Commons Sitting of 13 April 1920

OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dublin Port and Docks Bill,
Great Northern Railway Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Hertfordshire County Council Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter past Eight of the clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    VLADIVOSTOK AND SIBERIA.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in Siberia; what government or form of government is in power; what is the situation at Vladivostok; whether there is a British representative at Vladivostok; and what are his relationships with the government in power at Vladivostok?
    The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Kellaway): The answer to the first part of the question is that, owing to the fact that British representatives in Siberia have now been withdrawn to Vladivostok, no adequate reports on the state of affairs in
    1496
    the interior of Siberia have been received. It appears, however, that the Bolsheviks are in control of the whole country, with the exception of Chita, Vladivostok, and a few other posts along the Siberian railway.
    The answer to the second and third parts of the question is that until recently a Zemstov Government was in control at Vladivostok, and, so far as can be ascertained, the greater part of the country is under the control of local Soviets.
    The answer to the fourth part of the question is that His Majesty's Consul-General at Vladivostok is still at his post.
    The answer to the fifth part of the question is that His Majesty's Government have not recognised any Russian Government, either at Vladivostok or elsewhere, and the relations of the Consul-General with the local authorities are therefore of an unofficial nature.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any information as to the Japanese having set up a Government at Vladivostok and displaced the Zemstov Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: There are reports of something of that character, but there is nothing definite enough to enable me to make a statement.

  ARMY AND NAVY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WOUNDS IN EARLIER WARS.
    Mr. ARCHDALEasked the Secretary of State for War if a subaltern in the Army wounded in a former war receives a pension of only £10 and one of similar rank with a similar wound in the present War gets £100; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the former pensions increased?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY for WAR (Sir A. Williamson): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. A subaltern who lost a limb in previous wars was granted a pension of £70 a year for life, not £10 as stated in the question. I regret I cannot adopt his suggestion that this rate should be levelled up to the rate of £100 sanctioned for the recent War.
    Captain LOSEBY: Is it not the fact that repeated assurances have been given from the Front Bench that soldiers wounded in previous wars shall be treated in identically the same manner as soldiers wounded in this War, and that, in consequence of those assurances, Members in the House and in their private capacity have refrained from taking action which otherwise they would have taken?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not aware of the assurances. Perhaps my hon. Friend will inform me further.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it the policy of the War Office that officers and men wounded in previous wars shall be treated in the same way as officers and men wounded in the last War?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think my answer was a reply to that question.

    INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the revised scale of pensions which is to be given to men who have been invalided from the Army with less than 21 years' service.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Any announcement on this subject will be made by the Ministry of Pensions. No decision has yet been reached, as far as I am aware.

    OFFICERS' WIDOWS.
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what increase of pension is to be given to the widows of officers of the Regular Army in cases where the pre-War scale of pension is not sufficient to meet the increased cost of living.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I regret I can add nothing at present to my reply on the 24th March to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot. The Cabinet Committee is actively at work.

  DEMOBILISATION.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War how many men who have not volunteered for further service are still retained in His Majesty's Army, and, if any, when they will be demobilised?
  Captain REGINALD TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made to bring home as soon as possible all conscripts who are released at the end of the month; and whether adequate shipping provision has been made in advance?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There are approximately 24,000 demobilisable soldiers with the units of the Army, of whom about 12,000 have volunteered for further ser vice. The despatch of all demobilisable men from their present stations or theatres for release is still dependent on shipping; but under the arrangements now in force all such men who have not volunteered for further service, with the exception of those at Bermuda, Hong Kong, and other outlying stations, will have left for the United Kingdom by the end of this week, provided that none are retained under treatment in hospital.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War how-many recruits for His Majesty's Territorial Army have been obtained to date?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Owing to various causes there have been delays in opening recruiting and in appointing the officers on whose personal exertions and influence recruiting largely depends. In one hundred and fifty-six units recruiting has not yet been opened. In these circumstances any figures I might now give would be liable to mislead the hon. and gallant Member.

  GOVERNMENT WAR STORES (SURPLUS).
  Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War what are the number and calibre of artillery sold to Allied and other Powers and the names of the Powers to whom this artillery has been sold or is in process of negotiation for sale; and what is the total amount so realised.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I regret it is not in the public interest to give the information asked for by the Noble Lord.
  Mr. BILLING: Has the League of Nations been consulted as to the desirability of disposing of these guns, or do the Government propose to consult it?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am not able to answer that question.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the policy of the Government for which the right hon. Gentleman speaks to sell cheap this artillery so that minor Powers may be encouraged to keep up armaments which we ourselves will have to meet by corresponding armaments?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is the policy to realise certain armaments which they do not require and they are doing so in the interests of the taxpayer.

  TOWER OF LONDON (RIVER PROMENADE).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the promenade in front of the Tower and adjoining the river was open for the use of the public before the War and was stopped during the War; and whether his Department can now re-open this part of the Tower, in view of the demand from local residents on both sides of the river and of the number of employees in the immediate district who would also use it?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I understand that the West End of the Tower Walk from the Saluting Battery to the St. Thomas's Tower has been open to the public since 1st April last. The East End of this walk will be opened as soon as the stores at present on the site can be removed.

  LONDON TRAFFIC (POLICE REGULATIONS).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police who are in charge of the traffic in London streets are specially trained and detailed for this class of work only; and, if not, will he consider, in view of the special need of highly equipped men for this work, whether men should be specially trained and reserved for this purpose?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The police in charge of traffic at important spots in the London streets are specially trained before they are detailed for this class of work. They are
  1500
  available, if occasion requires, for any other kind of police duty. The question of men specialising in traffic duties only came before the Select Committee on Transport (Metropolitan Area) in June, 1919, but they made no recommendation in favour of its adoption.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    DISABLED MEN (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister whether a decision has now been arrived at regarding the provision of additional travelling facilities by means of half-fare vouchers to men undergoing treatment away from home; and whether, in view of the fact that it is a hardship to disabled men in such circumstances that they can only visit their homes free of cost at infrequent intervals, he will further consider the issue of a free rail way ticket every three months instead of once in every six months or some similar concession?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this matter.
    Colonel ASHLEY: When is the announcement likely to be made?
    Major TRYON: I hope very soon. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question.

  TRANSPORT.

    ST. KATHERINE'S DOCKS (GOVERNMENT ORDERS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether any denial has been issued of the statement of the president of the Chamber of Shipping, at the annual meeting on 25th February, that a ship in St. Katherine's Docks was loaded and un loaded nine times as the result of conflicting orders from five different Government Departments?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): No denial has been issued of this statement which I understand was made on the authority of a paragraph in the Press. It is impossible for the Ministry to contradict every inde-

    1501
    finite statement made, and I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend could get me the name of the steamer referred to, as I have failed to ascertain it myself. From inquiries I have made, I am confident that the statement is devoid of foundation.

    SALVED SHIPS.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller the number and size of ships salved since the Armistice; and whether he can give any estimate of the further number it is expected can be salved.
    Colonel WILSON: Since the Ministry of Shipping took responsibility for salvage, subsequent to the Armistice, salvage operations have been completed on 34 vessels of 125,226 tons gross. I am afraid it is not possible to give any reliable estimate as to possible future salvage.

    TRACKLESS TROLLY SYSTEM.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Minister of Transport what is the attitude of his Department towards what is known as the trackless trolly system?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I am unable, within the scope of a Parliamentary answer, to reply to this general question, but if there are any special points in connection with the system upon which the hon. Member desires information, I will endeavour to let him have it, if he will communicate with me.

  REGENT'S PARK (ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS).
  Viscount CURZONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture under what Vote the receipts of the rent for the portion of Regent's Park tenanted by the Royal Zoological Society, or the agreement whereby they are permitted to use a portion of Regent's Park, is shown?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The rents in question form part of the Land Revenues of the Crown which are collected by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests and Land Revenues and the net
  1502
  amount of which is paid to the Consolidated Fund.

  NYASALAND TOBACCO (EXPORT DUTY).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that native-grown tobacco in Nyasaland is poor in quality and small in quantity and that a rebate confined to producers of five tons is of no use to those who are engaged in seriously developing this valuable product in the protectorate, while an export duty of 2d. a pound cannot but prejudice this infant industry; and whether the imposition of this duty can on these grounds be reconsidered?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The Secretary of State has decided that the duty, which s necessary for revenue purposes, must be approved, but a copy of my hon. Friend's question will be sent to the Governor for his observations.
  Sir J. D. REES: Can anything be done upon receipt of the copy, if the Secretary of State has already decided to approve the export duty?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: It may be possible that the duty may be varied subsequently, as the result of my hon. Friend's representation.
  Major Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this duty is regarded by the whole of the tobacco growers of Nyasaland as a gross breach of faith on the part of the Imperial Government, having regard to the promise made last year that everything would be done to encourage Empire tobacco growing?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I believe everything is being done to encourage Empire tobacco growing, but it essential, in the interests of Nyasaland and of tobacco growers in other parts of the Empire, that the Colony should be solvent.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the letter I sent to the Colonial Office, showing that the rebate in no way advantages these planters, who are entirely at a loss, has been forwarded to the Governor?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I think the letter has been forwarded. If not, I will forward it.

  WAGES DISPUTE (BLACKLEY, MANCHESTER).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is a dispute at Messrs. Connolly's, Limited, cable manufacturers, Blackley Vale, Blackley, Manchester, because the firm refused to pay the proper standard rates of pay; if he can state whether the firm in question are Government contractors; if he is aware that the firm refused to submit the case to the Court of Arbitration as the men suggested; and if he will take action in the matter?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I am aware of this dispute. The answer to the, second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. As my hon. Friend is aware, I cannot refer a case to arbitration except with the consent of both parties. My Department is doing its best to secure a satisfactory settlement in this matter.
  Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, if there is no possible chance of getting a remedy through his Department or through the firm, there is only one alternative for the men to take?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I am not responsible, I think, for that alternative, but I would suggest that there is another course, namely, that the Departments mainly concerned in this contract, and not the Ministry of Labour, should be consulted in the matter. They have all the knowledge and information, and I would suggest that application to them might be the proper course, at any rate, in the first instance.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any personal approach has been made?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I cannot say.

  IRELAND.

    SEARCHES FOR ARMS.
    Mr. IRVINGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an exhaustive search was made on the premises of Alexander Findlater,
    1504
    Dublin, for ammunition or explosives or firearms; whether any such articles were discovered; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the search was presumably based upon false information, he will see that greater care is taken before searching private houses or arresting and interning any persons, and that the information upon which the authorities act is authentic and trustworthy?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I have been asked to answer this question. I am informed that the search of the premises referred to was carried out by the military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Regulations on receipt of reliable information. No arms were found, but seditious documents were discovered and seized.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, when a search results in nothing being found, as has happened in many cases, there is any expression of regret or apology to the people who are disturbed in the middle of the night on a false scent altogether?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

    PRISONERS' TREATMENT (STRIKE).
    Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been drawn to the manifesto of the Trades Union Congress calling a general strike in Ireland as a protest against the treatment of Irish political prisoners in Mountjoy Prison and elsewhere; whether it is a fact that these prisoners have been arrested merely on suspicion and without being brought to trial, and are being treated as common criminals and not as political prisoners; and whether, in view of the grave crisis which will arise from a general stoppage of work in Ireland, he can make any statement of Government policy on this matter?
    Mr. ARCHDALE: Is it not a fact that the Irish Trade Union Congress is practically a Sinn Fein body, and that the real trade union bodies in Ireland have nothing at all to say to it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I was not personally aware of the constitution of the body to which my right hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. SEXTON: It is not true.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The facts are not as stated in the question, as some of those imprisoned are convicted prisoners, while those who have been arrested without trial are being treated under the rules for untried prisoners. This is a matter, in the first instance, for the decision of the Irish Government, in which His Majesty's Government has full confidence.
    Mr. CLYNES: Is it not a fact that very many of these prisoners who are detained, both in this country and in Mountjoy prison in Ireland, are so detained without charges being preferred against them and without trial of any sort?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that is a fact which we have stated many times, and I should have thought the whole House would recognise that in a condition such as exists in Ireland, where murder is so rife, it is necessary, if people's lives are to be protected, that people should be arrested on suspicion. That has been done by this Government as it has been done before when Ireland was in a similar state, and the Government have no intention of altering the practice.
    Mr. CLYNES: In view of the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply I shall take an opportunity to raise the question during the course of the discussion this afternoon.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this does not apply only in Ireland? Three men were arrested in Liverpool last week, who were not Irish residents at all, but trade unionists going about their ordinary business, and deported without any trial or any statement of what their crime was.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have stated that people are arrested on suspicion. I am sure hon. Members, like the Government, greatly deplore deaths occurring by people committing suicide in these circumstances, and I suggest to them that to give the impression that political action here may alter the decision of the Government is likely to increase the danger.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Government considered the effect on loyal Colonial opinion of the death of these untried and possibly innocent men in view of the many other
    1506
    mistakes which have already been made by the Executive in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the alternative suggested by such questions that the Government having taken the responsibility of deciding that it is necessary in the public interest to arrest these men, they should be released?
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that the Government, and presumably the whole House, want a settlement of the Irish question, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking, apart from arresting people on suspicion, to avoid death of any kind by these men refusing, quite naturally, to take food?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already answered that. The Government consider it their duty, as has been done over and over again when Ireland has been in a similar condition, to arrest these men on suspicion in order to prevent crime. We have done so and we feel it to be our duty to continue to do so, and it would be perfectly futile to do it if men are to be released because they choose to refuse food.
    Mr. HOGGE: If men are arrested on suspicion how long is it to be the policy of the Government that these men are not to be tried?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a problematical question which I cannot answer, but I can say at once that, so long as crime is going on, such as that which occurred in Dublin the other day, any Government would fail in its duty if it did not arrest men who are suspected of taking part in these crimes.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the decision to keep these men in prison, even when they are in danger of death, is a decision arrived at by the Government or by the Irish Executive? Is he aware that the Lord Lieutenant has stated that the responsibility rests with the Cabinet, whereas the right hon. Gentleman now states that the responsibility rests with the Irish Executive? Further, can he say whether the whole question is now under the consideration of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say that the responsibility rests with the Irish Government. I said that the decision in the first instance was with the Irish

    1507
    Government. The answer which I gave in regard to a similar case which occurred in England showed that His Majesty's Government had definitely considered the matter, and had taken action.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this question, the gravity of which is recognised, is still under the consideration of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question which the hon. Member has put is precisely the kind of question which I deplore, if it raises a hope in the mind of these people that our decision will be changed. The decision has been taken by His Majesty's Government, and I do not believe there is any chance of altering it.

  WOMEN MAGISTRATES.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister the number of women magistrates who have been appointed to date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Forty-three women magistrates have been appointed up to date, one of whom has since died.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Is it not the case that no women magistrates have yet been appointed in Wales?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that.
  Mr. RENDALL: Is it the policy of those appointing magistrates to try and see that at least one woman magistrate is appointed to every bench?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to say that that should be the policy.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have any women magistrates been appointed in Ireland, or is it intended to appoint them as resident magistrates for work in that country?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Would not a few old women be an improvement on the present ones?

  BLIND (EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND MAINTENANCE) BILL.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he can give time to the Blind (Education, Employment, and
  1508
  Maintenance) Bill on its return from Grand Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, has conferred with the promoters of the Bill and that he will shortly introduce a Government Bill dealing with the welfare of the blind.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that much feeling exists on this subject in the Midlands, and that an enthusiastic meeting was held, as lately as last Sunday, at Nottingham?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not only in Nottingham.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can any steps be taken by the right hon. Gentleman to hasten the opportunity for one of the Committees upstairs to deal with this Bill, which recently passed this House unanimously?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It was a Private Bill, not accepted by the Government, and I could not give any promise of facilities for it. I have said that the Government intend to introduce a measure.

  INCOME TAX (GROSS ASSESSMENT).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the gross assessment for Income Tax for the financial years ending 1916–17, 1917–18, 1918–19, 1919–20?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The gross income for Income Tax purposes brought under the review of the Inland Revenue Department for the years 1916–17 and 1917–18 is as follows:—

  1916–17

  …

  …

  £1,662,724,028

  1917–18

  …

  …

  £1,967,065,911

  For the years 1918–19 and 1919–20 the figures are not yet available.
  Mr. BILLING: Do these figures include Excess Profits Tax?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The question on the Paper refers to Income Tax.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (POLITICAL WORK).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether

  1509
  there are any restrictions imposed on the use of the funds of co-operative societies for political party purposes in connection with the immunity they enjoy from Income Tax?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would invite the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the provisions of Section 39 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, under which a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, is entitled to exemption from Income Tax under Schedules C and D, unless it sells to non-members and the number of its shares is limited. The question of the Income Tax liability of co-operative societies is dealt with in Section XII. of Part V of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to that Section of the Report he will appreciate that the relief from tax is grounded on the nature of the surpluses which arise from the transactions of the societies, and is not connected with the manner of the distribution of those surpluses.
  Major PRESCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of members of co-operative societies object to their profits being used in this way, and can he say whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the legality of the dividends being so dissipated?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I have no doubt that something in connection with this matter will come up for discussion in the course of the Financial Debate.

  BALLOTS AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Mr. LYLE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Home Affairs if he will define the policy of his Department with regard to ballots, lotteries, sweepstakes and kindred competitions; whether it is the practice to warn such undertakings directly they are brought to the notice of the police; and why, if that is the case, no action was taken in respect to the Golden Ballot till the draw was concluded and the posters had appeared on the public hoardings for months; whether he is aware that in India the Government has specially sanctioned the Pearl Necklace Lottery promoted in con-
  1510
  nection with the Children's Welfare Exhibition, and in what respect this differs from the Golden Ballot?
  Mr. SHORTT: The policy of the Department with regard to lotteries of all sorts is to enforce the law. It is the practice of the police to warn the promoters of such undertakings as soon as they are brought to their notice. In the case of the Golden Ballot, the promoters claimed that they were acting on legal advice, and that the prizes would be distributed in such a way as not to contravene the law. Later, when it appeared that the Golden Ballot was in fact a mere lottery, the Attorney-General advised that there should be a prosecution, and proceedings were taken accordingly. I do not know what precisely' is the law in India on this subject, or what action the Indian Government have taken. As the hon. Member is aware, this House refused to allow any alteration in the law for the benefit of War charities.
  Mr. LYLE: Is it not a fact that lotteries and raffles are constantly held by churches and chapels, and, if the blind eye is turned to them, why not to other objects equally worthy, such as hospitals and so forth?
  Mr. SHORTT: The law is successfully broken, no doubt, very often.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the fact that the question is sub judice, and why, therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman describe it as a fact that it is a lottery?
  Mr. SHORTT: I said that as soon as it appeared to be a lottery the Attorney-General's advice was taken on it.
  Major BARNETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the approaching lottery in connection with Victory Bonds?

  SLOUGH DEPOT (SALE).
  Mr. HOGGE(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether the contract for the sale of the Slough Depot will be made available to Members before the discussion on the Ministry of Munitions Vote on Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The heads of agreement are being discussed, but no contract has yet been entered into. It is impossible that any contract can be settled before the date mentioned.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the House not be in possession of particulars with regard to the proposed sale before the discussion on Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to give particulars without giving the terms of the contract. My hon. Friend in introducing the discussion will give all the facts.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that contracts of considerable magnitude have been entered into for the disposal of all aeronautical material, and shall we have an opportunity of having the terms of the contract before the matter is discussed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe contracts involving immense sums have been made by the Ministry of Munitions, and I am sure that if questions are put an answer will be given.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are the Government going to gain or lose by this contract?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: They are certainly going to gain by the sale of the Slough works.
  Mr. HOGGE: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself, on behalf of the Government, refused a discussion on the Slough Committee's Report, and in view of the fact that the Munitions Vote will be taken on Thursday, does he not think it would be possibly better to postpone that Vote until the House is in possession of the facts, particularly as we were assured by him that the Slough depot was going to be a dripping roast for the taxpayer for many years?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That phrase does not sound like one of mine. The Government did not choose the subject of the Vote. It was chosen, I think, in the ordinary way by the Opposition. There is no reason whatever to prevent it being taken.
  Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that these two contracts stand alone in the various contracts with the Ministry have entered into in that they are participating profit-sharing contracts between private individuals and the Government, and in the circumstances, as the aeronautical contract has been concluded, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity to debate it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I think contracts on similar lines have been made in regard to other matters. The heads of the sale of agreement will be given and any questions asked about the aeronautical agreement will be answered.

