, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir W. Rutherford) has said, probably do not know anything about business or have forgotten all that they ever did know.
    These are not the methods that have made this a great commercial country. The transfer of shares from A to B is nothing. It does not take any capital out of the country. It makes no difference to the country. There has been a great deal of money borrowed on debentures from time to time. Can they be renewed? Can you go to your bankers and borrow money on securities and pay the money off as you wish? I do not think you can under the Regulations. Nobody wants to go to anybody to ask permission to carry on his legitimate business. These Regulations instead of having the effect of making this country more wealthy and better able to bear the enormous burdens of the War, instead of improving the credit of the country, will reduce our finances to such figures that there will be nothing left to tax at all. The Treasury

    2081
    should have confined itself entirely to keeping money from going out of the country and preventing it getting into other hands where it cannot benefit this country. If you want to benefit this country, there must be freedom to develop our own industries and to employ our own workmen. Does the Leader of the House know the dissatisfaction caused in the commercial world, and especially in the city of Glasgow, by those Regulations? Men have sold things which they cannot deliver, and they themselves are under obligations which they cannot fulfil. That is the position in which many men have been placed. Others want to take up commercial operations with other men. None of these things can be done without paying a visit to London to see a Treasury official. These Regulations will put an end for a considerable period to development and enterprise in this country, and where, then, will be the tax-paying capacity which is to get us out of our difficulties. I am all in favour of giving entire freedom.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (imperfectly heard): With the leave of the House, I would like to say a word or two more on this subject. I and the Government are in entire agreement with the object in view as described by my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel). The whole object of these Regulations is to prevent money being used in a way which is not in the public interest. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Macquisten) talked as if this were a new restriction. That really will not be found to be so. Our whole object is the reverse. It is, while keeping some control, to give facilities which will enable everyone to get his business done quickly, to state his ease if there is any doubt about it, and to ensure that no undue impediment is put in his way. That is our object. There will be no stoppage; that has been made plain. The whole object is to prevent speculation in securities which will not go to develop the country at this time and may go abroad. That is our object. I do think that the change we have made is going to get rid of a great deal of the trouble of which my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken. As I have said, we have three Committees already arranged for. As for the personnel, I know that the aim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been to get
    2082
    people who really understand the business side of it and not merely the financial side.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no member of that Committee will be allowed to sit on any competing application from another firm in the industry in which he is interested, so that he may not get the secrets of his rivals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think that there is no difficulty in giving that assurance, because nobody would do it; but if it is any satisfaction to my right hon. Friend, I will undertake that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall make it plain that that is his intention in this matter. The real difficulty is that we have got to consider two competing needs of the country. I would like to see every one of these restrictions removed to-morrow, but I am afraid, if we removed them at once, we should run considerable risk of not getting money so freely as we need it. I hope that hon. Members will give the new proposals a chance to see whether the difficulties really do arise. I am assured that they will not. I think it is common custom in most countries that companies have to go through some form before they are allowed to register. Personally, I am inclined to think that we ought not to allow money to go abroad without having some regard to whether it is going to be for the benefit of this country. I think something of the kind is necessary. The community has a right to ask that there shall be no delay. But I do really suggest that the system which has prevailed during the War has had good effect. I can give my right hon. Friend this assurance, that the object of the new Regulation is not to restrict but to increase the issue of capital for industry, and instructions to that effect will be given. As regards the particular points raised respecting loans, I really think it is a question of the actual legal meaning.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: But the banks have intimated to-day that they cannot renew the loans.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; that has all gone, I think.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will shares issued by private concerns be in practically the same category as shares which were publicly advertised during the last four years? Will it still be permissible for money to be borrowed upon them, and will the loans that are issued on them be able to be renewed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe so; but I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand that I do not like to answer off-hand and without examination questions which are largely matters of interpretation.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: But the banks will not lend on shares unless they know that if the loan is not paid they can sell the shares. This Regulation prevents them selling.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so. The retrospective effect will be taken away, and these issues will for all these purposes be treated just exactly as if they had Treasury sanction. We are in fact putting the whitewash brush over all that has happened in that respect, and putting them all in the same category.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: And contracts for delivery will carry on?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe that is so. That was the intention of the concession. As regards that, the new Order will be carefully considered in the light of the criticisms we have had to-day; but I do ask this House to realise that we do need some control and to make that control as little hurtful as possible. We are as anxious to get business for the country as we are to get money.
    It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.
    Adjourned at Twelve Minutes before Nine o'clock.