  RAILWAY STRIKE, KILMARNOCK.
  Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether action can be taken without delay to hold an inquiry with a view to the settlement of a dispute at the Railway Works, Kilmarnock, as a result of which 250 men are on strike?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply to this question. My Department is in touch with this dispute and hopes to arrange for a resumption of work, with a view to the question at issue being referred to arbitration.
  Mr. SHAW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the railway company has said it is impossible to meet the men's request without the consent of the Ministry of Transport, and will he get into touch with the Ministry of Transport and fix an early date for an informal inquiry?
  Sir M. BARLOW: I was not aware of the information the hon. Member gives me, but I will undertake to get into touch with the Department at once.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  John Edmund Mills, esquire, for County of Kent (Dartford Division).
  William Greenwood, esquire, for Borough of Stockport.
  Henry Fildes, esquire, for Borough of Stockport.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL,
  "to amend The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919," presented by Sir ERIC GEDDES; supported by Mr. Secretary Shortt, Sir Robert Horne, and Mr. Neal; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' FIRE BRIGADES BILL,
  "to empower local authorities to recover from insurance companies and owners of property the expenses of the attendance of fire engines and fire brigades at fires, whether within or without their districts, and to make charges for such attendance," presented by Colonel BURN; supported by Mr. Aneurin Williams, Major Prescott, and Colonel Newman; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL,
  "to empower local authorities to levy a rate for advertising Health Resorts and Watering Places," presented by Colonel BURN; supported by Colonel Newman and Major Prescott; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Major Howard and Mr. Royce; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Bellairs and Mr. Lunn.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Sir Montague Barlow.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

    FOREIGN EXCHANGE.
    Mr. HOPKINS: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words "in the opinion of this House, the Government should, at the earliest possible moment, take all such steps as are within their power to restore the international exchange value of the pound sterling."
    I do not apologise to the House for raising an exceedingly dry and uninteresting subject, because the question of foreign exchange is one of enormous importance. The House is aware that in normal times the rates of exchange between nations are fixed by bankers, bill brokers and their clients, and the possible variations are limited by the possibility of exporting gold and the cost of so doing. In normal times, at any rate, between nations which are solvent the variation of exchange, although governed by most complex causes, is relatively small, and does not materially affect the cost of commodities to the public. Between nations which are wholly or partly insolvent we know to our cost that the variation of exchange may be enormous, and that the possibility of exporting gold no longer exists, or, if it exists, it will be ineffective to control the market. The rate of exchange is the expression of the public opinion of the world as regards the ability of the country to meet its obligations, and no doubt the public opinion of the world to-day does not believe that we are in a position to meet our liabilities on our currency. This matter is so enormously important, because it affects the cost of living of every person in the country. It affects the price of our food, our clothing, and of everything that we consume, because with the present rate of the foreign exchanges and the present depreciation of our currency, we are paying from 20 to
    1520
    30 per cent. more for everything we import than we should be paying if our exchanges were at or near par. This affects not only the price and the cost of living as regards those articles which we import, but it also affects the cost of those articles which are produced in this country, because we see from day to day that the increased cost of living causes the need for increases in wages, and as wages increase, so the cost of everything produced in this country is increased to the consumer. Therefore, both directly and indirectly, this great depreciation of our currency in the markets of the world is most important to everyone in this country.
    Of course, this depreciation of our currency proceeds from many causes, and there is no one remedy that can be applied, no golden rule, no single step or combination of steps which the Government could take, which would put the matter completely right. But there is no doubt that the Government could do a great deal to help to restore the value of our currency in the markets of the world. At any rate, I think that they should do their share. In that respect, the action of the Government and their predecessors has had a great deal to say to the depreciation of the currency. I am not blaming the Government. They had to take those steps because of the apparent necessity caused by the War. It is all very well for the Government to preach, as they do with good reason, the necessity for increased production. That would be an enormously important factor in righting the exchange. It is all very well for them to preach, as they do with reason, the necessity for increasing our exports. That also would be a most important factor in restoring the exchange. But the increase of production and the increase of exports depend upon very various causes, most of which are quite outside the control of the Government. For instance, we shall not increase our production notably until we get good will on the part of the workers, and perhaps increased efficiency of management on the part of employers. Both those are things which are beyond Government control.
    I for one am a little tired of hearing the Government exhort us to observe both publicly and privately greater economy, exhort the workers to produce more, and point out the necessity of greater saving

    1521
    while at the same time the Government themselves are not, in my humble opinion, taking those steps which they might reasonably and properly take to do their share towards restoring the exchange and so cheapening the cost of living. The Government it is quite true appointed a Committee. The Government always do appoint a Committee. The Report of the Committee—no doubt a very important document—recommended no action which could possibly be efficacious in any reasonable time in restoring our exchange. I was interested to see—I think it was in the "Times" of yesterday or the day before—a letter from a member of the Committee admitting that the process of deflation which the Committee had recommended would operate so slowly that he for one at any rate was anxious that that process should be speeded up. That is really what I am pleading for—that the process of deflation and the other steps which are necessary, and which it is within the power of the Government to take, should be speeded up.
    What is it that the Government can do? For one thing the Government preach economy, particularly in the use of foreign imports which have to be paid for abroad. The Government might enforce that economy by either prohibiting or heavily taxing those luxury imports which are not necessary for the use of people in this country. I am sure that the Government realise that that would do a great deal to restore to a more healthy condition than exists at present the balance of exchange between us and foreign countries. I can see no reason for the Government not taking this step except that I know that a very considerable section of this House may object in principle to a tariff or to any restriction on imports. In normal times there is a good deal to be said for their views; at any rate, it is a defensible position they take up. But I am sure that section of Free Traders would recognise, as the previous Government, a Free Trade Government, recognised, that in cases of emergency, as in the case of the Paris resolutions, it was necessary to put aside for a time what were their general Free Trade principles, and to act as the necessity of the moment dictated. The necessity of the moment is not less grave now, in a financial sense
    1522
    is perhaps graver, than it was at any time during the progress of the War. If the Government restrict imports of unnecessary manufactures and of luxuries of all sorts, I do not think there will be any serious opposition in this House, and certainly there will be none in the country generally.
    There is another matter which profoundly affects the exchange, and is wholly within the control of the Government. That is the inflation which has taken place in our currency and the steps for the deflation of the currency which ought to be taken as soon as possible. Acting on the Report of the Committee, the Government accepted the recommendation that there should be some limit to the issue of currency notes. Currency notes have been enormously over-issued. Not to the same extent, thank goodness, but in the same manner as our Allies and our enemies have used the printing press, we have used the printing press. Naturally, when we have prepared a vast amount of notes to be put into circulation, notes which are unsecured either by gold or by goods, our currency is depreciated. Now that the War is over, it is necessary to get back to sound finance. I suggest that it is the duty of the Government to take prompt and vigorous steps to reduce the amount of the currency. Of course, it can be done in only one way, and that is to have a margin between your revenue and your expenditure, and with that margin to withdraw notes from circulation and destroy them, so that you reduce the amount of currency in circulation until you have reached a stage when the currency is not larger than is actually required by the community for business purposes, and when your currency represents either gold or goods.
    I was living in South America a good many years ago when we first knew, though on a smaller scale than to-day, all the troubles and difficulties of currency. Then the troubles were caused by overspending, if not by war, but the result on a small scale was more or less the same. All sorts of expedients were tried. The only efficient course was taken after many expedients had failed. The Government of the Argentine Republic withdrew monthly from circulation a certain number of notes, and for greater effect made a bonfire of them in the public places. It was a demonstration that the

    1523
    printing press was no longer to be used for the finance of the country. Until we make up our minds that we are going to have a vigorous measure of deflation we can hardly expect that the foreign exchanges will turn permanently, or remain permanently, in favour of this country. Another measure which rests entirely within the power of the Government is economy in expenditure We talk a good deal in this House about economy, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer informs the House that any extravagance which takes place is because of the will and the wish or the action of the House. I do not think it is altogether so. The Government have introduced Bill after Bill increasing expenditure They introduced a Bill the other day on national insurance involving considerably increased expenditure. The present would seem a more appropriate time for doing away with Government subsidies. Perhaps it would not be regretted by those who are insured, who do not wish, I believe, that with wages at their present level they should be to some extent pauperised. There is also an Unemployment Bill produced by the Government which will cost several millions a year. I think the working man in this country would have been quite willing, and possibly would have preferred, to pay for his own unemployment insurance rather than have a small subsidy from the State to help him. I do not doubt that members of the Government are as anxious as any Member of the House to cut down the ordinary expenditure of the country, because they must know better than the ordinary Member the seriousness of the financial situation and the extreme need for economy.
    On the other side of the national balance-sheet, when you cut down expenditure to the limit, you can increase taxation. Under two conditions I believe that the taxpayers of this country would not grumble even at an increase in taxation. One of those conditions is, if they could be assured that the money was not going to be wasted, but that it was going to be used to cheapen the cost of living, and that it was going to be economically spent on really urgent national objects. With those conditions fulfilled, I do not think you would have great difficulty in getting even the concurrence of the taxpayers of this country to bearing even heavier burdens than the great burdens which
    1524
    they are bearing to-day. Let me mention one other matter. It is not wise, with taxation at its present limits, even to talk about robbing hen-roosts. I think the taxpayer, if he were convinced that the money is wanted imperatively for the service of the country, would not grudge to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was necessary. There has been a considerable improvement latterly in the exchanges, but there are signs that that improvement is only of a temporary nature, and we are quite likely to see the international exchange as bad, or possibly worse, than it has been. The Government have been shipping gold to the States, but they must know as well as I do that that is purely a temporary measure of alleviation. There is not enough gold in the whole of the country to begin to meet our obligations. In the Argentine Republic, at the time of which I spoke just now, there was a man who thought that he could put the exchanges right and restore the value of national currency by shipping gold out of the country. He did so. He shipped all the gold which belonged to the Government and to the National Bank, and for a few months the exchange moved in favour of the country and the dollar appreciated. After that gold had gone the crisis became worse than it had ever been before. It is perfectly futile to think that the shipment of gold out of this country can produce anything but a purely temporary effect, and if carried too far the after-effects would be worse than they were before the shipment took place. The Government cannot remedy the situation entirely, but they can do their share, and I think they ought to put right those things which are within their power. If the Government will seriously take in hand the improvement of the balance of our trade by limiting or taxing unnecessary imports, and if they will seriously apply themselves to the deflation of our over inflated currency and if they will practise the economy which they preach, I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government may not gain at the moment popularity, but I do believe that they will be doing what is infinitely more important. They will be doing the right thing for all those who live and work in this country by reducing the cost of living and getting back as quickly as possible to that condition of solvency which has been and is the pride of this country.
    Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I had no intention of inflicting what I have to say upon the House when this Debate opened, but having listened to what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hopkins) has just said, I feel myself opposed to his Amendment. The Amendment which he has proposed declares
    "That in the opinion of this House the Government should at the earliest possible moment take all such steps as are within their power to restore the international exchange value of the pound sterling."
    4.0 P.M.
    I ask, what is the hon. Member driving at? As far as I have studied the exchanges they are not, with the exception of a few, against this country. I think the hon. Gentleman has overstated his case. In Europe only the Dutch, Swiss and Spanish and some of the Scandinavian States are against great Britain in the exchange. Our trade with the Scandinavian States and with Switzerland and Spain is not of paramount importance. I must therefore conclude that the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that it would have been better to put the Motion in the terms "of the exchange between Great Britain and America." If we carry on discussion as to the position of the exchange between America and Great Britain, that is another matter. The hon. Gentleman talked of restoring the international exchange. I am going to make use of the American exchange rather than the international exchange for the purpose of my remarks. Does he expect that we should export all the gold we possess to put right our debt to America? We had last year an import trade with America amounting to between three and four hundred millions and an export trade with America of about a tenth of that sum. What is the good of all the gold we have to put that adverse balance right? If my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, could go back to the Treasury in Whitehall, and find in a hidden cupboard in the cellars of that office sovereigns amounting to £320,000,000, which is the total of the fiduciary issue of currency notes, and if he could go into every bank and say, "Give me your currency notes; I will destroy them, and substitute gold, which it has cost the country nothing to provide," does the House think for a moment
    1526
    that would put the exchange right, so long as there is no free market for the export of gold? If there were a free market for the export of gold, every sovereign would go out of the country in a few months, and our last state, as in the case of Argentina in 1890 to 1893, would be worse than it is at the present time. The hon. Member also talks about "deflation." How are we going to deflate this currency? There is no redundancy such as he thinks there is. He says that we must withdraw the currency until it represents the needs of the population. The currency notes at the present time do represent the needs of the population; otherwise, they would not be in issue. As a matter of fact, only last week more currency notes were issued, which shows that the needs of the population have to be met by the issue of these notes. Sup posing you did withdraw these notes, what would happen? You would find that people would be thrown out of employment, and manufacturers, like those with whom I am connected, would have no paper tokens with which to pay the wages of their workpeople on Fridays and Saturdays. You would certainly have a higher bank rate and a tremendous fall in prices, because you would not be able to produce goods without tokens or cash for wages. Down would come the price of goods, as the population could not buy, as people would be thrown out of work, and it would end in bloodshed, a glut of goods, no wages to buy them with, starvation and riot.
    There is nothing more serious in discussing this currency question than that we should think for a moment that a hasty, or even not quite a hasty, deflation of currency would be good for the economic policy of this country. I am totally against anything which would savour of the slightest haste in the deflation of currency. In fact, I dislike the policy of deflating it by merely withdrawing it. The best way is to increase by production the value of goods and to make them, as assets, balance the amount of fiduciary currency. I do not think that the inflation of currency is the basic cause of the high cost of living. Nothing will induce me to believe that an inflation in the domestic tokens or symbols of values called currency notes passing between man and man, amounting to no more than £4 or £5 per head in excess of what was existing as currency

    1527
    in gold and bank notes before the War, notwithstanding the figures published and discussed by a Noble Lord in the other House just about two months ago, has brought about the high price in the cost of living. It is only a subsidiary cause. The trouble lies in the inflation of Government credit, which is shown in the bank deposit returns now amounting to over £2,000,000,000, as against £700,000,000 before the War. That is where the inflation is causing trouble. These currency notes are nothing more than tokens of bank deposits and credits operated by cheques. You might as well say that the cost of living is put up because you issue a great many more debased shillings and half-crowns as tokens of your pound sterling. The demands of the miners and others for millions more in wages compelled the Government, in order to pay those wages, directly or indirectly, to get more credit, and therefore to find more tokens. This allows those people who demanded more wages, in face of a declining production, to go into the market with those tokens and put prices up against every other person in the country. We ought to keep off the idea of the inflation in currency notes being the cause, because I do not think that it has the effect on the high cost of living that some people would have us believe.
    The hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment referred to a letter lately written by a man who bears a very honoured name, Professor Pigou, but I pin my faith to Professor Cannan. Here are the two great authorities on currency. Two years ago or more I was called before the Commission on currency, and I formed my own opinion then that, if we followed the views on inflation now put forward by Professor Pigou, they would bring this country to nothing but disaster. We should hesitate long and carefully before we run into any of the expedients to which the hon. Member would have us resort in his views upon withdrawing these currency notes. If he wants, as I presume he does, to rehabilitate the exchange between this country and America, to what price would he like it to go? I know nothing of the matter from the bankers' point of view; I only regard these things from the point of view of a manufacturer. In the old days when the American dollar was 4.86 to the pound, I do not think, though it may seem curious
    1528
    to say so, that it was ever a healthy or normal exchange. I believe it was brought about by the converse from that which which exists at present between England and America. I believe that before the War we were getting more per pound sterling than our export trade was entitled to get, taking the parity of values in their strict sense. America owed us interest on the money which we had lent her for her railway system, and those remittances allowed us to get as much as $4.80 for the pound sterling. I do not believe that it was a normal level, and in my lifetime I never expect to see, under the most favourable circumstances and seeing how things have changed with regard to the credit and debtor side of international money, the American exchange go back to much over $4.50. It was at $4.80 or thereabouts, because the balance of remittance was always against United States and in favour of London. Otherwise the dollar would have been worth more nearly 5s. than 4s. 2d. It is worth over 5s. now. It will probably stabilize itself in a year or two at about 4s. 6d. or, say, $4.30 to $4.50 to the £1.
    What does the hon. Gentleman say will happen now that the exchange is so low? He says that we are paying a great deal of money for our food. That is quite true, but within the next year we shall not get very much wheat from America. They will have very little to export. The effect of the high dollar value has been to discourage people from buying cotton and wheat and meat in the United States, and I am glad to say that British subjects in various parts of His Majesty's Dominions—Nigeria and Australasia, for instance—are producing those commodities and tobacco in greater volume than before. I believe that the high price of cotton in America has more than doubled the output of cotton in India, which is so much the better for us. We ought to grow sufficient cotton to free us from complete dependence upon foreign supplies. Freights are falling on the East China trade route, and we are able also to put more ships in the water for trips to Australasia, and thus bring home grain and foodstuffs which otherwise we should have to obtain from the United States and Argentina, where the exchange is against us. Similarly, we are now getting tobacco from Rhodesia and Nyassaland. The great reason that we wish to see the American exchange rehabilitated is not

    1529
    with regard either to foodstuffs or to ordinary merchandise. Foodstuffs will come, we hope, soon from His Majesty's Dominions in sufficient quantities to permit us to buy all that we require without going to America. Other merchandise which we get from America has a clog put upon it by the heavy price being paid for dollars, and to that extent a bounty is put on British exports, as the English ex porter will be able to send goods abroad to buyers who might buy of America if payment were easier. The merchant can do what he likes; but it is not so with the buyer of food, and meantime the price of food is kept high. That fact, however, will be swept aside by food being obtained from His Majesty's Dominions and free of the dollar penalty. The buyer of merchandise, if America will not give us more than 400 cents. for our pound, can take his pound note where people will give him more. Therefore, it matters not at all to our merchant and manufacturer what the American exchange may be so long as he can take the pound note and buy goods elsewhere.
    We must, however, get our national debt back from America somehow, either by raising money here or buying bills abroad and sending them to America to repay the remaining £1,000,000,000 which we owe to America for credits that they have given us or by shipping goods by increased export trades. I am delighted to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to send a large sum, whether by securities, bills, or goods, or gold—anyway, values suitable to the American market—to enable us to get back that Anglo-French Loan. That is a step of a splendid kind in the right direction. We now owe America £1,000,000,000 more debt. It is not composed of loans in issue on the market. It is, I believe, credit from the United States Government. When once, by hook or by crook, within the next few years we can pay off that loan, I then really shall not care—I am speaking broadly—whether I see the exchange three dollars or five dollars to the pound. So long as we have repaid our national debt to America, we need not care, I do not think that the country need care, what is the American exchange, and as for putting up the value of the £ in terms of dollars by supporting exchange at the cost of millions, why that is merely a form of dope, and in these days will
    1530
    not bear serious argument. For these reasons, I do not think that I can support the proposition of the hon. Member opposite, and I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment unless he can, in more definite and convincing terms, tell us how we can put right the matter to which he has drawn attention.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I should first apologise to the House for the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who certainly desired very much to be in his place to-day to reply to the speeches on this Amendment. He is engaged closely on questions relating to his Budget, which he has to introduce next Monday, and he felt that it would be impossible for him to break off this afternoon. He therefore asked me if I would do my best to deal with any arguments which might be adduced. Of course, an Under-Secretary is at a disadvantage in speaking on an occasion like this, because he is in no position to speak authoritatively on Government policy or on high matters of that kind. At the same time, it is open to me to make a few remarks on the subject and to say what I believe is the commonsense way of looking at this subject. I propose to speak in non-technical language. There is no subject more than that of the exchanges which can be obscured or clouded by the use of technical language, which I purpose to avoid altogether.
    Before coming to the speech of the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment, I would say that the financial situation of the world and the malady from which we are suffering is not peculiar to ourselves. It is a malady from which the whole world is suffering, some parts of it in less degree and some in more. It is like a high fever that came on very suddenly in the crisis of 1914, and prostrated the patient before it had run its course. The patient now is only in the early stages of his convalescence, and it is no good expecting that we or any other country can take up our financial bed and walk at the bidding of a Government or of anyone else. Convalescence is bound to be long, it is bound to be slow, and it is bound to be painful. What suggestions did the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkins) make? Four, as I understood him. He thought that the Government might help him in the matter of the exchanges by taxing luxury imports and

    1531
    unnecessary manufactured goods; he thought that the Government might take steps to check inflation, or to promote deflation, and limit the amount of currency to that which is necessary for the requirements of the country; his third point was economy in expenditure; and his fourth was increased taxation. In regard to the last point, I find myself in complete agreement with him. I have always been, for myself, an advocate of high taxation, and it may be that later in the Session we may have some opportunities of returning to this subject. With regard to the third point, economy of expenditure, I do not think anyone would be found to differ from him, and I propose, therefore, to make a few remarks on the first two points on which he touched.
    He may not remember, as he was not then a Member of the House, that the taxation of luxury imports was a subject which was examined at great length by a Committee of this House prior to the Budget of either 1917 or 1918 (I think the former), and although that Committee examined the subject at great length and with great skill and patience, it was found to be impracticable to come to any agreement on what articles should be taxed and how they should be taxed; and just as that was the result of the investigations of that Committee, so I feel certain would it be the result of any investigations into what are called unnecessary manufactures, because as sure as you schedule any manufacture as unnecessary there will arise some man or some body of men who will prove conclusively that it is the one manufacture on which their whole welfare in this world and the next depends. I regard that as impracticable in the first place, and in the second place I would remind my hon. Friend that while, if such legislation were practicable, it might be followed to a limited degree by desirable results, yet you would have no guarantee that the money that people saved by not spending it on these particular imports they would not waste equally either by purchasing luxuries in this country or by squandering their means in riotous living. We want to go further back than my right hon. Friend indicated. We want to see people not only saving their money, but putting the result of those savings into the production of articles that are of use and of service to
    1532
    the community, and for exchange in the world at large. My hon. Friend who immediately preceded me (Mr. A. M. Samuel) spoke words with which I find myself very much in agreement on the subject of the possibility of Government interference with regard to inflation.
    Speaking for myself, and unless it be within certain very well-defined limits, I am very nervous about a Government interfering in matters of currency. A Government that may at one moment try and force deflation on a people may, in changed circumstances, reverse the process and lend encouragement to inflation. The less such interference takes place, in my opinion, the better. But I said "within well-defined limits," and I think at this point it might be well to pause for a few moments on what the Government have done and are doing in this matter. I think I am presenting their point of view if I put it in this way. Each country in the world to-day, linked as we all are together in the troubles that nearly overwhelmed the world, must ultimately rely on itself in these matters, and it is only by self-help and by putting their own house in order that they can contribute to the double purpose of making their own foundations secure, and helping to make secure the foundations of any other country with whom they deal. These objects can only be attained by the complete cessation of Government borrowing, which creates fresh Government credit, and it is having regard to that point of view that I look with dread—and I am sure the financial experts in all the countries in the world look with dread—on any scheme that might be brought out for granting large Government loans in the way of creating credits as between one country and another at the present time. With the cessation of the creation of credits by Government borrowing must come in each country sufficient taxation and sufficient curtailment of expenditure to make the annual revenue balance the annual expenditure. To that point we are working, and in the coming year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, on more than one occasion stated that he intends to achieve that result. Until the various countries in the world will tackle this question, make that resolve, and give effect to it, no other efforts that they can make will be of the slightest use in regulating their own finances, in restoring

    1533
    stability to their own currency, or in improving the state of their own exchanges with those countries which are in a better financial condition.
    As the hon. Member who has last spoken has said, there has been a marked improvement recently, and a progressive improvement, in the foreign exchanges which had been most against us. This was acknowledged by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment before the House, but he seemed to think this improvement would only be of short duration. I was interested in what he said a little later on, because he said how tired he was to hear the insistence in many speeches on the necessity for production, and yet he spoke of the passing and temporary effect of gold on the ground that there was not gold enough to go round the world to pay for the goods that were imported. That, of course, is perfectly true, but what other means of payment are there? There are only two—securities and goods. Securities, as we all know, are limited, and unless we can see payment made for goods ultimately, no payment is possible, and the exchanges will go away all to pieces. What caused this improvement that has taken place markedly in the American Exchange and, following that, in the other exchanges in Europe that had been most against us? I myself attribute it to two particular causes. I attribute it to what I think plays a very large part in these matters, and that is the psychological effect of the readiness with which this country grappled with the first outstanding loan in America, the Anglo-French loan, and made arrangements for its redemption in the course of the year. I attribute it also to the very real contraction of credits that is now slowly taking place, and to the remarkable way in which the revenue of this country is coming in, which foreshadows what I have already said the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to do in the forthcoming financial year, namely, make the revenue and expenditure in this country meet. We have also the Board of Trade returns, which show that if we have not yet got to the point where imports and exports balance, we are at any rate so close to that point that we may feel much more confident in looking into the future than we could have done some months ago.
    1534
    I would like to remind my hon. Friend, who moved this Amendment with much knowledge but not in any optimistic spirit, as it seemed to me, that there is no royal road to financial stability, that the ruin which has been wrought in the world throughout the past five years can only be made good in time, and with toil, and with tears. We shall find that when once we have turned the corner to the extent of making our revenue and expenditure meet—now that we have closed, I hope for good, Government borrowing by way of creating credits, as had to be done during the War and in the immediate period after the Armistice—we shall find then that of itself the necessary check will be given to the issue of the currency notes. The peak load of currency notes, as far as we can sec—and it is always rash to prophesy in these matters—has been passed, and we have to remember that there is nothing else before this country to do but two things that have been insisted on with wearisome iteration, but which are absolutely and wholely true—we must work, and we must save. As I said, we must put our savings into productive industry for the manufacture of such goods as are needed both by ourselves and by other people, by people for purposes of exchange throughout the world, and not for such goods as really minister to luxury and to wantonness.
    My hon. Friend may have realised this long ago, so that he is aware of this truism; but many people in this country do not realise it yet, although the light is penetrating, and I do not think I have seen any more remarkable proof of the way in which it is becoming borne in on the people of this country that production is the only way that leads to cheaper goods than has been furnished by a late distinguished Member of this House, Mr. Philip Snowden, with whom so many of us were in disagreement, but whose speeches were listened to with a conviction of their honesty and with admiration of his power of expression. Mr. Philip Snowden has been writing only within the last two weeks on the necessity of production, and saying that increased production is an immediate necessity if Central Europe is to be saved from starvation. He acknowledges that increased output may benefit the capitalists, but the only way to save Europe is by bringing food and raw material and machinery to

    1535
    the famine countries. That is an absolute truth. I believe that in time the whole country will realise that, and that many men who to-day "cannot see the wood for the trees," will realise the existence of the wood as well as the trees, and will understand that by curtailing, if only for a brief time, any production of essential commodities in this country causes loss which may last for a long time to poor people in every country in Europe. The world has survived an earthquake, and this country has survived the cataclysm better, with more chance of recovering itself, than any other country; and, to my mind, one of the most astounding facts of the present day is that, after all the financial shocks from which we have suffered, after we carried, as we did, the heat and burden of the financial day on our shoulders throughout the war, to-day the bill on London occupies exactly the same position of pre-eminence in the commerce of the world that it occupied for generations before the War, and I believe that, as it stands to-day, so every day now will strengthen its position and postpone to an indefinite future the day when any other city in the world will rob us of that proud pre-eminence.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: We have listened to a very dry subject, but, at the same time, it is a most important one, and I am sorry that there were no Cabinet Ministers and no prominent Members of the Government present to listen to the very excellent speech which has just been made by my hon. Friend. He has laid down certain maxims, which, I think, are admirable. He has said two things. First of all, he has said that there is no royal road for putting right the exchanges—which, I agree with the hon. Member opposite, probably mean the exchanges here and in America—except by increased production. That is an absolute fact. It is a very simple thing, and all simple things are regarded as rather foolish. People expect you to give some elaborate plan which will work wonders. That you cannot do. You can only do it one way, and that is by increased production. Is that the reason why the Government are going to bring in a Bill to prevent people working more than forty-eight hours a week? What they ought to do, if the speech of my hon. Friend is to be followed, is to bring in
    1536
    a Bill to compel people to work sixty hours. I am not in favour of that, because I am a lover of freedom, but, if we are going to interfere with the hours of labour, it should be in the direction of extending them, and not of diminishing them, that is, if we want to follow the excellent principle laid down by my hon. Friend that, in order to save the country, we must increase production. Then there comes the question of inflation of currency, and, if I may say so, I do not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite. I agree so far that the inflation of currency is only one of the causes, and perhaps not the major cause, of the increased cost of living, and when the hon. Member opposite says it is the inflation of credit and not the inflation of the currency, I beg to say I do not see the difference.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I am afraid I explained myself badly. What I meant by the inflation of currency was the inflation of the currency note. I know the real domestic currency of this country is more properly the bank cheque, so when I said the inflation of currency I did not mean the increased currency of cheques. I confined myself to the currency note. For I do believe that there is in the inflation of bank credits, bank current deposits, and bank cheque-currency the source of high prices—caused mainly by Government borrowing.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I accept that explanation. I think it is quite clear that borrowing on Ways and Means, which means the Bank of England put a certain sum to their credit, necessitating currency to meet their credit, often leads to the printing press being used and notes being issued. That is inflation pure and simple, and until that is stopped we shall never get into a sound position. I quite admit that any increase of currency notes is going to cause a very bad time, while it is going on—probably a rise in the Bank Rate and further depreciation in all securities. But we have to face it sooner or later, and I can only see two ways of meeting it. The first is economy. If both ends of the Budget are made to meet by expenditure being cut down, that is all right, but if they are to meet by an increase of taxation, then I do not think that is all right. It is a bad principle to spend when we have not got the money to spend. We have not got the money to

    1537
    go in for all these schemes, whether they are good or bad, which the present Government have been constantly putting forth, and this House and the country must realise it. It is said, "Oh, it is very excellent for the people," and all that kind of thing. It may be, but we cannot do it. I only wish my hon. Friend were Prime Minister and would carry out what he said. I certainly hope he will send a copy of his speech to San Remo, with a statement that it is to be read by the Prime Minister himself and not by his private secretary. If my hon. Friend will do that, I am sure it will have a very considerable effect upon the finances of the country. Alhough there has been a very small House, I am very glad we have had this discussion, because I am sure we cannot go on in this way. It is never a popular thing to do, to go to a man and say, "You must cut down your expenditure, deny yourself so much tobacco, and deny yourself so much beer." You have to meet it, not by asking the people to give you more money, but by cutting down your own expenditure. I am very glad Mr. Philip Snowden has expressed the view he has, although I do not attach so much importance to his statements as my hon. Friend does, because they are apt to vary at different times. But until we do realise that we have got to do the unpleasant thing—and the sooner we do it the better—I do not think we shall live to see this country in the position in which it was.
    I do not quite agree with the last remarks of my hon. Friend, if he will excuse me, that the Bill on London is the same now as it was, certainly in New York; and, further, I do not like the argument—the only one I do not agree with—that because other countries are suffering we are to suffer too. We have nothing whatever to do with other countries. We have got to put ourselves right. If we have anything to do with other countries it should only be to show them the way they should go. I did not intend to speak at any length, but the subject is so important, and my hon. Friend's speech was so good, that I think someone ought to get up to say so, and express regret that prominent Members of the Government were not present to hear it. At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend said an Under-Secretary had not much authority. Are we to understand that that excellent speech was made without any
    1538
    authority from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was merely his own opinion; or are we to understand it is the considered opinion of the Government? Perhaps he will say, "It is rather an important question."
    Amendment negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.

    IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: It is not the first time, even during the present Session, that I have had to rise to bring the same topic before this House. If the House should be inclined to feel indignant at this reiteration of a subject which is quite old, my reply must be it is not my fault or the fault of my people that this should be so. The remedy for the continual absorption of the House of Commons—in the midst of many other great and Imperial demands upon its time—in the question of Ireland is due to the fact that this House has not yet seen the wisdom of devolving the particular questions of other nations to assemblies in those nations themselves. I have only to do my duty according to my lights, and according to the limitations which are imposed upon me by the present state of affairs. Threadbare as my theme seems to be, I feel that I would not be discharging my duty, not merely to my own country, bun to this country, and to this House, if I did not avail myself of every opportunity of bringing to the attention of the people of England, as well as Ireland, what I regard as the very grave, the very discreditable, and the very perilous state of things in Ireland. I learned a short time ago that the difficulties of Ireland have received some aggravation oven this very day by the declaration and carrying out of a strike. How far that strike is nationwide I do not know; perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us when he comes to reply. But I understand that it is widespread, that many of the industries are affected and troubled, and that the flow of the necessaries of life is interrupted to-day by this strike. I need scarcely point out to the House that a large body of working men do not resort to so serious a thing as a national strike unless they consider the obligation is very great and the necessity very pressing. I do not know of any great event in the recent history of Ireland which shows so signal and so widespread a disapproval

    1539
    of the action of the Government than this strike. I understand that some of my hon. Friends of the Labour party will be here presently to support my views. If they were here, I would respectfully urge upon them that it is very desirous in the interest of the masses, both in England and in Ireland, that the masses of the people of this country should seize the opportunity also to demonstrate what I feel is practically a unanimous condemnation of the present system in Ireland.
    The immediate cause of my raising this matter to-night is what has taken place in Mountjoy Prison. The question was brought somewhat into prominence last night in an interchange between my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and the Attorney-General, and I do not want-unnecessarily to go over the same ground. The point is this: that a large number of men, I think 151, are in confinement in Mountjoy Prison at the present time. Of these a certain number have been convicted. A certain number have been committed for trial. A considerable number—I think the majority—of the prisoners in the gaol are men there simply on suspicion, without either a trial having taken place or a trial in immediate prospect. A number of these men, 80 or 90, I believe, have made demands upon the Government as to their treatment in prison. Those who have been tried demand that those who have been convicted should be treated as political prisoners. Those who have not been tried, but are simply there on what I may call lettres de cachet, demand either their immediate trial or a different kind of treatment.
    I will not go into the larger question of the prison treatment of political prisoners, further than to say that I do not think there is a civilised country in the world to-day, or has been for some time past, that has not recognised distinction between a political and an ordinary criminal. In the days before the great War the despotism in Russia was the subject of condemnation by everybody in the world outside Russia, and by men of every party of this country. Yet the fact remains that—not always, nor in all cases—for there were some cases of horrible prison ill-treatment in Russia—there were great mitigations in the treatment of political prisoners, and one of those mitigations, curiously enough,
    1540
    related to the journey to Siberia. That journey was often attended by horrible suffering and torture. One of the mitigations was that when the prisoners arrived from Russia in Siberia they were often allowed a fair amount of freedom on their parole. I even read an extraordinary case where the late Czar of Russia, when he was Czarevitch, being brought into contact and actually shaking hands with a man who had been involved in a conspiracy for the assassination of his grandfather. Whatever be the general merits of that question I do not want to go into it. I claim that these men have, at least, the right to the treatment they demand. They are in prison under D.O.R.A. No definite charge has been made against them. They are not even promised a trial. In regard to those who have been tried, I should say I do not regard trial by court-martial as trial in any sense of the word which any man brought up in constitutional principles can admit to be valid, unless in the middle of a war. Therefore, I make no distinction between their claim and the claim of the other classes of prisoners in the gaol. The Government have insisted that this claim should be denied. These men in protest have got up a hunger strike. I know it may be said that hunger-striking is a voluntary act. I do not think that that really meets the case.
    We had hunger-strikes in this country. At the time when the agitation for the bestowal of the vote upon women was in full blast here there were several hunger-strikes. I think I am right in saying there was not a single case, not one, in which a woman hunger-striker was allowed to come to the point of dying. She was allowed to go through the torture for a certain period, but, unless I am wrong, I do not think there was a single case in which a woman hunger-striker was allowed to remain in prison until she actually did die. That fact does away at once with what I must call the forcible-feeble kind of answer such as I understand the Leader of the House gave to-day. It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman to lay down the law with an appearance of brutal strength, and to say that the law must take its course. There are, however, strong and universal human sympathies that stand in the way of the rigid application and practice of such principles. Every man must confess, even

    1541
    those in most violent opposition, not merely to the claim of the suffragettes, but similar claims, that the very greatest service they could do to the cause of their opponents, and the greatest disservice that could be done to their own cause would be to allow one of them to die in a hunger-strike. The humane revolt against that would make an impossible position.
    That is just what has taken place in Ireland. I do not think that I ever read of scenes which appeared to me such a manifestation of genuine and fierce resentment against governing methods as those which have taken place outside Mountjoy Prison during the last few days with the crowds of people round the gaol. Some of them, of course, were relatives of the unfortunate men going through this martyrdom inside the walls. They have been kept away, I believe, by the military and the police. I think I read in one newspaper that there was actually a tank or some other great weapon of war, in the vicinity of the gaol. Think of it, a tank, to cow the people of Ireland, a tank brought there by members of the gallant Army who had fought for liberty all over the world except Ireland! What a paradox and contradiction between principle and practice, between hope and the falsification of hope! A greater could hardly be conceived. What can public opinion in this country think of it? I have here an article which I read in a great English paper to-day, one of the greatest papers in England and the world, the "Manchester Guardian." Here is what it says:
    "Many of the prisoners are untried and uncharged, arrested without proof, merely on suspicion. They are not protesting against their imprisonment, but ask that they shall be treated as political prisoners, with such privileges as pertain to political prisoners. This is a perfectly reasonable request, and if it should happen that certain of them have been, in fact, guilty of crime, though there is no proof of this, on the other hand, it is probable that many are innocent of any offence at all. It would be monstrous that these should be allowed to die, and we can hardly suppose that it is seriously intended that they should."
    I am speaking to-night in order to make a final appeal to the Government not to commit the folly and crime of allowing these men to die. Descriptions have been given by men who for one reason or another have had an opportunity of visiting the prisoners in gaol. Here is a description by Mr. T. Clarke who was Chair-
    1542
    man of the visiting justices and had a Commission of the Peace until a few days ago, when he resigned. After he visited the prison Mr. Clarke was interviewed, and he said:
    "The sights that met my eye were heartrending. Strong men, emaciated, in pain, and tortured, lying on the floors, barely able to recognise me when I entered their cells. I saw men carried down in their hospital chairs by four warders to the lavatory. Their heads hung down on their breasts, their eyes almost sightless, and when I went to speak to them I was answered in whispers."
    These men so described were stalwart men a few weeks ago. Here they are now reduced almost to a collapsed-like condition. Glassy eyes, only able to speak in whispers, and that is the way you are vindicating law and order in Ireland! It is no wonder that the sufferings of these men have appealed to the people of Ireland. The extent of that appeal is shown by the fact that all Nationalist opinion, as well as extreme Sinn Fein opinion, is in sympathy with these men, and if any of these men die I think the effect upon the already excited people of Ireland will be wide-spread and deplorable.
    5.0 P.M.
    To show that I am not speaking without justification on this point, let me recall that at the time when the struggle between moderate Irish opinion, nationalist opinion, and Sinn Fein was still undecided, that at least for a few months after the first rush of success, the Sinn Fein cause gave evidence of waning. In two bye-elections we met the Sinn Fein condidates and beat them, and while the third bye-election was proceeding we had all the prospect of winning, but the whole of the chances were dispelled and Ireland thrown into the arms of Sinn Fein by a single prison incident. That was the case of Thomas Ashe. From the hour that this man died in prison from hunger strike our chances against the political extremists in Ireland were destroyed, and the reason why we have seven representatives here today instead of 77 is partly due to incidents like the death of Thomas Ashe. There we have a precedent that nothing appeals more, or is more calculated to excite the resentment of a country already in a flame of excitement, than allowing several more of these men to die in prison. It will be said that this thing is voluntary. Every sacrifice and every

    1543
    suffering through which men go for the advancement of a cause—and every good cause demands suffering and self-sacrifice—to that extent it is voluntary. Do you blame the man who is ready to submit to suffering and self-sacrifice for a cause? However you may regard these men—these foolish and misguided men—nobody can deny that the man who is a legitimate protest, as Ireland thinks, against their treatment, the man who subjects himself to all the horrors of hunger and the dangers of a self-inflicted death, every man who does that will be regarded in Ireland as giving up his life for the liberties of Ireland just as much as every Englishman who fought in the trenches gave up his life for his country.
    I will pass now to a consideration of this particular topic as a symptom of the general situation in Ireland. I should have said before that there has been added to what I have already stated what I regard, and what I believe the Attorney-General for Ireland will regard, as a serious factor in the situation, and that is the intensity of the religious feeling involved. I do not allude merely to the fact that a dignitary like the Archbishop of Dublin has made a protest against this treatment. I wish to point out that around the gaols men and women are day and night engaged in devotions and prayers for the liberation of these men.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Archbishop approves of these men committing suicide? because that is against the rules of the Catholic Church.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the letter he will find his answer. What the Archbishop says is, that the position of these men, and the refusal of the Government to meet their legitimate request, throws the responsibility on the Government. I should say that the only conclusion to be drawn from the letter of the Archbishop is that it throws on the Government and not on these men the responsibility for their death—if they do die. These things, after all, are only symptoms. I know that when I and others get up here and denounce the state of militarism in Ireland, we are regarded as trying to weaken the hands of the Government and strengthen the hands of those who are charged with disorder and illegalities in Ireland. My
    1544
    position is that the Government, this House, and the country require to be reminded that the consequences of their policy are not the diminution but the strengthening of all the evil elements in Ireland that make for disturbances in that country.
    I spoke many weeks ago on this question, and I told the Government, in exact proportion to the severity of the methods of repression adopted, there would be an increase of disorder and crime. I have had an opportunity of speaking to some of the people who have recently visited Ireland, and I will tell the House quite frankly my impression of the state of Ireland to-day. In many parts of Ireland the British Government has ceased to govern, and Ireland is under another Government which has not ceased to govern. In some parts of the country professional men like lawyers have lost all their business, because there are Sinn Fein courts which hear cases, give decisions, and inflict sentences—perhaps "sentences" is not the word, but verdicts—and the decisions of these courts are accepted by the people. Therefore there is no room for any lawyers there or litigants in His Majesty's Courts
    There are further eloquent illustrations that Dublin Castle, after all these months of militarist rule in its most violent form, has ceased to function in many parts of Ireland. Take the question of the land. Hon. Members will recollect what fierce Debates we had here on that issue. To-day in many parts of Ireland the land question is settling itself without the jurisdiction of the Government and without the intervention of the Government. There are cases where a great public Department, one of the greatest and one of the few thoroughly efficient Departments in Ireland, that is the Land Department, have retired from business. They have made all their plans according to the law passed by this Parliament to break up these large grazing tracts which used to exist, and still, to some extent, exist side by side with these congested tenants and small economic holdings. When their plans were made and when the officials were there to carry them out, when all the difficult and complicated details of what is technically called "striping the land,' that is dividing the land into such portions as will be fair to the different claimants

    1545
    amongst the congested tenants—when all these proceedings had been concluded, the officials were told to go away, and they went, and the land is being distributed, not under the law of this country, not by the officials at Dublin Castle, but by the people themselves. I say that a country in which the Government, I will not say has abdicated, but has been compelled to abdicate all its functions, stands condemned, and the only verdict you can pass upon a Government that has ceased to govern is that it should cease to exist. Everybody will remember what the great king said with regard to the Earl of Kildare—
    "If all Ireland cannot govern the Earl of Kildare, then let the Earl of Kildare govern all Ireland."
    That is the only solution of the present disorder in Ireland. This will be my final comment. If this policy, instead of diminishing has increased disorder, if after all these strong repressive measures the Government has become weaker, is it not time that your eyes should be opened, and that you should see that this system only leads daily and hourly to greater disorder and disturbance and to a more hopeless position? Do you think that public opinion on account of these very grave and terrible crimes in Ireland will place the blame for this state of things upon Ireland herself and not upon the Government?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Then you are going against the universal lesson of history and your own experience. Nobody loved the gentlemen who blew up the Czar or the Grand Duke in Russia. Nobody wanted to meet them, although I have heard of them being made welcome guests in fashionable quarters. Whatever your condemnation may be of the individual or the crime, you never wavered in the conviction that if you want to do away with crime and the criminal, or to find the root of the crime and the creator of the criminal, you would find it in the system of the Czar, and until that system was changed there was no hope for a better day for the people. I say with regard to Ireland, that until the present system in Ireland is brought to an end there is no hope for Ireland, and in the sense of its world-wide interest, there is no hope for England.
    Mr. CLYNES: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his condemnation of the policy
    1546
    of the Government in Ireland. Incidentally, I want to utter a word of protest against the absence from the House at this moment of anyone in a position to answer for the policy of the Government which is involved. I, of course, mean not the slightest disrespect to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Henry) in making that remark. Clearly the Attorney-General for Ireland cannot answer for the policy which has been criticised, and I doubt whether my right hon. Friend has had much, if anything, to do with the recent decisions of the Government, which have provoked the position to which we now ask the attention of the House. During question time to-day an intimation was given to the Government that the opportunity of this afternoon would be used in order to raise this question, and I do not think that this is treatment which the House can pass by without some comment, or without the protest which I offer. It is not a little remarkable that hon. Members have listened with complacency and unconcern to the statements laid before the House by the hon. Member for Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I am sure that if we could present to this House a picture in any other country of events such as those which are now occurring every day in Ireland, hon. Members would be full of indignation and would speak in terms of the strongest resentment of any Government which could commit such offences against the people as this Government is doing at this moment in the case of Ireland. This policy now being pursued will not make for that goodwill and that improved atmosphere and those better relations between the peoples which we say are essential for that settlement of this painful Irish question which is shortly to be proposed by the Government. What is the good of attempting, either by Home Rule measures or in any other way having the appearance of reconciliation, a settlement of the Irish question, when that attempt is preceded by such methods of Government folly as are now commonplace in the everyday direction of the affairs of Ireland. If anything could be said for this policy an the ground of its success, then Ministers would have some answer, but the obvious futility of it is so apparent that it would appear there is little answer other than the silence of Ministers when the indictment is brought forward. Crime is not being

    1547
    reduced; crime as it is technically known and as it actually exists is on the increase in Ireland, for the reason that the Government itself is regarded by the people as the greatest criminal. The absolute folly of the policy is the only cause which need be adduced against it. I want to say a word or two on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side, because a most important labour element has been introduced into the later stages of the development of Irish affairs. My hon. Friend who has just spoken read to the House a description which could not be questioned of how these men are suffering who have imposed upon themselves what is called a hunger-strike. Of course, it may be said that they are bringing the suffering upon themselves, and that it is their own fault. But surely the answer to that is this, that men who can inflict this suffering on themselves cannot be regarded as criminals.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that precisely the same tactics were resorted to by the Bolsheviks who were interned in New York, and that the American Government pursued precisely the same policy as our Government are taking?
    Mr. CLYNES: Certainly, and that observation clearly shows that men who hold certain views, who believe in certain doctrines, are regarded by some Members at present as criminals.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—Evidently, it is regarded by some hon. Members as criminal to be a Bolshevist. I am asking the attention of the House to the fact that these men who have been arrested in Ireland may be acting fanatically and foolishly, but, after all, they are not acting criminally. They are arrested on suspicion, and I would ask if to suspect a man of having committed a wrong is sufficient ground for physically punishing that man, or for degrading him with the treatment of a prisoner? I suggest that to English minds it is not, and we ought at least to prove some illegality, some wrong committed and regarded by the people as a crime before we do more than deprive these men of their personal liberty. If there be good ground to suspect these men of having committed offences or having incited others to do so, surely there is in that sufficient ground to try them, and to prove that there is some-
    1548
    thing more than suspicion. If there be only suspicion, then I say that the limit of the treatment of these men should be reached in depriving them of their personal liberty, and they ought not to be subjected to the treatment meted out usually to proven criminals or to those who have flagrantly broken the law.
    As I gather, the reason why these men are protesting to the length of refusing their food, is because they are being degraded as criminals and are not receiving their rights as persons suspected of crime. You are subjecting them to treatment as criminals and not merely depriving them of their personal liberty. In what form could men who have been so arrested offer any protest against the wrongful act of the Government? They are deprived of trial. There is no attempt to prove any case against them; there is no evidence produced against them in any way, and there are no means by which either they or their friends can prove that they are either in the right or in the wrong. I venture to assert that no Englishman would accept as good in law the mere arrest of an Englishman on suspicion, the keeping him in gaol, the deporting and degrading him, the inflicting physical punishment upon him. I say no Englishman would accept that as a good enough doctrine for their own country, and why then should it be applied to Irishmen in Ireland? As a result of this protest which is being carried on, and of the physical suffering to which these men are subjected, a strike has been called, and so far as we can gather, for the Government has given us little or no information, and we have to trust to whatever filters through the newspapers, the strike is affecting the general trade and life of all that part of Ireland lying outside the North. I am not so sure that in the North, in Belfast and other parts, they are not to a considerable extent feeling the effects of the strike, if they are not absolutely participating in it. We cannot afford to look upon this picture as though in a few days it will brighten. We want to have something like a sense of justice applied to the policy of the Government in its treatment of these men.
    The labour leaders in Ireland would not light-heartedly have taken the extreme course they have taken, and the course they are advising in this matter, without very good cause and without feeling that

    1549
    thus they are interpreting the wishes and desires of the general mass of the population. The Government at this moment are facing this Irish situation of a national strike as though it were some mere additional incident in what is occurring in the life of Ireland day by day. But I think that there is some possibility of this stubbornness of the Government provoking on the part of the workmen in this country some consideration for their Irish comrades and Irish fellow-workmen. If it is to be the policy of the Government as announced during Question-time today, that they can in no way change or modify their position, they must accept the consequent provoking of some further retaliation with a view to compelling modification. I would be the last man to suggest any extension of the use of the strike-weapon, but it may be no other weapon can be used when the Government itself is degrading and ill-treating men who have committed no offence which is proven against them, and when the Government is determined to place these men outside the law and to provoke them to illegalities which in normal circumstances they would never dream of committing, and when the Government at the same time refuse to give serious attention to at least the ideas of labour as to how some better atmosphere or frame of mind may be produced among the Irish people. I will put definitely to my right hon. Friend opposite this question. In the absence of any proven crime against these men who are suffering, is it, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment, fair that they should not have the rights of political prisoners, and that pending some crime being preferred against them, pending their trial and pending the concession of those elements of individual liberty which all Members of this House would claim, is it in his judgment right and fair that these men who are in prison should be subjected to anything more than being deprived of their personal liberty? Does he consider it right and fair that they should be treated and degraded as criminals so long as no charge is either preferred or proven against them?
    Colonel YATE: The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke seemed to base his charge against the Government simply on the fact that these men were being interned and had no offence proved against
    1550
    them. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment whether it is possible for any man who is arrested in Ireland to be convicted in open court at the present time. There is not a man in Ireland who would give evidence against anyone suspected of outrages at the present moment. If anyone did give evidence in a police court, or any other court, I suppose he would be murdered. Under those circumstances no trial could possibly take place.
    Mr. CLYNES: My hon. and gallant Friend has put a definite question to me, and I take the liberty of saying, in answer, that I think he has missed my point. My point is that, while it may be right for the Government to arrest these men because they are suspected of wrong-doing, and because convictions may not be obtainable, the Government ought not to carry this policy to the length of dealing with them under the conditions of degradation and personal punishment usually meted out to men against whom crimes have been proven.
    Colonel YATE: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot agree with him, because I think these men were probably arrested on well-founded knowledge—I will not say suspicion—on the part of the Government. We must presume that to be so. When they are interned and kept under charge in any prison, it is only right that they should conform to prison rules. If they refuse to take food, let them do so at their own risk. We had very much the same thing in India in connection with what are called the Rowlatt Bills. A large number of men were interned in India, and Mr. Justice Rowlatt was sent out from England, and, with two Indian judges, went into all those cases, and they decided that it was necessary to keep such men in prison. The same thing is absolutely necessary in Ireland at the present time. In India no one would give evidence against any man, and no man could be convicted, because anyone giving evidence against him would have been murdered. Policemen were murdered in India just as in Ireland at the present time. I trust that the Government will stand firm on this point, and not relax their present rules in any way whatsoever.
    Mr. JAMESON: I can relieve the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member

    1551
    for Platting (Mr. Clynes) as to the alleged state of degradation of the Sinn Feiners imprisoned at Wormwood Scrubs. I do not know the other prisons in which Sinn Feiners are confined, but I have it on the authority of the military escort stationed at Wormwood Scrubs that they are having quite a good time there. As recently as last Saturday I was told by an officer that these Sinn Fein prisoners were regarded by their escort with the greatest envy, that they occupied their time in playing "The Wearing of the Green" upon Irish pipes, and that their bill of fare and the other amenities of their life were very far removed from those of the ordinary inhabitants of the prison. As regards the general charges brought against the Government by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor), I do think that these Irish Debates have a great tendency to move into ah atmosphere of unreality. If I am right in my recollection, the hon. Member's charge was that the Government had abdicated the functions of government; that the administration of justice was practically suspended, that there was no law and order over a great part of Ireland, and that property and persons were unsafe there. So far I am in agreement with what he said; but when he goes on to draw the deduction that, therefore, the military ought to be withdrawn and the police diminished in Ireland, I think that that is a non sequitur. I doubt if such a deduction can be drawn except by a person having that subtlety of mind for which the Irishman is famous. To an ordinary obtuse Angle, or a not clever Saxon, or a dull Scotsman, the specific for a state of affairs in which law and order were daily flouted, and personal property was unsafe, would certainly be more batons, and, if necessary, more bayonets. So far from the policy of the Government being considered throughout the country as erring upon the side of severity in Ireland, there is very great indignation at the leniency with which crime against property and person is treated in Ireland. I come from a part of the country which is very peaceful, namely, Scotland. I am in touch with the popular feeling there, and I know that, if the people in Edinburgh and Glasgow behaved as the people in Cork or Dublin are behaving, we not only would have policemen in Edinburgh and Glas-
    1552
    gow, but bayonets and machine guns and tanks and everything else; and we should deserve to be treated in that way, on the very wild hypothesis that such a thing could possibly occur there. The proverb does not apply exactly, but we do not see why what is sauce for the goose should not be sauce for the gander, and why, if outrages occur in the neighbouring island, they should be treated more leniently than would certainly be the case if they occurred in Scotland, Wales or England.
    Throughout the country the attitude towards Ireland just now is not very sympathetic. During the War, the people in Glasgow and Edinburgh, just as the people in Manchester or Birmingham, saw every man of their relations who was of military age going off to the trenches, and they did not complain of that. No Scotsman would complain, or sorn for a moment upon England for England's manhood or England's money. They were tightening their belts and living on pretty short rations, but they considered that that was a proper sacrifice to make in time of war. They did, however, contrast very pointedly that state of affairs with the state of affairs in Cork or Dublin, where people had lashings of everything they wanted; and when they see this outrage and murder and assassination in Ireland, they do not at all blame the Government for using the force which is being used just now to maintain law and order and keep a decent state of affairs in Ireland. What they do blame the Government for, if anything, is not enforcing law and order in Ireland as it is enforced in Scotland, England and Wales. There is a Home Rule Bill, and accordingly we are seeking a solution, and there can be no complaint upon that ground. If the complaint is that soldiers and policemen are in Ireland to enforce law and order, I should say that the complaint of the people of England, Scotland and Wales is that there are not enough, and that there ought to be more, so that law and order may be better enforced, and not worse, than is the case in Ireland now.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I should not have intervened but for some of the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Jameson), who might have made his speech thirty years ago; and that also applies to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Yate). They have learned nothing. According to their view,

    1553
    the cure for the state of affairs in Ireland is to tow her out into the Atlantic and sink her; she has a double dose of original sin; what applies to England, Scotland and Wales cannot possibly apply to Ireland. If we had in Scotland a Government anything like that which is obtaining in Ireland, I should think, so far as I know my countrymen, that there would be a very similar result. The special point about this Debate is the treatment of those prisoners who are refusing to take food, and are endangering their lives in consequence. It is being urged upon the House to-day from these quarters, that those prisoners are being treated as if they were condemned criminals. The House of Commons, no matter how constituted, has always been a very fair hearer of such a case. It has at all times given a sympathetic hearing to the case of the man who is imprisoned without trial. What are the conditions under which these men are being arrested, "on suspicion," as the Order runs? I am personally very familiar with the Order, because I sat on the Committee which was appointed by the Government of the day, after the rebellion of 1916, to consider what should be done with men arrested in Ireland on suspicion, brought over here, and retained here. That Committee, saw hundreds of those men. I was at Wormwood Scrubs day after day for many weeks, with other members of the Committee, who included two very learned and eminent judges. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson) congratulated the Irishmen on their happy condition at Wormwood Scrubs, but I am sure he did not seriously mean that; it was, perhaps, added as a light touch to his speech. I know what the conditions were. When people are in a prison of that kind, or in any prison, they must, of course, conform to the prison regulations. I agree that they were treated with consideration, but they were within the walls of a convict prison, or perhaps not quite a convict prison, for I think it is one of those prisons in the case of which the limit of sentence is three years. We heard every one of those men state their own case. I agree that the conditions in Ireland to-day are considerably worse than they were at that time. We were able rather to localise the position where the men were arrested and brought over here and subsequently
    1554
    interned by us. What, after all, is the decision to which the Committee came? About 90 per cent. of them were recommended for release, and an astonishing number were young lads of eighteen and nineteen and upwards against whom obviously there could be no charge of anything approaching active participation in criminal deeds. Subsequently they were practically all released.
    I am quite certain that if the cases of those at present in prison under arrest for suspicion of complicity in some proceedings which are likely to endanger the security of the community, were heard not by a court of law, but by a committee constituted in some such way as that to which I have referred, a large majority of them would be recommended for release. These men are refusing to take sustenance because they are rightly or wrongly unlifted by a sense according to their consciences, as to what their duty is to their country. I deplore as much as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry) the terrible condition of Ireland to-day" and I am in support of any proper legitimate steps which may be taken, but here we are dealing with one of those situations which in themselves do more to drive the people to despair and to violence than anything else, and I really appeal to the House of Commons, constituted even as it is. Do they not feel very uncomfortable at the fact that men in large numbers occupying, as very many of them do, prominent and responsible positions, are in British prisons without trial and without inquiry and without any suggestion from the front Bench that there should be an inquiry? That is a position which cannot be lightly dismissed, but must be faced. If the Executive in Ireland think they are going to break the spirit of the Irish people by further repressive measures, all history shows that they are wrong. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not accompanied by a Cabinet Minister of high rank on such an important occasion as this. I am certain that if such a committee as I have suggested, following the precedent of 1916, were set up, not to give a trial, but to inquire into the case of these men—and I should be quite pre-pared for that committee to be composed of supporters of the Government alone rather than have no such committee—I am sure from my own experience in those

    1555
    hundreds of cases which I listened to, whose whole record in a surprising number of cases was against the suspicion which was cast upon them, the Government would be forced to release them. It is not what happens in the case of the individual so much. What impression would you make upon the public mind if you did that? On this side of the water you would allay the very great state of unrest on the subject, and in Ireland, at any rate, I believe, it would make for a better state of things.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the conduct of those men after they were let out?
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I cannot tell, but the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and, I suppose, having made the suggestion he speaks with some knowledge, is that some of those men who were released are the men who have been put back into prison again. My reply to that is, that if they were released by a competent and fair tribunal they are at least entitled to come before some such tribunal again. I press once again, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, that this Committee should be set up. I do not mind how it is composed. Then you would make the first step, at any rate, to some semblance of a return of British ideals of justice.
    Mr. E. WOOD: I should be sorry if my right hon. Friend and others opposite thought they had a monopoly of right feeling in this House, more particularly in regard to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "He never said that."] The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped even in a House, composed as it was, there might still be some feeling of justice left. I think that was a permissible ground for the observation I made. I have a further ground for it in an observation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) that he had been grieved to see the complacency and the unconcern with which this whole subject has been treated, while the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connor) was speaking. I think those remarks in their own way are unjust to every hon. Member wherever he sits, because I do not think there is anyone, whatever his political opinions, or whatever course he might wish to recommend at this moment, who could be charged with treating the situation as one which
    1556
    is not important and is not worthy of discussion to-day. I associate myself with what has been said on the other side as to the unfortunate fact—it may be, of course, unavoidable—that there is no one in the House at the moment on the Government Bench who can with authority speak on behalf of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) said he was not disposed to criticise the action of the Government in retaining these men in confinement. His criticism was mainly, if not exclusively, directed to the fact that while in confinement they were treated improperly. They were treated like condemned criminals. I do not know whether that is true or not. I was surprised to hear it, and I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry) has to say on the point. But I should be more surprised to hear—for the inference from those two observations is that the whole reason of the hunger strike is the method of treatment—that if the method of treatment were altered the hunger strike would cease. Such information as I have leads me to suppose that the hunger strike is really a strike conducted against confinement and for release.
    I should like to make my position on that point, if that be the point, perfectly plain. I cannot conceive that it can be worth while running the grave risks which are involved in this matter for a question of one form of treatment as against another. But no risks of the result of adhering to this course of action would deter me if I had good cause, as I believe the Government has, from retaining the men in confinement. I hope that is plain, and I hope it will be made plain in the right hon. Gentleman's answer. Do not let us drift into the position of their being able to pose as martyrs merely because they are treated in one way rather than in another. As to the question of retaining them in confinement, I am prepared to accept the judgment of the Executive, who are responsible for maintaining law and order, and in that, indeed, they have the support of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes), because, after all, fortunes in this House are very transitory. We may sit here to-day and be over there to-morrow, and hon. Members who sit over there may sit here. What are they going to do when they are faced with questions of law and order in Ireland? You do not dismiss the Irish

    1557
    question as a problem of keeping law and order merely by criticising the existing Government and by forgetting, what too many forget, that this is not a dispute where all the wrong is on one side. Very likely, like most other disputes, there is wrong on both sides. But they as much as we may be responsible for it, and when they are responsible for it they will be compelled to adopt very much the same methods as we have to adopt to-day.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. SEXTON: I should not have intervened but for the very serious turn which this question has taken. It has gone much further and is likely to go much further than the merely political aspect, and it is not confined to Irishmen in Ireland to-day who are sympathetic to the Sinn Fein movement. In Belfast the Orangemen have taken sides in this question, and if the strike which is going on in Ireland to-day continues, the Belfast Orangemen will also participate in the protest which has been made by the Irish trade unionists. That is a very serious situation. One hon. Member suggested that no verdict can be secured in Ireland against any malefactor or breaker of the law. I want to make myself perfectly clear upon that point. I am not going to justify, but on the contrary to condemn, murder, robbery or any breaking of the law either in Ireland or in England. But surely the confession of the hon. Member is a proof that the people of Ireland have made it impossible for the law imposed upon them to be carried out. It is a most humiliating confession. It is not alone in Ireland but here also that we see the dangers of the present policy. At question time to-day when the Leader of the House was answering a question, I asked him whether he was aware that the system of wholesale arrest on suspicion and the deportation of men without trial and without any charge being made against them was not confined to Ireland, but that in Liverpool last week, two trade unionists, a fireman and a dock labourer, who were going about their ordinary vocation were taken up and, without any charge being preferred against them, were spirited away somewhere, and nobody knows where they are. That is not in Ireland but in England. Myself and other hon. Members on these Benches have been imploring and advocating constitutional methods all through this terrible stress, and all through the
    1558
    time when dynasties are falling all around us, when eruptions are taking place industrially in other countries than our own, and when the talk of direct action has been most dangerously preached. We have been strenuous in our denunciation of that policy and in advising our men not to take direct action as is being done in Ireland to-day. But what can we say when here on our own doorstep the same thing is being enacted as is being enacted in Ireland to-day in connection with the arrest of men on suspicion. One hon. Member at Question Time said that the Irish Trade Union Congress was practically a Sinn Fein body. I want to tell him that the man who signed this Irish manifesto calling upon Irishmen to protest by direct action has been one of the most moderating influences in Ireland throughout this unfortunate business. I know Tom Johnston, and I know Farren. I know more about Tom Johnston than I know about the other man; and I know that he has been the most restraining influence in Ireland. It is only under very severe provocation that Tom Johnston would sign a document of that kind.
    What I am concerned about more than anything is that industrial peace in England and Ireland should prevail. I am very much afraid that if something is not done there will not be merely a one-day strike in Ireland, and that it will not be confined to Ireland. The Union which I represent has 10,000 members in Ireland, every one of them amenable to the law of a union with headquarters in this country. So far we have been able to restrain them and to carry on work. Most of our members in Belfast are North of Ireland Orangemen, and, as I have just said, I have advices in my pocket from Belfast that North of Ireland Orangemen and Catholics are joining together to make this protest Surely right hon. Gentlemen will pause before they allow this thing to go any further. May I be allowed to switch off from the danger of the industrial question to the danger of the political question? I happened to be in Ireland a few months ago, and if the hon. Member wants any evidence that these men are being treated as convicted criminals I will give him my experience. I went to Galway and saw some of the men who were imprisoned in Galway Gaol. One of them, a mere wandering minstrel, a man who depended for his living on going round the country and

    1559
    giving concerts in Ireland. At one of these concerts this man sang a well-known song, "The Felons of our Land,' a song which was sung within the precincts of this House, and which the right hon. Member for Paisley applauded in the dining-room downstairs. For singing that song that poor wandering minstrel was arrested on suspicion, charged with singing that song. That was denied from the opposite Benches, although I had the documents in proof of it. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, without a trial, and to-day he is a physical wreck. I saw another man who was arrested when he was going about his ordinary business as a commercial traveller. He had his bicycle, and a map of the road to show him which way to go. The charge against him was that he had a map of the road. A map of the road to enable him to carry on his business, and yet he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. I believe he was condemned during his imprisonment to solitary confinement in Galway Gaol, and the treatment which he received was of such a character that when he was released he was a confirmed and chronic epileptic. It is terrible that the treatment should make a man a physical wreck like that. These are cases which came before my own notice.
    Let me appeal to the Government to relax as soon as possible this terrible punishment. I am not defending the murderer or the robber. I deplore crime at any time; but let us take warning from the lessons from the past and the present. From the time of Grattan up till now, including the successive Fenian movements, and the rebellion in 1916, these men have gone out knowing they were taking their lives in their hands and knowing that their lives might be sacrificed, but they were content to do it to make a protest. The Government may go on in the way they are now proceeding. They may shoot down their Skeffingtons and their Jim Connollys—
    Brigadier-General CROFT: What about shooting policemen?
    Mr. SEXTON: But in the paraphrased words of the old American marching song, though Connolly's body may lie mouldering in the grave, his soul goes
    1560
    marching on. Whether he was right or wrong, every time that incidents such as are occurring now take place you do not clear the Irish atmosphere, but you fog it more than ever.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I share the regret of right hon. and hon. Members that another Minister is not present to speak for the Government; but the Chief Secretary, as the House knows, is at present engaged in an election, with the result that it devolves upon me to reply. I appreciate the views put forward by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) when he pointed out to the leaders on the Opposition Benches that what is our case to-day may be theirs to-morrow. Things have come to such a pass that this is not now a question of party politics. This is a question really of elementary civilisation and the maintenance of the elementary principles of law and order. It is impossible for any man, and I speak with very great feeling upon the subject, to contemplate the position of affairs in Ireland without a feeling of horror. The murders that have taken place in Ireland to a great extent were not murders of aliens, even of Englishmen or Scotsmen, but of Irishmen, men of the same blood and the same nation as their murderers. Not merely have these murders been murders of constables who were Irishmen, but they have been murders of humble men of all sorts and in all parts of the country, and, as one hon. Member said, of women too. It behoves the Members of this House to put all party questions aside in dealing with this matter and to make it clear that not merely have the Government behind them on this question—and I only ask it on this question—the support of one party, but the support of all right-thinking men, no matter to what party they belong. That will help. It will have a great effect on the other side of the water and it will strengthen the hands of those who, in an emergency of this kind, require strength and support.
    Let me deal with the complaint which was put forward against the Government. The occasion of this Debate arose from what? There is no christian community that does not condemn self-murder. There is no civilised community whose law does not condemn self-murder. What is it that is taking place at the present time in Mountjoy prison? Does anyone

    1561
    give it any other name than that of attempting suicide, which is condemned by the law of their church and condemned by the law of the land. What is the justification for it? Is there any? Is it alleged that their imprisonment is illegal according to the law of the land. The law under which they are imprisoned is the same in your own country, and will remain the same until the termination of the War. Not merely has this House on one occasion given its sanction to the Defence of the Realm Act, under which the Regulations which affect the imprisonmment of these men are made, but within the last few weeks it has given its sanction, with a full knowledge of the existence of these Regulations, and carried by a majority of over 200, the Third Reading of the War Emergeny Laws (Continuance) Bill, although it was directly challenged by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn) who put forward a reasoned Amendment. Therefore, you have approved it, and approved of it on two occasions.
    Suppose the condition in England were the same to-day as the condition in Ireland, would you not continue in England these Regulations which are continued for Ireland? At any time during the War was the condition in England at all comparable to the condition in Ireland at the present time? Why, nothing of the kind arose. There was no disturbance of any kind. You were dealing with spies, with aliens and foreigners, but you never had the dreadful condition of affairs that exists at present in Ireland. What happened the other day? One might almost call it war. In one night 250 empty constabulary barracks were destroyed, in most instances by explosives, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that those outrages could not have been carried out by fewer than a hundred men in respect of each barrack, and that would represent a total of 25,000 men practically under arms in that one night.
    Let us see the cause of complaint in respect of these prisoners. There are in Mountjoy Prison 151 prisoners of all descriptions: 70 of those are convicted prisoners. Some of those, not by any means all—I am not able to give the precise figure—have been convicted in the ordinary course before juries, as the law was before the War and as the law is to-day. Others have been convicted by
    1562
    a divisional magistrate of Dublin, and a good many of them by courts-martial. Eighty-one are untried prisoners, 20 of those being persons who were interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but all the others are awaiting trial, not necessarily before a jury; it may be before a court-martial. On the 31st March last notice was given by some of the untried prisoners that they would have a hunger strike on the 5th April. It was a deliberate notice, which was carefully considered and was to operate from the 5th day of April. They were joined by others. The ultimate result was that the convicted prisoners should get what is called the ameliorative treament, that is, they should be treated in a different way from the ordinary convicted prisoners. Otherwise the entire body will go upon hunger strike.
    I would like to make clear the attitude of the Lord Lieutenant upon this matter He received a communication from the Chairman of the visiting justices (Mr. Clarke) and also the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and here is his reply:—
    "There is no power under the rules made in November last to extend ameliorative treatment to convicted prisoners who are excluded from ameliorative treatment. Untried prisoners are treated under the rules for untried prisoners. His Excellency does not propose to modify the rules in the way you suggest. All persons on hunger strike have been forewarned as to the consequences of persistence in their conduct in accordance with the decision of His Majesty's Government,"
    I should tell the House this rule of November, 1919, to which His Excellency was referring, with reference to convicted prisoners who did not receive ameliorative treatment. A rule was passed in that month that the main body of prisoners, who cannot receive ameliorative treatment, were prisoners who were convicted of an offence for which they might be legally indicted or summarily convicted at common law, or under any Statute other than the Defence of the Realm Act, no matter by what tribunal such prisoner may be tried or under what Act he may be charged. In other words where a man could be tried under the ordinary law, and was tried and was convicted of an offence under the ordinary law, he got no treatment of an ameliorative character. And another great block of prisoners, who were to get no treatment of an ameliorative character, were people who were con-

    1563
    victed of carrying, hiding, or keeping fire-arms, military arms, ammunition, or explosive substance. I do not think that the provision with regard to these two groups of persons involved any great hardship.
    The result of the refusal to give ameliorative treatment to all convicted prisoners has been that this strike has been brought upon us. The number on strike amounts to 89 out of the 151, and it is obvious that their action is a concerted attempt to force the hands of the authorities and to compel them to release these men. What are the authorities to do? Are they to throw open the doors of the prison or to give way? The result would be that it would be utterly impossible to enforce any form of law. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) in describing the Commission upon which he sat was, I take it, referring to the Frongoch prisoners who were interned immediately after the rebellion of 1916. The case of these persons was not at all analagous, because there was no question of conviction. The right hon. Gentle man's Commission was not dealing with a single convicted prisoner. I remember very well that, as a result of an inquiry, these men were released and some of them unfortunately—though I do not make a point of this—turned up again and they are at present inhabitants of His Majesty's prisons.
    Hon. Members say "why not bring these men to justice?" Speaking from the point of view, and on behalf of the constituents whom they represent, they ask that question. If I could bring them to trial in the atmosphere that exists in this country they would be brought to trial, but recollect you have only to take up your paper to see cases of witnesses, or men who were suspected of being witnesses, being found dead in the corner of a field, having been shot. I know men of high position, but unfortunately with families, who dread the very idea of giving any information. Does anyone imagine that such a thing as happened in the city of Dublin some time ago when, in a crowded tramcar in a fashionable suburb, a magistrate was taken from the tramcar and shot in the presence of 20 or 30 people, could exist in this country, and that such a system of terrorism as exists in parts of Ireland would be allowed
    1564
    for one moment to exist m this country? It is all very well to speak in that way in this country. Take the position of jurors, even special jurors. Is it to be wondered at that sometimes these men elect to disagree rather than bring upon themselves what may be a very sudden and unprovided death? That is the position.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: That is to what you have brought Ireland.
    Mr. HENRY: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman, who has been so long a Member of this House, goes back in his own memory he could speak of many acts of the same kind, and if he takes history and goes back hundreds of years he will find nearly the same state of affairs existed all that time.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: No.
    Mr. HENRY: No one was more loud in his denunciation of Mr. Forster's internment Act which expired in 1882 than the hon. Gentleman. It is not a new proposal. It has had to be resorted to by other bodies.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I opposed the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1881, and I gave as one of my reasons for opposing it that it would aggravate the state of things in Ireland, and my prophecy was realised.
    Mr. HENRY: It was a comparatively easy prophecy.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: It was neglected.
    Mr. HENRY: That may be so. The question is at the present time—are you to walk out of the country or are you not? If you are not to walk out of the country, what more can be done than that, where you have no means of getting a case brought forward and proving it in evidence in the ordinary way, surely you must take some steps to protect people?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not court-martial?
    Mr. CLYNES: If it be true, as the right hon. Gentleman alleges, that he cannot get evidence to convict, would my right hon. Friend give to the House some of the evidence which the Government must have secured to justify the Government in suspecting these men? Cannot we have some evidence as to why they were suspected if we cannot have evidence that will convict them?
    Mr. HENRY: I put it to my right hon. Friend. If a man of real position and character gives evidence to the police, but makes terms that he is not to be brought forward in a court of law because his life would not be worth anything then, surely in a case of that description, if the person is a man of weight and sub-stance and other inquiries point to his being right, the Government are entitled to consider whether the man to whom the information relates should not be dealt with by internment. It is not the difficulty of getting evidence. It is the difficulty of getting it proved in Court.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not court-martial?
    Mr. HENRY: Courts-martial are held in public, so that would not give the least help. The witness would be produced before solicitor and counsel for the prisoner, and his name would be known broadcast. The result would be exactly where we started from. This power is given to the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord-Lieutenant for Ireland, and they are not likely to use that power in a rash or hasty way. There were three various times when persons were interned. The first was in the case of the Frongoch prisoners immediately after the rebellion, when there was no court-martial. Then when the present Home Secretary was Chief Secretary there was a number of internments, and within the last year there was a number of internments.
    My hon. Friend who moved the Motion referred to the employment of the military in Ireland in dealing with the position. There are 10,000 Royal Constabulary men in Ireland. They were scattered up and down the country in barracks, a few men, sometimes three and four, in larger districts more. It has been found necessary as a result not of one or two attacks, not of attacks in one county or another county, but of widespread attacks all over the country, to draw in those men and put them together in greater numbers. What is the good of 10,000 constabulary men when I have already shown that there must have been in that one raid on the police barracks 25,000 men engaged? Is it not absolutely essential that the military should be called in? Are we to have information of the existence of stores of explosives which are used for the purpose of blowing up buildings or individuals
    1566
    and make no raid to try to get those? We have captured large quantities; we have captured arms, and I verily believe that the raids and captures which have been made have prevented in different parts of the country risings that otherwise would have taken place. The military, after all, are your own soldiers. They are under the command of your officers, because they are not as a rule under Irish officers but under English and Scotch officers. Can they not be trusted to behave themselves as they behaved themselves through the War under far greater provocation? They have no hatred of their fellow-citizens, with many of whom they fought during the late War.
    Mr. CLYNES: They are ashamed of their job.
    Mr. HENRY: In view of the constant outrage and murder that were going on, it was as much and as sacred a duty as the defence of their country was during the War. I think that they may be trusted. So far as the Irish Executive are concerned, does anyone imagine that they are out for causing trouble for trouble's sake? On whose shoulders does it fall? No one would be better pleased than members of the Irish Executive if that peace which has come to this country and to a great part of the world were extended to our unhappy island.
    Mr. ACLAND: I take advantage of the fact that the Leader of the House is present to continue this discussion a few minutes. I am sure that every Member feels that it is a very uncomfortable position we are in now and that it may readily become much more uncomfortable and may precipitate the real crisis in Ireland, which everyone wants to avert by every possible means. The learned Attorney-General for Ireland, who has spoken for the Government, has simply said in effect, "Non possumus; we make no suggestion at all. The case is unfortunate, but it is simple. These men are legally in prison. They protest against their imprisonment or against their treatment by going on hunger strike, and to admit the claim that because they go on hunger strike they must be liberated, is clearly a defeat of all the duties of the Government in maintaining law and order. If you admitted that, then anyone who had sufficient moral and physical courage to starve himself nearly to death

    1567
    could escape from just punishment, because he would have to be let out before he had succeeded in committing suicide." I do hope that in the present very special and difficult position that is not the last word of the Government. I hope they may be able to modify it to some extent, at any rate. I want to keep political feeling out of this discussion altogether. I would not mind if the Government said, "Some of these men have been convicted, and it is no affair of ours whatever whether a man who has been convicted chooses to serve out his sentence or to put himself to death by starvation. He has been convicted, not always by juries, sometimes by courts-martial, sometimes by a military tribunal, but convicted, and has undergone a proper and fair trial, and it must rest on his shoulders what he does. They can all starve themselves to death for what we care." At any rate, there would have been a trial, and the reputation of British justice, which has always stood extraordinarily high—
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Not in Ireland.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am thinking of it much more broadly.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: It applies to the rest of the world.
    Mr. ACLAND: These men in such a ease would have been tried and convicted, and the Government would say: "It is no affair of ours whether they then make up their mind to starve themselves to death." But there are the men who have not been tried. As to them, what has the representative of the Government said? Simply this, that because you cannot get men to give evidence against them they must remain interned indefinitely. He holds out no hope whatever of any term to the period of internment. As long as difficulties in Ireland remain, as long as men who have the evidence to give are afraid to give it, this will very likely go on. To the minds of tens of thousands of people this will appear to be the position: You are using war powers, and you are using them in a way in which they would never be used in actual war, because in war, if people were arrested, they would be brought before courts-martial within a definite time; they would not be left for months in internment. Military justice is
    1568
    short and sharp, and in the main absolutely just. I believe trial by court-martial is one of the fairest trials instituted. You are using war powers to keep these men in prison without charge. That is using war powers in a perfectly new way. My right hon. Friend made this suggestion to the Government: Let the Government not have men starving themselves to death, men who have been kept in prison without charge and without a trial, and with regard to whom the Government said: "We intend indefinitely to keep you in prison without charge and without a trial."
    That is the position from which I entreat the Government to try to free themselves. If these men die it really will produce a very serious effect in many parts of the world. The suggestion surely is simple. It is that we should say here and now that a committee, a judicial committee, any committee you like, should be set up at once, should go into the eases of these men, not in public, that the witnesses should not even be brought over to England if they are afraid of so giving evidence, that it should not be known at all who the witnesses are or what they have said, and that their depositions should be taken in secret. Such evidence probably has been written down already. There are documents existing with regard to each of these untried men. Let the committee then decide whether these men must be kept indefinitely in prison, and if the men then choose to starve themselves to death, or if, as is suspected, in many cases there is not sufficient evidence to justify the men being retained in custody, we shall know. As that suggestion meets entirely the only reason which the learned Attorney-General has given for not bringing these men to trial, I hope that before it is too late, before it has precipitated a real breakdown of all civilised life in Ireland, the Government will give the suggestion very earnest consideration.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I am sorry that the last speaker put the case as he has done. I understood the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) to say that working class opinion in this country would be satisfied, realising that it is not possible to bring these men to trial, if some difference were made in their prison treatment. If that is the case, if it is a question of treatment rather than of

    1569
    release, I think the Government are putting themselves in a very dangerous position. The learned Attorney-General did not make this point clear, and I think it is a point of very great importance. Are these men hunger striking because of their treatment, or is it an endeavour to obtain release? I can well understand that people in prison, who are kept there without any opportunity of trial, who know that they must remain there, resent being treated as if they were convicted. If, through the unfortunate circumstances in Ireland and because of the position the Government find themselves in, it is not possible to try these men, there appears to be some reason in asking for amelioration of their treatment as against that of the ordinary criminal awaiting trial.
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I intervene for a few minutes with one object only, and that is to reaffirm the view which I expressed at Question Time, that no greater harm could be done than that any impression should go to Ireland that there is any possibility of a change in the attitude of the Government on this matter. As to the point made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Sir W. Pearce), he could not have been present at Question Time, or he would have seen that there is now a difference in treatment between those who have been convicted and those who are only in on suspicion. As to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Acland), I do not think that he can understand the situation at all. His view is that if we allowed the men who are convicted, even by a court-martial, to commit suicide, we would be doing everything which justice demands. As a matter of fact—I am sure the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) would not disagree—that; would have no effect whatever in Ireland. The classes who are fighting against law as openly and avowedly as they can would not be in the least affected by that dictinction. But there is something more than that.
    The case is simply this: Is the Government justified, in the circumstances as they have been described by my right hon. Friend as existing in Ireland, in arresting men, even though undoubtedly in some cases they do make mistakes—I do not deny that—when they have the
    1570
    strongest suspicion that these men are taking part in the murders which are at this moment occurring in Ireland? If they have that right, is it not perfectly obvious that very likely the very men whom it would be most criminal to set loose are men against whom you have not been able to get the evidence which would bring them to trial in the conditions prevailing in Ireland? The suggestion that the evidence on which these men have been put in prison could be put before any Committee is a suggestion that no one with the smallest knowledge of Ireland could possibly make. And for this reason. Every one of these men, if it were known that he was in any way implicated in giving evidence, would be a dead man in Ireland. That should be considered by any Government—not merely the possibility but almost the certainty that the information would leak out and that the lives of these men would be forfeited.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: The suggestion was one which I initiated when my right hon. Friend was not present. With regard to the Committee which sat after the Rebellion of 1916, a Committee of which I was a member, it was mentioned that no person came to give evidence before the Committee, there was no evidence save and except official evidence, that of the military and the police, and documentary evidence. No one was brought before the Committee whose life could possibly be in danger other than those whose lives were in danger to some extent, of course, because they were officials. It is only on those lines, with a Committee sitting in secret, considering officials' statements and documentary evidence, and applying only to persons who were not convicted of any charge, that my proposal was made.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understand, any of these men if they choose can make an appeal within seven days before a Judge of the High Court in Ireland, but I ask the House not to be led away by the analogy. This is a case where murders take place in the presence of large numbers of citizens. Take the murder which occurred recently in the tramway car. I do not for a moment suggest, indeed I am certain it is not the case, that any of the persons who were witnesses of that murder sympathised with it, but the position is that they are in terror of their lives, and they dare not take any action. In many

    1571
    cases the police are satisfied as to who are the men who are instigating these murders, but you cannot bring them to trial as you cannot get anybody to give evidence on account of the reign of terror. Is it the suggestion with murder going on that any Government which is attempting to preserve the ordinary conditions of civil life is to allow these men to be at liberty when the Government believe that that liberty means the death of peaceful citizens? That is quite impossible. Let me put the case quite plainly again. Either we have the right—of course we have the legal right—either we have the moral right, to arrest these men because we suspect them of being implicated in these crimes, or we have not. If we have, is it the contention that we should let them out because they say they will commit suicide. No order could be maintained in any country if that were the case. It would be quite impossible. I venture to say we have counted the cost. I do not minimise any more than the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool the horror of this kind of thing, and I recognise, as every Member of the House I am sure does, that a man who has the courage, physical and moral, to bring himself to the' point of death in this way is a man who has qualities which to a certain extent we can appreciate. There is not a Member of this House, or a man in the country, but will deplore the death of these men. We fully recognise that. The condition of Ireland is very bad, but it is not right to assume, as some of the speeches have assumed, that everything there is unprecedented. That is not so. I remember very well when I was a Member of a Government associated with the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), we had precisely the same kind of speeches from the hon. Member for the Scotland Division and his associates as to the way in which we were ruling Ireland.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: All justified by results. Every prophecy we made has been realised, and you neglected them all.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was a Member of the Government which was then responsible. Over and over again we released men against whom we had suspicion. That was the policy of the hon. Gentleman. Many of my hon. Friends in the
    1572
    House stated that the releasing of them would add to the disorder, and that prophecy unfortunately came true. The condition of Ireland is very grave. It is a condition which cannot be allowed to continue. The Government must protect the lives of the citizens of the country. A Government which cannot do that has obviously failed in what is the first duty of every Government. We have deliberately come to the conclusion that the steps which we have taken in this matter are right and justified. We have deliberately come to the conclusion that by showing weakness in face of this kind of intimidation, outrage and murder, we should make things worse. We take this course to make it quite plain that the Government understand all the evils of it, and have counted the cost, and are prepared to the utmost extent of their ability to see decent conditions restored in Ireland. It is for that purpose alone we do it.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Leader of the House in stating that the Government intended to carry on the same treatment of Irishmen gave as a justification that the men who are interned could be tried before a High Court Judge, and yet almost in the same breath he said that they dare not bring these men into public court because the individuals whom they would have to cite as witnesses would be in terror of their lives. There seems to be some contradiction in those two statements. If the men could have their cases considered, that I imagine would mean that evidence would be taken and witnesses produced and that some justification, because of the evidence submitted, would be given by the Government for keeping these people in prison. The condition of affairs in Ireland is pleaded by the right hon. Gentleman as a justification for keeping these men in prison without trial. It all goes back to the old cry of the Irish people that the condition in Ireland is due to the misgovernment of the men who are upon the front Government Bench. The Attorney-General told us that the conditions in Ireland to-day are the same as they were fifty years ago. Those conditions are the result of the misgovernment by various Governments of this country. They have deliberately provoked and incited the Irish people to many of the causes of disorder which are taking place to-day in Ireland, and they cannot now, having sown dragon's teeth,

    1573
    complain that they are reaping a harvest of armed men. The conditions in Ireland are undoubtedly bad, but they ought to be made of such a character that the Irish people could live in peace and harmony with the people of these islands and the people in these islands in harmony with the Irish people. The reason why they have not and are not doing so is because the demands of the Irish people have been ignored by successive Governments. You have barracks blown up and policemen and civilians shot in the streets, and instead of bringing the people whom you say you believe you know to be guilty of those outrages and murders to trial you place in Mountjoy Prison eighty-one individuals whom you will not bring to trial and whom you say you suspect of having committed these outrages.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Suspected of being about to commit?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Some of them, according to the right, hon. Gentleman, have been arrested on suspicion of having committed these outrages I have yet to learn, even with the Defence of the Realm Act, that it is part of the justice of the British civilian, or, at least, part of his interpretation of British justice, that, a man shall be kept indefinitely in prison merely upon the suspicion that he has committed, or is about to commit, or may be about a place where an outrage will be committed. That is a complete contradiction of the ideas of British justice for which we fought four and a half years and lost 800,000 lives in order to establish. We have been told that the conditions in Ireland now are as bad as they were fifty years ago. I was reading the other night a speech made in this House at that time in which the Member who made it pointed out that for one hundred and fifty years preceding the evening upon which he made his speech the conditions had been as bad. We have come to this now, that in Ireland you are in a state of war with part of our own country and our own kith and kin with whom we ought to be acting together to get rid of those conditions which have resulted from the War. You bring in Peace Treaties here with foreign nations, but you cannot bring in a Peace Treaty for part of our own kingdom. The condition of Ireland to-day is not merely a question of these eighty-one men starving themselves to death. All civilised communities, even
    1574
    elementary communities, deplore and denounce self-destruction, but these men consider they are justified and that it is the only method they can adopt to protest against continued imprisonment without trial. This House has given the power to continue law in Ireland which prevailed during the War. But while the House may have done so with its two hundred majority for the Government the country outside will refuse to give such a majority and decline to have affairs conducted in Ireland as they are being conducted. The country will demand some more specific method should be adopted to find out the desires and aspirations of the Irish people and to try and meet them and weld the Irish people to us, not as enemies or open foes, but to try and bring them more in contact and in close touch with us as brothers and fellow-citizens of our own country.
    7.0 P.M.
    The Government ought, I submit, at the earliest moment either release the men whom they have interned, or at least bring charges against them which they claim they have and which they will not bring forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) asked the Attorney-General, as he said that terrorism that existed prevented witnesses coming forward to give evidence against the prisoners, would he be prepared to make a statement in this House as to the charges against these men, and would he produce some of the evidence without giving the names of the individuals who submitted the evidence, so that the House might learn what justification the Government had in keeping these people interned. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question, and, in fact, his whole speech, where it was not an apology for conditions in Ireland, was a mere begging of the question of the statements made during the Debate. We have knowledge on these Benches, particularly amongst the Labour Members, of the proceedings in industrial centres during the War, when spies were sent down to the workshops and when men were going about concocting any sort of story to submit to the Government in order to bring the workers into bad odour and to have them deported. We have suspicions that you are conducting the Government in Ireland to-day with a spy system, and where you have a spy system you cannot have justice. Where you have spies you

    1575
    will always find that they have sufficient stories to give to the Government in order to keep them in their employment. I suggest that you should not allow these men to commit suicide. No Member of this House wishes them to commit suicide, the Leader of the House least of all. I will do him the justice of believing him to be sincere, but I submit that what is wanted is some method whereby you will ease the situation in Ireland, and you will not do it so long as you place these men in the position of being looked upon by the rest of the Irish people as martyrs, and worshipped by them if they should die as martyrs, and bringing up other individuals who are prepared to do the same thing for the country they love.
    Captain ELLIOT: The point made by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) did not seem to me to be sufficiently answered by the Attorney-General. He put the simple question. Is the hunger strike taking place because of the treatment of the men in goal, or because they wish to be released from prison? If it is not simply a dispute about the treatment they should undergo, surely the position of a man who has been kept indefinitely in goal on a charge for which he cannot be brought to trial warrants an entirely different treatment from that meted out to a man who has been convicted on a charge and who is serving his sentence. There was the case of Alderman O'Brien in this country, who went on hunger strike and brought himself to the verge of death because he complained about his treatment. He is still in prison, but he is no longer on hunger strike. If, therefore, it is a case of a dispute about treatment I am sure a great many hon. Members on this side of the House think it would be in the highest degree calamitous to allow deaths on a large scale to take place of these men under arrest who have not been brought to trial. There are eighty-one men untried and twenty interned under the Defence of the Realm Act, and as fas as I could gather from the Attorney-General's speech, the strike broke out because the Lord Lieutenant was asked if he would alter the rules for untried prisoners, which he declined to do. If these men are to be kept indefinitely in prison awaiting trial, they surely have the right to demand the most lenient treatment while they are in prison with
    1576
    an unknown charge hanging over them. The same point was made by another hon. Member, and the Leader of the House replied that it had been answered at Question Time, but from his own statement I gathered that he said there was now a difference between the treatment of untried prisoners and the treatment of convicted prisoners. But I think the point we would like to see cleared up is whether this strike is wholly or mainly about the treatment of those who are still untried. I understood from the Press that they claim the status of interned officer prisoners, and when you have men who are not going to be brought to trial and who may be kept in prison for a very long time, surely they are entitled to the most lenient treatment, rather than to be allowed to commit suicide on a simple dispute as to their status.
    Major BARNES: I wish to back up what has been said by the last speaker in regard to the narrow issue on which this Debate really turns. The Leader of the House has told us the difficulties of the Government, and they may be appreciated quite fully, but he has admitted that the Government are acting upon suspicion, and that so acting they may make mistakes. I would like to put before the House the position of a man arrested on suspicion under a mistake, when we realise that he cannot be brought to trial because the person upon whose information he was arrested is afraid to face the open court. One can understand that that may be a very real fear, but surely it follows that men who are in prison under those conditions should receive exceptional treatment, and that the Government can be doing no harm to the cause of law and order in Ireland by relieving themselves entirely of any suspicion of imposing upon men who are not convicted, and who may never be convicted, treatment which should only be imposed on men who have been properly sentenced. I can understand that the Government may be impervious to appeals made to them from this side of the House, but it is clear that amongst their own supporters there is a very real desire that the Government should relieve itself of all possible suspicion of treating possibly innocent men in a way in which innocent men should never be treated. Cannot the Government give the House some

    1577
    assurance, if it is a question of treatment, that they will make such a change in the conditions of these men as will induce the men to refrain from pursuing this policy of hunger striking? If a man who afterwards is found to be innocent should hunger strike to the point of death, think what the effect must be on Ireland, on this country, and on the rest of the world.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down made a strong appeal that the persons arrested and interned under the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland should be treated differently from convicted prisoners. I apprehend there is no comparison at all between the treatment of interned prisoners under the Defence of the Realm Act and convicted prisoners sentenced to imprisonment. I presume interned persons are treated at least as well as an unconvicted prisoner is treated. I am not familiar with the full details, but I am sure they are given every relaxation that is at all consistent with their being kept in safe custody. That is what is done in the case of interned prisoners, and the idea that these men are being treated as convicted prisoners is quite fantastic.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the Noble Lord know they are not allowed to receive visitors except once a month and that they are only allowed to write letters on very few occasions?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know the details, but if there are special hardships which the hon. Member thinks ought not to be inflicted on these men, that is a different matter; by all means let him make representations on that point. I apprehend that if there are any restrictions of that kind imposed on these men it is entirely with a view to preventing them from carrying on the dangerous traffic in which they were engaged.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: When the present Home Secretary was Chief Secretary for Ireland he made regulations with regard to the treatment of these political prisoners, and the present Irish Executive has reversed those regulations and established much more stringent regulations.
    Lord R. CECIL: I was not aware of that, but, if it be so, it appears to me to be a matter worthy of the consideration of the Irish Government whether they
    1578
    have taken the right course. There is another matter which appears to me to be worth the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) made a strong appeal that the matter should be submitted to a Committee, and the Leader of the House pointed out that they have got the right under the regulations to require the submission of their case to an Advisory Committee. I did not think that was so, but I have since been furnished with the Regulation, and it is quite clear that it is so. The Regulation says:
    "Provided that any Order under this Regulation shall, in the case of any person who is not a subject of a State at war with His Majesty, include express provisions for the due consideration by one of such advisory Committees of any representations he may make against the Order."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: There is no such Advisory Committee in existence.
    Lord R. CECIL: I doubt whether that is accurate. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misled about that.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: There is no such Committee in Ireland.
    Lord R. CECIL: Of course, the Government would be bound to appoint an Advisory Committee under that Regulation if any demand was made for it; they could not resist it. Therefore, there is no case of the kind that has been put forward, because they have got the power to appeal. Having said that, I do not see that there is any claim of hardship. At the same time, I am bound to admit that I have doubts whether the system of internment of suspected persons is an efficient way of causing the law to be obeyed in any country. I doubt whether it has ever succeeded. I do not say it is wrong. The Government know their difficulties better than I can know them, but I confess I have grave doubts. I would rather see these men, if it is at all possible, tried and convicted and punished, because if they are guilty, if they are criminals, the punishment inflicted on them by internment is ridiculously inadequate. They ought to be punished very severely if they are guilty of some of the most cruel and wicked crimes it is possible to accuse them of. But if, on the other hand, they are innocent, they ought not to be punished at all. There is, I know, the great difficulty of getting witnesses, and it may be that this

    1579
    is the only course open to the Government, and, therefore, I personally would not like to say that they were wrong. All I would impress on the Government is that they should make every endeavour to substitute some other form of enforcement of the law if any such method can be found, because I do very strongly impress upon this House that the present condition of Ireland is a scandal and a disgrace to this country, and to the whole conception of law and order throughout the world. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) made a great attack on the Government. He said they ought to make peace and friends with Ireland. What does he suggest? What is his practical proposal?
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Self-determination.
    Lord R. CECIL: An Irish Republic?
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the Irish people want it.
    Lord R. CECIL: Does the hon. Member think that is a practical proposal? Does he think there is any House of Commons—not only this House of Commons, but any conceivable House of Commons—that would sanction the setting up of an Irish Republic? If he does think so—and I cannot believe he does—it is not consistent with his position of responsibility in this House to make a suggestion of that kind. The condition of Ireland, according to a gentleman who was only recently there, is incredible. I am told—the Government will correct me if I am wrong—that practically the police do not exist as an efficient force for keeping order. They are never allowed out at night, when crime is most rampant. In the daytime they are never allowed out except two or three together, and even then sometimes they are shot. Gangs of men raid and pull down police barracks, raid cattle and enforce their own rules or their own laws. Practically the government of Ireland in the South exists only on Sufferance. No order of the Government can be carried out, as I understand, unless the Sinn Fein authorities choose to permit it, and co-incidentally every enemy of Sinn Fein is liable to be shot. I ask the hon. Member for Govan, suppose he were Chief Secretary, would he submit to that? Not at all. I know him far too well.
    Mr. W. THORNE: It would not exist.
    Lord R. CECIL: What is the proposal? Make the hon. Member Chief Secretary?
    Mr. THORNE: Not under the present circumstances would he be Chief Secretary. Not likely!
    Lord R. CECIL: But the hon. Member opposite does not really believe for a moment that any Government in charge of the administration of the law could possibly allow such a state of things to exist without exerting themselves to the utmost to put it down. It is all very well to say, grant a Republic; but, in the conditions I have described, assuming they are not exaggerated, would anyone really say he would hand over the law-abiding part of the population absolutely to the mercy of men who have established a blood tyranny of that kind? I do not believe anyone would. I do not believe the hon. Member opposite would be a party to such a betrayal of his fellow-countrymen, and I am quite sure that if anybody got up and made this proposal it would be scoffed at by every section of the House. My complaint against the Government is that they have allowed this thing to drift and drift until it has got into a position which is exceedingly difficult. They ought to have begun much earlier, and enforced the law with much greater vigour. Even now I should be glad to learn that they are really going to turn over a new leaf, and to see that the law-abiding population in Ireland is given freedom and liberty, and, above all, safety to life and limb. It would not be in order to go back on the Debates of Irish policy. But I say it would be criminal at this moment to introduce a Bill to hamper their action. I earnestly hope the Government will consider very carefully whether the policy of internment is really a good policy, and whether some other plan of keeping order in Ireland would not be more effective and less liable to misrepresentation in this country and in Ireland.
    Major MALONE: I wish to say here, as an Irishman, that I repudiate with all my might any support of an Irish Republic. Let that be clear in the mind of everybody. Within the Realm there is great work to be done by the British Government, and it is the strongest indictment against the British Government I ever heard uttered when they

    1581
    say that law and order are nil in Ireland, that they cannot control, that they have to draw in their outposts of police and such like, which shows clearly that their Government in Ireland is a failure. It is not for the release of these prisoners that we are speaking this evening. I say do not release them, but I say that you passed rules last November which were more harsh than ever existed before, and I do believe that the opportunity arises now when your rules should be revised, or reviewed at least. It is all very well to say that these men can commit suicide if they like, but Christianity is opposed to suicide, and what will Christianity say of the authorities who can prevent suicide and yet will not do so? I submit that they will not be held blameless in the eyes of the people of this country or in the eyes of the people of the world. Therefore, I say that something should be done now. I would almost beg of the Irish Government to try to revert to the old rule that existed before last November. By that means things might settle down. After all, Ireland is a big nation, not only in Ireland, but in America and in this country and all over the world. And what will the Irish people all over the world think if, under the eyes of the British Government, these men are allowed to commit suicide, and the Irish Government will not raise a finger to protect them? I certainly hold that there is a very grave responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Irish Government, and I would appeal again to them not to release these people, but to relax the rule so that they may be dealt with in some sort of way, if not as political prisoners, then as semi-political prisoners. I hope the Government may do something in order to save the situation, because it is a very serious danger. People in this country will not stand aside if the Irish Government is so callous as to allow these people to commit suicide.
    Colonel ASHLEY: We have heard a good deal this evening about the woes and the alleged wrongs inflicted on those in Ireland who are not loyal to the British connection. May I appeal to the Government to look after those men in Ireland who have been, and are still, loyal to the British connection, namely, the ex-service men? The position of those men as compared with these voluntarily-starving people is pathetic. Nobody seems to
    1582
    care about them. They came and fought for this country in its time of need. They came voluntarily, and I want to know from the Government what they are going to do to look after them and reward them for what they have done. A newspaper cutting came into my hands this morning, or I would not have intervened in this Debate. It shows what is the position of the loyal in Ireland at the present moment. It is a report of a meeting the week before last of the Clonmel Board of Guardians. One of the resolutions they passed unanimously, with one slight protest from the Chairman, who said he thought it was rather strong, was
    "That in future no member or ex-member of the British Army in Ireland, or any member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, be admitted as a patient to the hospital of the Clonmel Union, no matter by whom recommended, and we call upon all public bodies who have charge of public hospitals in Ireland to refuse to admit such patients in their hospitals."
    We have often had bitter political controversy in this country, and there has often been bitter controversy in Ireland, but I must say I never thought that an Irish public body would have passed such a resolution as that and carry it into effect. That is to say, in Clonmel, where there is a considerable body of ex service men organised, no member of that body however ill he may be, or whatever accident he may suffer, is to be allowed to go into the union workhouse infirmary because he has served this country. I hope the Irish Government will pay a little more attention to the wrongs of these men, and a little less attention to the so-called wrongs of those people who are starving themselves by their own act. It is a notorious fact that these ex-service men cannot get any employment in Ireland, simply because they have worn the King's uniform and served this country in her time of need. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a wise policy to stick to your friends.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to make one or two suggestions about this matter, but, first of all, may I ask if it were not the case, as mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, that there were different Regulations for the treatment of these political prisoners? Because, after all, they are not ordinary criminals; that is admitted on all sides of the House

    1583
    [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, even in old Russia and Germany a political prisoner was in a different position from a criminal. When the present Home Secretary was the Chief Secretary for Ireland these men received certain treatment. They were treated as political suspects. Remember, after all, that many of these men have not been tried, but are only under suspicion. Is it not true that these special rules then made have been scrapped and replaced by the present rules, and—not to put too fine a point upon it—with these minute exceptions, these men are treated just the same as if they were ordinary common criminals? In Ireland to-day the commission of the ordinary crime of murder, burglary, rape, or anything of that sort, is looked upon with the same abhorrence as in this country, but if a man commits a crime under the guise of politics he is lauded up to the skies. This, I am afraid it must be admitted, refers to all parts of Ireland, North, South, East and West, and refers to a very large, if not a majority of the population. If that is the case, if that is the only reason why these men are hunger-striking, I really think we are risking too much if we allow any of them to die. I am afraid the speech of the Lord Privy Seal to-day will be welcomed by every enemy of this country, and we have many enemies all over the world—rather more than we had five years ago. They will be delighted to read that speech. The same thing, I am afraid, has happened in connection with Russia, which I think my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, the Member for Maid-stone, interjected a remark about. We have enemies in Russia for the same reason.
    Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. I mentioned America, not Russia. The American Bolsheviks did far less, and there was less ground on which to arrest them, than that on which we have arrested the men in Ireland. Nevertheless, they were arrested. They resorted to hunger-striking. The Americans supplied the food, and made it clear as to what would happen if it was not taken. The Bolsheviks gave up hunger-striking. They were subsequently put on board a steamer and deported to Russia.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought the hon. and gallant Member mentioned Russia. What I was going to say was that the best friends of the Russian extremists have been the extremists in this country. There are many of the extremists in Ireland hoping and praying that these men may be allowed to die. There are many bitter enemies of this country abroad hoping and praying that this House of Commons will permit them to die, and I am afraid they will receive the speech of the Lord Privy Seal with great pleasure and joy and, I repeat, we have too many enemies abroad. When the Attorney-General for Ireland was speaking I interjected a suggestion—and he rose rather earlier than I thought he would, for I should like to have heard his opinion on this suggestion—that these men, who, it is said, cannot be tried because of the danger to the witnesses, might be brought before courts-martial, and dealt with as I shall in a moment say. We had a precedent for this during the War in the case of alien spies. In these cases it was possible to try these spies in camera in order that our special counter-espoinage service should not be given away. Could we not have some procedure of this sort in these cases—courts-martial in which the evidence is produced in writing, the men having sworn this evidence before a police official—as I suppose is done now—stating that "this evidence relates to prisoner X or Y." This was actually done in the case of spies who were court-martialled, because even German spies were not shot or done to death without trial. I admit it is just as important now to guard our means of detecting these offences. We can take adequate steps, but the spies got that trial that we are now refusing to these Irishmen in prison.
    There has been rather a suggestion in this Debate that this is a matter which simply concerns England and Ireland. It is nothing of the sort. On the other side of the water, across the Atlantic, in Australia, South Africa, India, wherever there are Englishmen and Irishmen, I am afraid you will only find in the papers, or very largely, the Irish side of the case. I am going to quote a little about this Irish side, because it answers one of the points that was made with great ability by the Attorney-General for Ireland. He

    1585
    said that many of these men were interned because they had ammunition in their houses, and this was discovered by the raiding parties. I am quoting from the "Irish Independent," a newspaper of repute, and I particularly commend this to the Noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Cecil). This is a case of a Southern Protestant farmer, presumably a Unionist, a large farmer and justice of the peace, who, of course, has taken the oath. The account says that
    "Mr. George O'Grady, J.P., Norwood, Coachford, Cork, was arrested yesterday morning when at 4 a.m. a large military party made an exhaustive search at his residence. He was conveyed to Cork gaol, but no charge was stated. Mr. O'Grady's name has been prominently connected with poultry rearing, Mrs. O'Grady having won a prize of £1,000 offered by an English paper, a few years ago for the best poultry system."
    I just mention this to show that these are people leading an industrious and a law-abiding life to all intents and purposes—
    "Mr. O'Grady's stepson, Lieut. O'Donovan, served through the War, being several times wounded."
    He was one of the loyal soldiers who, I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Friend who preceded me, deserves well of us. He is amongst the many hundreds of thousands who fought in the War, and readily served their country—
    "In an interview, Mrs. O'Grady declared her husband took little interest in anything beyond farming. The military completely surrounded the house and were admitted by her husband, who was immediately arrested."
    I make no apology for reading this, for I desire to show something of the Irish atmosphere in this matter. Remember, this is one of some 20,000 raids that have taken place in the last two years, and each similar case adds to the growing exasperation against this method of procedure. Mrs. O'Grady continues:
    "The first intimation I got of the presence of soldiers was when four rushed into my bedroom. I was in bed, and I asked them to leave the room while I was dressing, They answered they would stay there, and I had to dress in their presence."
    At the time of the French Revolution, my Noble Friend opposite will remember, one of the things which horrified the British people was the fact that Marie Antoinette was forced to perform her toilet and to dress in the presence of soldiers. Marie Antoinette was the Queen
    1586
    of France. This was a poor farmer's wife in Ireland. She is a woman, and should be honoured as such as well as any queen or empress in the world. Mrs. O'Grady continues:
    "Before I had finished one of the officers called to me to come down. I was asked to look at two bullets with flat heads, and asked what they were. I said 'bullets' and that I did not know what kind."
    This is the ammunition that justifies, I suppose, this poor Irish farmer being kept in Mountjoy Prison!
    "I was told (said Mrs. O'Grady), 'You know well, for they are old Fenian bullets.' I retorted that I did not know anything about them. The officer then took in his hand an empty press clip into which bullets fit, and I was asked, 'Do you know they have been recently fired within this week or fortnight?' and I answered 'No,' and that they were never in the house. I was then asked for keys of presses. I gave them up, but the presses were broken open. One wardrobe, my mother's, I asked them especially not to break, but still they broke it."
    I suppose this is one of the cases where reliable people report to the Executive, and declare that Mr. G. O'Grady, M.P., farmer, is a suspect. I mention these little details about the presses, and so on, because this sort of thing 20,000 times repeated does naturally affect people's minds—
    "The house was completely ransacked. Rooms in which my children were, a boy of 12 and a girl of 10, were also searched. My girl was sick, but was ordered out of bed. Everything was turned topsyturvy, though nothing was done to hinder the search. They were about five hours in the house."
    Mrs. O'Grady also mentions robberies of money which I here state I cannot believe without inquiry. I refuse to believe that these robberies have taken place unless there is some sort of trial, but I would ask that the law should be impartially applied in Ireland when complaints are made that articles of value are stolen. These complaints should be investigated, partly from the mere abstract point of view of justice and partly to clear the honour of British soldiers when they are accused of stealing these articles—
    "The coachman, Keane, has a room in the house, and I told them he was an old man. They did not give him time to open his door, but broke it in and pitched him out of bed. They left the house about 9.30 a.m., and there was taken away an old rifle, field-glasses, and satin cushions hand-painted with shamrocks, in addition to the roll of notes."
    And here, in the matter of the accusations of robbery, I again repeat that I

    1587
    do not wish it to be reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT that I accept these statements without trial. I do say, however, there ought to be an investigation into these accusations which are appearing in papers in this country and are circulated and being repeated in every country where we have enemies. This, then, I say is a little of the other side of the picture.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he does not believe one accusation why he should believe the others?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is a difference. When soldiers break into people's houses they may be in danger of their lives, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale, I am sure, will admit that they are justified perhaps in not acting up to all the courtesies, and it may be that the women and children and old men in these houses are subjected to discomfort and terror in these raids. There is bound to be a certain amount of violence and acts done against people's convenience, but that is not an accusation against the soldiers. If the soldiers have to carry out this horrible duty—and I have letters from soldiers in Ireland complaining that they hate this work, and did not enter the Army to do this kind of work—well, it is done, but that is not my case. What the Executive, of course, are doing in Ireland, it is admitted, is this: They are driven to desperation in trying to keep some sort of law and order in the country. There is a wonderful intelligence system against them. I sup-pose the Sinn Fein intelligence system is one of the most wonderful things to-day in the world. There is an extraordinary efficient underground organisation of desperate and exalted men willing to sacrifice everything, up to life itself, to make our government of Ireland impossible. These are the facts and we have to face them. What the Executive is doing is this—I am not saying for the moment whether it is right or wrong—they are getting hold of every leader in Ireland. If a man is elected on a county council, or a rurul district council, or a board of guardians, he is arrested, and the Government hope that that will break down resistance.
    1588
    I have given a very brief outline of the means used. If it is necessary that these men, some eighty-nine of them, who are on the hunger strike, should be allowed to starve themselves to death, with all the effect that will make in the world, the weakening of our moral force in the councils of the nations just when we are trying to settle down a surging world, if it is necessary to inflict these hardships and carry on this raiding, tearing away the sanctity of the home and prostituting the ever-glorious British Army, which has earned such a name in the last few years, if this is the only alternative, let us clear out and leave the country. I am glad that one Labour representative in this House has had the courage to say that if the Irish people insist upon an Irish Republic, let them have it. If we have to do all these things to keep Ireland, then it is not worth it, and it is not going to pay us. Let us clear out. If it is necessary to use these means, and if these eighty-nine men, mostly of high character, who are starving themselves is a symptom of the feeling of the people of Ireland, is it worth keeping Ireland? We may lose Ireland by our methods just as we lost the American colonies. I am afraid, as regards our present methods, Ireland is lost to us.
    Captain LOSEBY: I make no apology for detaining the House for about four minutes. I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. It is peculiarly unsuitable that the type of story in regard to the military in Ireland which the hon. and gallant Gentleman told us, and which he rightly compared to an act which has been described as one of the worst acts of the French Rebellion, should be told by one who himself was a naval officer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is a naval officer.
    Captain LOSEBY: Had I not been told I should have found it hard to believe. It is very peculiar, because knowing his ex-comrades, he will know it is the type of story which they will think hardly worth the credence which he gave to it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to put words into my mouth which I did not use. What I said was that there ought to be an enquiry, and

    1589
    I said that I did not believe the charge. There is bound to be violence and outrage on the sanctity of the home in such proceedings.
    Captain LOSEBY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted, apparently with approval, the story of the military in Ireland. It is true that in speaking afterwards in regard to the charge of theft and small matters, he said he took no responsibility for it. All I can can say is that my experience of my brother officers is not that described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if there is such an isolated case as that which he has quoted, then I am sure it is only one in ten thousand. There is just one other thing which I think we ought to remember in regard to this question. The Government is in the unfortunate position, thanks to the actions of the Irish people themselves, and not to the actions of the people of this country, of having to act without the rules that ordinarily obtain under the law of this country.
    It so happens that at the same time and in the same prison they are forced to
    retain men who are there upon suspicion only, in order that society may be protected. In that same prison you have-people who are only punished by imprisonment, whom you know full well ought to be hanged by the neck, and punished much more seriously than they are being punished. We can go much too far in this matter. I, for one, have much more confidence in the wisdom of the Government in this particular matter than I have in some of their critics. I hope the Government will be firm. I believe firmness is the only policy to be adopted, and I think the time will come when the people of Ireland will see that this misery which they are bringing upon themselves, although it is true they are involving us at the same time, can only be put an end to by themselves coming to their senses and assisting the people of this country, as they would assist them if they were given the opportunity.
    Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 79.]

    AYES.

    [7.53 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gardiner, James

    Maddocks, Henry

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Mallalieu, F. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Martin, Captain A. E.

    Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

    Gould, James C.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Greer, Harry

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Gregory, Holman

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Morison, Thomas Brash

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

    Morris, Richard

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Murray, John (Leeds, West)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Brackenbury, Captain H. L.

    Hancock, John George

    Neal, Arthur

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Britton, G. B.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Bruton, Sir James

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Parker, James

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Butcher, Sir John George

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Perring, William George

    Cautley, Henry S.

    Jameson, J. Gordon

    Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

    Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)

    Jesson, C.

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Jodrell, Neville Paul

    Purchase, H. G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Johnson, L. S.

    Rae, H. Norman

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstapie)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Remer, J. R.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    King, Commander Henry Douglas

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Roundeil, Colonel R. F.

    Dawes, James Arthur

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

    Royden, Sir Thomas

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lister, Sir J. Ashton

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

    Edge, Captain William

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lonsdale, James Rolston

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Seager, Sir William

    Finney, Samuel

    Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)

    Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

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

    Williams, Lt.-Cot. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Simm, M. T.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

    Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

    Waddington, R.

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Stanton, Charles B.

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Ward, Colonel J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Sugden, W. H.

    Waring, Major Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Irving, Dan

    Spoor, B. G.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Swan, J. E.

    Cairns, John

    Kenyon, Barnet

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Waterson, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Wignall, James

    Entwistie, Major C. F.

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Myers, Thomas

    Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Mills, J. E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Hallas, Eldred

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Robertson, John

    Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. T. Griffiths.

    Hayward, Major Evan

    Sexton, James

    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY.—Considered in Committee.
    [MR. WHITLEY IN THE CHAIR.]

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,323,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."—[NOTE.—£12,000,000 has been voted on account.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. [Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY IN THE CHAIR.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Short Title.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that an indication was given yesterday that this Bill would not be taken to-day. There are no Amendments down on the Paper, but, I handed in some
  1592
  in the early part of to-day's sitting, and, before the Committee stage is now proceeded with, I want to ask how far it is proposed to go with the Bill? I know there are certain points which hon. Members wish to raise, and it is putting us in a rather unfortunate position by taking it now, because we understood that time would be allowed for a proper debate of certain parts of the Bill.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): The understanding, I believe, was that this Bill would be taken, not at a late hour, but at a time when it would be possible to consider it. There was no undertaking that it should not be taken to-day.
  Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 4.—(References to General Officers to include Colonel-Commandant.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Earlier in the day I handed in an Amendment to leave out this Clause. Its object is to do away with the ancient rank of brigadier-general in the British Army and to introduce a new rank—that of colonel-commandant. I submit that before we pass this Clause the suggestion wants considering rather carefully. The

  1593
  title of brigadier-general is a very ancient and honourable one in the Army. I am not an Army officer, but some of my forebears did so serve. I think it would be very unfortunate to abolish the title in favour of the new-fangled title of colonel-commandant. I do not know whether there is any object of economy underlying the proposal; if so, there may be something in it. I speak with diffidence in the presence of hon. Members who hold Army rank, and I do not wish to lay down the law in matters such as this, but I do think that ordinary officers would prefer to be called brigadiers to bearing the title of colonel-commandant. They would rather keep to the old designation. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet in charge of the Estimates will explain why it is proposed to bring about this change in title.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension as to the object of this Clause. It makes no change such as he suggests. It only renders it possible for certain Sections of the Army (Annual) Act to be administered by a colonel-commandant where such an individual exists. It does not really abolish the rank of brigadier-general. It only enables the colonel-commandant to do certain things which the brigadier-general is now empowered to do. The question of the abolition of the rank of brigadier-general hardly arises on this Bill. I can imagine there are reasons which will occur to all of us why a change should be made. One is the very large number of generals now on the establishment. When the brigadier-generals are added to the total, all calling themselves generals, the number is very considerable, and this possibly may have had some influence in bringing about the suggested change. But it has not yet been made, and this Clause merely renders it possible even when such a change is made for the colonel-commandant to exercise the powers now given to the brigadier-general.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the change is made, and as I understand we cannot, discuss the point now, shall we have an opportunity of discussing the full reasons for making it? I presume it will be possible to debate the matter on the Army Estimates.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot promise that a specific opportunity shall be created for such a discussion, but this is a matter affecting the general administration of the Army, and the hon. and gallant Member will have the usual opportunity of raising the question when Army business is before the House.
  Clauses 5 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 23.—(Penalty for Interference with Military Duty.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I handed in an Amendment early this afternoon to leave out this Clause, and my reason is, not that I wish any person to wilfully obstruct, impede, or otherwise interfere with any officer or soldier in the exercise of his duties, or to wilfully produce any disease or infirmity in, or to maim or injure any man whom he knows to be a soldier with a view to enabling such man to avoid military service, or to do anything to enable a soldier to render himself permanently or temporarily unfit for service—it is not that I wish to object to a person doing these things, being imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months, that I object to this Clause. But this is an Army (Annual) Bill, and I submit it is very objectionable that a change in the common law, creating new offences, should be smuggled through Parliament in this way. This, I believe, is one of the offences dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act. We have certain statutory limitations, always excepting in the case of unhappy Ireland, limiting the operation of the Clauses of the Defence of the Realm Act to a certain time, but I do suggest that new offences ought not to be embodied in the Army (Annual) Bill in this way. That is not the purpose of the Army (Annual) Bill at all, for that measure is simply brought forward to enable the Government to perform an otherwise illegal act in keeping up a standing army. To bring in this Defence of the Realm Act Regulation, which affects not soldiers, sailors, airmen and Royal Marines, but civilians, is, I suggest, most improper. I think we should have some very good reason from the Government as to why it

  1595
  is being done in this case, before we consent to allow the Clause to stand part.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member does not disagree that the offences mentioned in the Clause are serious and reprehensible, and should be punished If that is so, and if a soldier is to be punished for committing any of these offences, on what ground of justice can a civilian commit such an offence without meriting punishment? The object of this Regulation is to make a civilian, who interferes with a soldier in the manner indicated, liable to punishment for an offence which would be punishable if committed by a soldier.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My whole argument is that, while such an enactment may be very right and proper, this is not the sort of Bill into which it should be put. I very much question its legality, and I regret that no Law Officer of the Crown is here to give us his opinion on that point. I beg leave to move the adjournment until a Law Officer of the Crown can attend to give us his ruling on this point, which affects every person in the country. It is a point of very great substance, and we should have the Law Officers here. I very much doubt whether, if it were embodied in the Army Act and a case were brought under it, such a case would lie before a court of law. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The CHAIRMAN: I could not accept that Motion. The only question for me, as being in charge of the proceedings, is whether or not the Clause is in order, and in my opinion it is in order. The proper course for the hon. and gallant Member to take would be to move that the Clause be left out.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I apologise for having omitted to deal with the question of the punishment of civilians under the Army Act. Under Clause 153 of the Army Act, which has already been passed by this House years ago, civilians are capable of being punished. I can therefore assure the hon. and gallant Member that no new precedent is created.
  Clauses 24, 25, and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 27.—(Date on which Amendments to Air Force Act are to come into operation.)
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have an Amendment down to the Schedule, on which I intended to raise a question of considerable importance, namely, whether the inclusion of the Air Force in the Army Act is desirable. I should like to ask your ruling, Mr. Whitley, as to whether I should be more in order in moving the deletion of Clause 27 than in moving, as stated in my Amendment, the deletion from the Schedule of the lines which apply to the Air Force?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member will be more in order in dealing with that on Clause 27, because, as far as the Preamble is concerned, that must be in accord with the Clauses of the Bill, and therefore he would be too late at the other stage.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  I am very much obliged, Sir, for your ruling. I should have said, "Preamble." I did not expect the Bill to be brought on quite so hurriedly, and I apologise for not having prepared my notes with greater care. This Clause raises the question whether the Air Force should be included in the Army (Annual) Bill. This is the first Army Act which has included the Air Force, as I have ascertained since the Bill was read a second time last night. I consider that it is very unfortunate that this attempt is now being made, and I hope the House will resist it, for two reasons. The first is, that the Air Force, by an act of this House, is as much a separate Service from the Army as is the Royal Navy. Strictly speaking, I believe, we do not have a Royal Navy Act. It is not illegal to keep a Fleet of the King's ships, but it is illegal to keep a standing Army, and therefore this Act of indemnity is brought in. I do not know if it has been laid down that it is illegal to keep a standing Air Force, but apparently it is accepted by the Law Officers of the Crown that it is illegal, because they seek powers, under this Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, to include the Air Force. I think it is unfortunate that the Air Force has been bracketed with the Army in this manner.

  1597
  The whole endeavour of the great majority of hon. Members of this House, both in the last Parliament and in this, has been the creation and maintenance of a separate Air Force. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Commander Bellairs) will hold a different opinion, which I respect very much; but he holds that opinion because he thinks the sea part of the flying service should be under the Royal Navy. I am certain that he will support me in objecting to the whole of the Air Force being coupled with, and having the appearance of being attached as an annex to, the Army. That is even more objectionable from his point of view of the Royal Navy having the control of its own Air Force.
  My second reason for objecting to this inclusion is as follows:—The time might easily arise when the people of this country might consider that their liberties were best preserved by the maintenance of an armed militia on the Swiss model—a citizen army, a Territorial army, or something of that sort—and they might consider that their liberties were not being preserved by keeping up a standing army. Personally, I hope they will reach that view, because I think that democracy will best be served by a citizen army. At the same time, the Air Force is so technical that I do not think it would be possible to have a citizen Air Force. If you are going to have a fighting Air Force at all, you will always have to have a long-service, highly trained, professional Air Force. Therefore, circumstances might, and I rather think will, arise in which it might be desirable to object to the maintenance of a standing Army, while it might be realised that a standing Air Force was necessary. This is not at all a visionary argument, because I think that, with the development of armaments, the fighting forces will be eventually merged into the Air Force, and that, without doubt, in the time of most of us, you will have an international aerial police, of which every country will furnish its quota. If this not at all imaginary situation should arise, we should be precluded from objecting to the maintenance of a standing Army without at the same time objecting to the maintenance of a standing Air Force, and therefore I do not think the House ought to pass this Clause. If once we admit this precedent, we shall
  1598
  always be prevented from objecting to the keeping of a standing military force, because at the same time that would deprive us of what some of us might consider to be very necessary aerial defences. This is an objection of great substance against Clause 27, and I do not think the Government would lose very much if they dropped this Clause, and brought in another Bill called the Air Force (Annual) Bill. I think hon. Members will be quite prepared to assist its passage through the House. I am sure Members of both wings of the Opposition would support me if I suggested that as an exchange for the concession, and I appeal to the Government, therefore, to drop Clause 27 and to bring in another Bill called the Air Force (Annual) Bill, which will do away with this very great objection of having the Air Force sandwiched in with the Army.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has succeeded for a brief moment in what he was angling for, for me to give him a little breathing space. I agree with him that there ought to be a separate Bill, but it ought not to be an Annual Bill. The Navy is organised under the Naval Discipline Act, which is revised from time to time. There ought to be a Discipline Act for the Air Force. The reason we have an Army (Annual) Bill is that Parliament, by Resolution, pronounced a standing army to be unconstitutional. But there my support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman ends, and there will be quite time for the Government to have a breathing space if we pass the Bill as it stands, and perhaps in another year, when the Air Force has had more time to consider its discipline, they will be able to produce a separate Act for the discipline of the Air Force.
  Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD: I wish to say a word or two on the proposition which has been put forward, more particularly "i" dotting and "t" crossing of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bellairs). He wants Clause 27 struck out of the Bill, because then there would be a possible chance later on of avoiding the constitutional objection to an armed land force by bringing in a permanent Act. He does not wish it to be an annual Act. I am sure hon. Members who represent the Labour interest are going to do nothing to weaken

  1599
  in the slightest degree the old constitutional safeguard that no armed land force of any description can be kept in these realms without passing an annual Act of Parliament. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is that that time-honoured safeguard of our liberties shall be abolished and that one branch of the Force, which may be as time goes on very important both for actual offensive mass operations on land as well as on sea, and may be the predominating force possibly for striking and for defence as the years go on, should be excluded from the Army (Annual) Act. There has been civil war in this country to maintain this Constitutional right of the people, and I do not think the Labour Members, however much the hon. and gallant Gentleman appeals to them, are going to separate this possibly most important branch of the land forces of the Crown from the Army (Annual) Act and the privileges and rights which it gives the citizen as the result of that Constitutional practice and privilege. What both hon. and gallant Gentlemen are aiming at is to get another Department established for military affairs.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The other Department exists to-day. The Secretary of State for the Army is Secretary of State for Air on a separate Department.
  Lieut.-Colonel WARD: But if it was a separate Ministry, it is a moral certainty that it would be a much greater and more expensive Department than it is now. The object is to get behind the express wish of this House for economy in military expenditure and they hope to get it by a side wind. It is true, no doubt, that the Air Force is an extremely technical Department, but this War has produced several Departments which might just as reasonably claim separate Ministries to deal with them. Tanks and machine guns and a host of other things have shown themselves to be most important. Why not a Ministry for artillery, one for infantry and one for cavalry? You might go on ad infinitum. If Labour Members listened to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) for a moment they would be letting themselves in for an infinitely greater expenditure in military affairs than exists at present. I warn them, therefore, not to be
  1600
  led into giving countenance in any way whatever to the suggestion that there should be a separate Act of Parliament, apart from the Army (Annual) Act for the Air Force and a separate Ministry, and by some subterfuge avoid in the Constitutional principle that there must be every year an Act of Parliament. We are exercising a privilege in passing this Act. If it does not pass within so many days every soldier can walk out of barracks if he chooses. This gives us an enormous power and we are not going to whittle it away as the result of soft speeches from the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There is no hidden meaning of a dangerous kind, from the point of view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the change which has been made in the title of the Bill, bringing together the Air Force with the Army. When the Air Force was first constituted in 1917 it was provided by Section 12 of the Act that the life of the Air Force was to be the same as that of the Army, and Amendments of the Army Act were made to operate automatically as Amendments of the Air Force Act, subject to such modifications as might be made by Orders in Council. Therefore, the form of the Army (Annual) Bill remained unchanged, and it was still called the Army (Annual) Bill. But this method of legislation has proved somewhat unsatisfactory in practice, firstly, because occasionally it has proved a matter of considerable difficulty to adapt Amendments of the Army Act so as to make them applicable to the Air Force, and conversely there was no method provided whereby Amendments could be made in the Air Force Act which were not required for the Army. Consequently, the Bill of this Session consists of three parts. First of all, there are the Amendments of the Army Act itself, to apply to the Army, there are the Amendments of the Air Force Act which apply especially to the Air Force, and there are the Amendments in Part III. which are common to both Forces. That is the whole explanation of why the Bill has been presented to the House in the present form. With regard to what has been said as to making the Air Force a permanent force, without the necessity of having to come to this House for the renewal of its existence, it does not require any words of repudiation from

  1601
  me. I do not think the rights of the people are going to be set aside by any such suggestion as that. As to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that the time may come when the Air Force is not only the more important force of the two, but possibly the only force, and that we would in such a case be hampered by the fact that we have what is called an Army and Air Force Act applicable to the Air Force, and that we should, thereby, still be tied to the existence of an Army, we may leave those circumstances to be dealt with when they arise, and we should find means to relieve ourselves of an unnecessary Army and concentrate upon the Air Force.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must say something in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) because he has done me an injustice, which I am sure he did not mean. When this Bill came on last night for Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) desired to bring up the question of courts-martial, but that was ruled out of order on the Second Reading. I was afterwards called upon, and if the hon. and gallant Member would look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will sec that my object in the form of this Amendment is to safeguard the right of the people to refuse the Crown permission to a standing army, which he has so ably defended. If he thinks that I am in any way wishful to weaken that ancient constitutional power by my Amendment, I ask him to believe that he is entirely mistaken. I want to strengthen that constitutional power. I want to have a separate Act brought in for the Air Force, but not for the purpose of allowing the Air Force to be kept on without having to come to this House for permission. I want one Act for the Army, and another for the Air Force. I am, however, iinclined to agree with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and to give the Government a little breathing time and not to press the Amendment to-night. I hope, however, that next year, if the hon. Baronet who represents the War Office is in his present position, that he will agree that two Acts should be brought in. It would be more satisfactory in every way, especially if there are separate Amendments required for the
  1602
  Air Force. I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment, but I do seriously suggest that it would be more satisfactory if the two Acts were separate, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke will agree with me after my explanation that that will in no way weaken the ancient constitutional right of the people to forbid a standing army if they wish it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Death Sentences (Appeal).)
  "In all cases of death sentences there shall be a right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal."—[Major Lowther.]
  Brought up, and read in the First time.
  Major LOWTHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  A large number of the Clauses of this Bill are based upon the recommendations of the Committee which sat at the War Office to inquire into the procedure of courts-martial. I had the honour of being a member of that Committee, and I must confess that I signed the Minority Report. I understood last night, on your ruling, Sir, that it is not the custom of this House that matters which generally appear in the Bill can be discussed on Second Reading. Therefore, in consultation with some hon. Friends, I put down-this New Clause. I confess that the Clause as it stands is very imperfectly drafted, but with the Committee stage following so closely on the Second Reading, we were in a certain sense precluded from considering at full length the machinery that we might have added to the Clause to make it more fitting. As it stands, the Clause does embody a principle which was strongly felt by hon. Members who agreed with me on the Committee, that a man on joining the Army should not entirely lose the right of citizenship. I wish the hon. Member for South Hackney were present, because he would bring this point forward far more eloquently than I can, but, unfortunately, he is not able to be present to-night. We should always bear in mind that the Army (Annual) Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, that it is in force during the year for which it is intended, and that

  1603
  it may be applicable at any time to a large number of men who are voluntary or conscripted soldiers. That is to say, if, unfortunately, there broke out another war of a great magnitude, many voluntary or conscripted soldiers would, during the course of this Act, be liable to its provisions. That being so, I feel strongly that if the principle that I have enunciated is sound, it might be embodied in this Army (Annual) Bill. It may be urged that we are not in present danger of a war and that consideration of the matter might be well left over for some future time; but I would point out that if the matter were raised in future, those who raised it would be met with the question, "Why did not you raise it when the new recommendations of the Courts-martial Committee were first introduced into the Army (Annual) Bill?"
  I should like to state very briefly what happened during the War when a man was tried by court-martial for his life. He was brought before a court consisting of officers who, throughout the War—and it is a very great thing to be able to say—were renowned for fairness and impartiality. No more striking fact appeared during the course of the Committee s investigations than the confidence that was universally shown among all ranks in the perfect fairness of courts-martial. Therefore, as to the fairness of the trial, and men are but human after all, there can be no question of doubt, but there was and is bound to be a question always as to whether men, although they may know their Army (Annual) Act well, and their manual of military law well, do really know sufficient about the legal technical side to be able to arrive, in all the circumstances, at a perfectly proper decision. After a man had been tried, and supposing the court found that he was guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and that the punishment which corresponded to that offence was that of death, he was handed a secret envelope in which was given the decision of the court, together with the information that the sentence was liable to revision by higher authority. I am not quoting the exact words, because I do not recollect them, but that was the purport of the communication which he received. The findings and sentence of the court are
  1604
  then passed up the long ladder of staff officers, and so on until they reach the Commander-in-Chief, and he, after consultation with the Judge Advocate-General, as the case was in France—supposing that the Judge Advocate-General said that the proceedings were perfectly in order and legal—then decided as to whether the sentence should be commuted, carried out, suspended, or whatever it might be.
  That imposed upon the legal officers grave responsibilities which, in this new Clause, we would like to remove from their shoulders. The point we take is this. A man enlists for war service. Perhaps he goes into the Army or perhaps into munitions. If he goes into the Army, it is true that he gets the best legal protection that the Army can afford, but if he goes into munition work, supposing he happens to be tried by a civil Court of Assizes, he gets a great deal better than that, he gets the best legal brains of the country to consider his case from the legal point of view in the Court of Criminal Appeal. What we are asking in this Clause is that, in the case of death sentences, and only in that case, that same consideration should be given to the legal aspect of a man's case. However badly the Clause is worded, at any rate it embodies a principle on which we felt very strongly, and I believe that if the sense of this Clause were to be adopted by the right hon. Baronet, it would give the greatest confidence through all ranks in the Army that, not only are their cases tried by the fairest body of men whom you could possibly assemble, but that their legal aspect is in the best possible hands.
  Major O'NEILL: As one who had, during the War, considerable experience of these questions, as I was one of the deputy judge advocate-generals in one of the further theatres of war, I would like, in a few words, to put the other side of the case before the House. My hon. and gallant Friend has rather led the House to believe that in these cases where men are unfortunately sentenced to death the legal aspect of their trials has but small consideration. That is not so. The Committee should understand what happened during the War in France and in the other theatres in the case of men sentenced to death. First of all, unlike sentences of any other class, the

  1605
  death sentence had to be confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief, and by him alone. Before the proceedings of a court-martial got up to the Commander-in-Chief they passed through a, large number of purely legal channels. First they would go to the brigade headquarters, then to the division, then to the corps head-quarters. Both the brigade and the divisional commanders put their recommendations from a military point of view as to whether they considered that the crime of which the man had been convicted was so serious that he should be executed for it. Then the proceedings got to the headquarters of the Army Corps and they came under the immediate review of the legal officers, because with every Army Corps in France and the other theatres of War there was an officer who was a barrister or a solicitor in civilian life whose duty it was to advise the commander of the Army Corps on all these legal questions, and to go through these cases in reference to their legal aspect. He read the proceedings in every case where there had been a death sentence, just as he read other proceedings.
  Then the matter went up to the Army. There you had a legal officer of even greater training, generally a deputy assistant adjutant-general, who was in every case a barrister in civilian life before the War. That officer again read the proceedings and advised the Army Commander as to what should be done. He, of course, put on his recommendations in regard to the case. Then it went to the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief had the deputy judge advocate to advise him, and before he confirmed a sentence of death the legal aspect of the case had been considered by at least three different officers whose training was just as good as regards legal matters as that of any counsel who would place a case before the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the legal aspect of those cases was most elaborately gone into to make sure that justice should be done. Then the sentence was either confirmed or not confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief. But a man sentenced to death or to any other sentence has other remedies now. He has this remedy of confirmation. Hon. Members may be surprised to hear that of the number of death sentences passed in France 89 per cent. were commuted by the Commander-in-Chief.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There never would have been if this had been law.
  Major O'NEILL: The number of such sentences was extraordinarily small when we consider the number of men who were engaged, but out of every hundred, if there were so many, eighty-nine had their sentence of death commuted to some other sentence. Probably the sentence was suspended and the man went back, and if he did his duty properly never got into trouble again. The man also has a right of petitioning, which is another remedy. That petition eventually comes before the Judge Advocate General, and the man's case can be fully investigated from that aspect. I think that the soldier to-day has a far better chance of getting his case fully considered if he has been sentenced to death than he would have if the case had to be taken before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Major LOWTHER: My hon. Friend surely does not consider that by this Clause we seek to take away from the Commander-in-Chief the prerogative of mercy? All we do is to seek to relieve him of the legal responsibility, and we maintain that the judges who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal are better legal experts than all those, however excellent, barristers and solicitors, who may have served in the Judge Advocate General's offices, or elsewhere in the army.
  Major O'NEILL: My answer to that is that in the Minority Report, which my hon. and gallant Friend himself signed, he recommended that the system of confirmation, which is the system under which the Commander-in-Chief exercises his prerogative, should be done away with.
  Major LOWTHER: I am sorry to interrupt again. It is not fair to take one of my recommendations without taking the lot. I do not know that it is in order to refer to the matter, but I recommended a number of things which would improve the standing of the Court in the first instance. It would not then be necessary to have these proceedings confirmed.
  Major O'NEILL: I will not go into that. I think I have shown that the soldier at present has very large remedies open to him if he receives this sentence. There is, of course, another objection from the

  1607
  military point of view. It is that in these cases of death sentences, which can take place only in time of war, they are generally passed not in this country. There was not a single case of a death sentence carried out in regard to a soldier serving in England during the War. Such sentences are naturally passed in the theatres of war, where active operations are going on. Take the case of a man who has committed some extreme military crime, say in Mesopotamia. He may have been guilty of a gross form of desertion, as a result of which many of his comrades may have lost their lives. Does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that that man should either himself be sent here to London to have his case heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, or that the "proceedings" of the court-martial should come to London and be investigated by the Court of Criminal Appeal? It would take months, and I venture to say that if that man were executed it would be a scandal that he should have had to wait many months with the uncertainty hanging over him as to whether or not he was going to pay the last penalty. It is absurd to suggest that when men are on active service, and unfortunately receive this sentence in distant theatres, the Commander-in-Chief is not to have the power of carrying out the sentence unless in the meantime the case has come to London to be argued before civilian judges who are not acquainted with military discipline.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: We have heard from the hon. and gallant Member that during the War the number of these cases was extremely small, considering the vast numbers of men employed and the terrific strain of the conditions under which they were employed. One might have expected an enormous number of such cases. It is to the credit of the Army and to the character of our men that they behaved with such remarkable gallantry as to make the number of such cases so few. Now that I understand the internal working of the thing, I am certain that it must be largely due to the influence of men who have not served in the Army that an Amendment of this description is put forward. In the Army, from the Commander-in-Chief down to the junior subaltern, there is not, I am sure, anything but a desire, when a man is in difficulties, to get him out of them. It is
  1608
  only when you can see quite clearly that the discipline of your corps or of your army will go to pieces unless you take extreme means, that such extreme means are taken. As long as it is left to him, the Commander-in-Chief, if there is not that painful necessity due to want of discipline, always finds way and means, as he does in nearly 90 per cent. of the cases, of getting a man off, or he can commute the sentence. Make this appeal to the Court of Appeal—I was going to say, a rotten old Court of Appeal—where the pure legal aspect of the case and dry-as-dust methods of deciding whether it is a legal sentence or not are adopted, and I am afraid that instead of the commutations being more than 80 per cent., the executions would be that proportion. What could a Court of Appeal do? It cannot do as a commanding officer would do, and say that the special danger has gone, and therefore there would be no good in executing a man.
  Major LOWTHER: This proposal does not interfere with the prerogative of the Commander-in-Chief, but would merely decide for him his legal difficulties. When a case had been dealt with and it had been decided what was legally correct, the prerogative would still remain to him. I thought I made that plain.
  Lieut.-Colonel WARD: If the Court of Appeal followed the Army there would be something to say for it. Take, for instance, my own case, among my own men. We were 5,000 miles from Vladivostok, and from there we had to travel another 14,000 miles to get home. The thing is so absurd that it is not worth talking about. Look at the derangement that would take place in bringing witnesses and officers. If it is a case only of looking through the papers, the ordinary legal mind is just as good as the Court of Appeal. Lawyers differ even on pure matters of that kind. One does like to think that the thing is done perfectly legally. If you want the human element to decide these things and not the pure logic of legality, if you want to get off scores of men who otherwise from the purely legal point of view would be executed, if you want to make it a real camaraderie affair, where a man stands 50 times better chance of getting off than he would under any other system of administering the law, then keep it as it is. That is my advice from the practical knowledge that I have of the subject.
  9.0 P.M.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: If I thought that this proposal was really going to improve the chance of the soldier I should support it, but I agree with the view that there is no real hope of improving the lot of the condemned man under this Amendment, and that he is better off as he is under present conditions. Everybody is, of course, anxious to make every possible allowance for the soldier who gets into trouble on the field, because he is subjected to mental and physical strain that does not exist in civil life. One always has at the back of one's mind the recollection that the man has voluntarily run risks for the country, and that if he shirked his duty and stayed at home he would not have got into disgrace. Therefore everybody's instinct is to do the best for the soldier. The only issue we have to decide is whether this Court of Criminal Appeal is likely to be more helpful to the man when he is in trouble than the present system, and, without any bias in favour of the present system, I think this Amendment certainly suggests no better remedy than that which the man has at present. As an hon. Gentleman said just now, the Court of Criminal Appeal will find whether there are or are not any legal flaws in the proceedings, and having regard to the conditions of legal supervision which pervade the atmosphere of the court-martial from beginning to end, the chances are altogether against any such legal flaws being detected. The papers will have been before a number of legally trained persons in connection with the court-martial as well as the Judge Advocate General, and there is little likelihood of any lapse taking place. You would have as well a great objection in the shape of the suspense which the man would have to undergo during many months, while the case was coming from Mesopotamia or India or elsewhere to England.
  Then again, the sentence is not intended to be punitive, and is not designed as a punishment or as a form of revenge taken by the Army or by society on the man. The whole point of the death sentence, like that of many other punishments, is that it should act as a deterrent. If the sentence is imposed and six months elapse while the case goes to the other aide of the world, and the comrades of the man have no idea of what happens to him, then how could it act as a
  1610
  deterrent as it should? So much is this the case that I was told by a Divisional General a few days ago of one case where it was his painful duty to carry out a sentence of death. He paraded the whole of the Division in order to see the sentence carried into effect. The result was that there was not a single other case in that Division during the whole course of the War. If the Division did not know what the fate of the man was, and if he suffered death in England without any knowledge of that occurrence coming to the soldiers, it would not have acted as a deterrent, and the whole of this painful and drastic punishment in such cases would have been absolutely futile.
  The true line of advance in courts-martial is first of all to give the soldier when on trial the very best professional legal assistance through the service of his "friend." That has been secured by law for some time, and I think the full observance of that law is guaranteed by the recommendations of the Committee which dealt with courts-martial. The second line of advance in my judgment is to make courts-martial as independent in practice as they are in theory, and absolutely to liberate them from all undue, and in my view illegal, interference by superior officers or any outside authority. That has been secured by the recommendations of the Courts-martial Committee. These lines of development and advance will undoubtedly greatly help any man when he is accused in future. That being so, we are really left with the position that the present state of affairs is actually more favourable to the accused than his lot would be if he had to stand the racket of the ordinary English technical court of law. As the hon. Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) pointed out, it is not the object of officers of the Army to do a man down. Their object is to let him off if it can possibly be done in a way consistent with discipline in the Army. They have already the best legal assistance. They do not look at the matter from the technical point of view. What we want to see is that the officers responsible are animated by sentiments of generosity and humanity. If they always have this Court of Appeal behind them they probably would not take upon themselves the responsibility of letting the man off, and they might be disposed to say that it was a difficult case and to

  1611
  put the responsibility on the experts behind them in London. That feeling does not exist now, and there is no inducement to throw the case over to some superior authority. Therefore, although I am in hearty sympathy with the sentiments and objects which have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved, I feel that the present system with all its defects is a better one than the alternative which has been put before the Committee, and that the present system is one which is more likely on the whole and in the long run to temper justice with mercy.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: We have had interesting expressions of opinion about the very vexed question of death sentences, and I think the House will be prepared now to come to some decision on the point. The view that the Government take on this matter is that the present system ensures on the whole a fair trial to the man, and, in the second place, it is in its results more favourable to the man from the point, of view of leniency and clemency than any system which depended solely or mainly upon the advice or recommendations or decisions of a civil court of appeal, which would be bound in the nature of its duties to decide the ease upon the legal technicalities, but would lose sight altogether of the many surrounding circumstances which are borne in on the minds of the soldiers and others in the case who deal with it on the spot. It is absolutely essential in punishment of this kind that the punishment should be an exemplary and speedy one, since otherwise it loses the effect which is required, namely, the effect on discipline. Without discipline, what would an army be but a mob, and without this power to enforce discipline Army Commanders would have grave doubts, I daresay, in many instances about operations which they would otherwise undertake. This is
  not a new subject, but one which has been debated in this House before, and, in view of the expressions which have been used in this House and elsewhere, the Secretary of State appointed a Committee to investigate this, with other subjects. This question of the death sentence occupied a very prominent place in the consideration of the Committee. The last date on which the House considered an Army (Annual) Bill was about 3rd April last year, and the Committee was appointed about a week or ten days later. It consisted of very eminent and influential people, and any hon. Member who takes the trouble to look at the report of what is known as Mr. Justice Darling's Committee will see from a perusal of the names how very influential and experienced those gentleman were. Not only that, but the Committee had before them a large number of witnesses, and their evidence was very carefully considered. Then, having considered the whole matter, the Committee, by a very large majority, there being only three dissentients, of whom the hon. and gallant Member (Major Lowther) was one, came to the conclusion that the present system should be maintained. This recommendation has been considered by the Army Council, who have come to the deliberate and considered decision that the present system is the best and should be maintained, and they reject the suggestion of an appeal to a civil tribunal. Therefore, I am not in a position to give the hon. and gallant Member any hope that his Amendment can be accepted. The new Clause is contrary to the opinion of that Committee, contrary to the opinion of the officers, and, judging by the Debate to-night, contrary to the general opinion of this Committee.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 124.

  Division No. 80.]

  AYES.

  [9.13 p.m.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hirst, G. H.

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Cairns, John

  Irving, Dan

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Swan, J. E.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

  Gould, James C.

  Mills, J. E.

  Waterson, A. E.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Myers, Thomas

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Hallas, Eidred

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hayday, Arthur

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Major C. Lowther and Major Barnes.

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Gregory, Holman

  Perring, William George

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hancock, John George

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Rae, H. Norman

  Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)

  Hood, Joseph

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Remer, J. R

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Robinson, Sir T, (Lancs., Stretford)

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Jameson, J. Gordon

  Rodger, A. K.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Brackenbury, Captain H. L.

  Johnson, L. S.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Britton, G. B.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Seager, Sir William

  Bruton, Sir James

  King, Commander Henry Douglas

  Seddon, J. A.

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castleon-on-T.)

  Campbell, J. D. G.

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Simm, M. T.

  Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Stanton, Charles B.

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Maddocks, Henry

  Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Taylor, J.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Martin, Captain A. E.

  Waddington, R.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Wallace, J.

  Denniss, Edmund B. B. (Oldham)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edge, Captain William

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Morison, Thomas Brash

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Morris, Richard

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Finney, Samuel

  Mosley, Oswald

  Winterton, Major Earl

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Neal, Arthur

  Gange, E. Stanley

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gardiner, James

  Parker, James

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Pearce, Sir William

  NEW CLAUSE (Amendment of Section 79).
  In Section 79 (2) of the Army Act (which relates to reckoning and forfeiture of service) the words "his service during the period of his absence in the case of desertion, and his service prior to his fraudulent enlistment in the case of fraudulent enlistment," shall be substituted for the words "the whole of his prior service"; and the words "without counting the period so forfeited," shall be substituted for the words, "reckoned from the date of such conviction or such order dispensing with trial, in like manner as if he had been originally attested at that date."—[Colonel Ashley.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." I apologise to the Committee that the Clause is not on the Paper, but it is owing to the fact that the Committee Stage has been taken on the day following the Second Heading. The new Clause is an Amendment of an existing Section, that is Section 79 of the Army Act, which deals with the reckoning and forfeiture of service under certain conditions. Section 79 enacts that where a soldier of the regular forces has been guilty of desertion or
  1614
  fraudulent enlistment he shall on conviction by court-martial lose the whole of his prior service. That means to say, that however long his service prior to desertion or fraudulent enlistment, he would lose the whole of it and be held to serve for the whole of his previous attestation period. I want the Section amended so that he shall lose his service only during the period of his absence in the case of desertion, and his service prior to his fraudulent enlistment in the case of fraudulent enlistment. It is rather strange that in the Army this very severe punishment should be dealt out, whereas in the Royal Marines and in the Navy exactly the opposite course is pursued. In the case of the Marines, which is so to speak, the sea army, a man does not forfeit the whole of his previous service, but only the time during which he was absent, and in the case of the Navy I am informed he does not forfeit anything at all. I think the Government ought to justify the fact that the soldier is treated so differently. Nobody can say that discipline in the Navy is slack, or that dis-

  1615
  cipline in the Marines is not of the most efficient sort. If there is any body of men whom we are proud of in His Majesty's Forces, it is the Marines, who have never mutinied and who have always been the first to keep a high standard of discipline. Therefore, if the Marines and the Navy find it unnecessary to insist upon this drastic punishment, which is in addition to any punishment inflicted by a court-martial, I think, at any rate, the War Office might consider whether it is necessary to continue the present state of things in the Army.
  It might be asked, Why have the Army authorities in the past insisted upon embodying this Clause it is stands in the Army Act? I do not know why, but I have a shrewd suspicion, and that is that it is in order that they might keep up the numbers in the Army. In the past it was extremely difficult to get enough recruits for the Army, and 35,000 a year was the number which was usually said to be needed; so that when the Army Council in any year was faced with a shortage of men I think they must have tried by such regulations as these to require deserters to serve the whole of their period over again. I think there must be some explanation of that sort, that it was necessary to keep up the numbers in the Army. I submit, however, that those very mean considerations do not exist to-day. We have reached a happier state of affairs, where, on the whole, I think it may be said that the State is offering to the young man who is likely to join the Army a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. They are going out more or less into the open labour market and competing for recruits for the Army just as anybody would go into the labour market and pay the current trade union rate of wages for work for the workshops or fields. Therefore there is no necessity from that point of view for the War Office to continue this forfeiture of service. From the point of view of discipline, the punishment ought to be assessed by the court-martial which trios a man's case. What is the use of having a Board of Officers to try a man unless they can punish him by a week's imprisonment if they think fit, or up to the maximum of five years' penal servitude, if that is thought to be necessary? Therefore I think it is improper to interfere with the contract
  1616
  which the man has made with the State simply because he has broken it for some reason which may be of special moment to him. Let him be punished and then finish his term of service, but do not make him begin the whole period of service over again. When the War broke out there were many men who had enlisted for seven years, and they served all through the War. When the War was over, as far as they could see, the Armistice being signed, and they had had four years of Hell in the trenches, and they saw all their friends who had joined up only for the duration getting away, they deserted. Is it right that such a man as that should not only lose all his pension rights and all his medals, but, in addition, should have to go back and start his seven years' service again? I could say a good deal more, but I think I have said enough to point out that there is a case for investigation. I admit it is hard upon the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, because this is a question for the Secretary for War and not for him, and also because the new Clause has not been able to be placed on the Paper, but I would ask him if he could see his way favourably to consider the points I have laid before him, and perhaps on the Report stage an Amendment might be put down in some way to modify what I think the Committee will agree is a grave injustice.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I desire to support the appeal which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite in regard to some reform in the Army Regulations that govern the cases which he has recited to the Committee. I have before me a case which, I think, will vividly illustrate the great injustice which is perpetrated on soldiers, when, for some offence they may commit which brings them to a court-martial, the sentence carries with it forfeiture of all previous service and all emoluments that may attach thereto. The case is that of a young soldier, who was a member of the Territorial Force, who was sent out to the Dardenelles, and took part in the landing at Suvla Bay, which, I think, is judged to have been one of the most severe tests any men of the Army had to undergo in the whole of the War. Upon being released from there, on his way home, the ship on which he was travelling was torpedoed and sunk, and then coming home as a time-expired man, he had to

  1617
  rejoin under the Military Service Act. During his furlough his health was very bad as a result of his service at Suvla Bay, and his experience in being torpedoed, and he overstayed his leave by three days. He was court martialled and sentenced to 112 days' detention, and all his previous service forfeited. I maintain that is most harsh and unjust.
  I drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this case, and his reply to me states that nothing can be done in the matter. I believe there is a certain amount of discretionary power held by officers, so that a man in the regular Army, who is able to go back and serve a further period, can by good conduct, on the recommendation of his commanding officer, have restored to him all his past service which he forfeited as a result of the court-martial. In this case, under circumstances such as we have passed through, when men do not go back to the Army, the full effect of the sentence has to take place, and this young man, who was a volunteer when war broke out, has had to sacrifice all the pay due to him on his previous service and his gratuity as a Territorial, on top of the sentence of detention. I think the Committee will agree that is most unfair, most harsh and most unjust, and I would add my appeal to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office to give consideration to the suggested Amendment to the Army Act so that, in the case of unjust sentences, or what appear to be unjust, in so far as they extend to the back service, taking everything from the man on top of the imprisonment he has, to undergo, something could be done whereby these things could not occur in the future. This case seems the more harsh and unjust in regard to a man who served in the War, and did not go back to the Army, as there is no opportunity for a commanding officer exercising his discretionary power and restoring the rights to the man, as is done in some cases.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the Committee have great sympathy with the case that has been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. At the same time, I must begin by directing attention to the fact that we must not regard desertion in a light way. It is suggested that the severity of the Act as it stands has been maintained with the intention
  1618
  of keeping up the numbers of the Army. I think I can venture to assure the hon. and gallant Member that that was not in the minds of the heads of the War Office. My hon. and gallant Friend stated that a man's reason for desertion may be of special moment to him. I think it would be rather dangerous to take as light a view of desertion as that. Desertion must undoubtedly receive a severe, but not too severe, punishment. Having said that, I should like to say to the Committee that, following upon Mr. Justice Darling's Report, the Secretary of State has already appointed a Committee which has commenced its work, which is charged with a general revision of the whole code, which includes punishments such as this. But if the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment to-night, I will undertake that the special direction of that Committee shall be drawn to his Amendment, and that it shall receive its very careful consideration.
  Colonel ASHLEY: After the very reasonable way in which the Government has met me, of course I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding which the right hon. Gentleman has given, that this particular point shall be brought to the notice of the Committee, and no doubt, if it is agreed to, it will be embodied in next year's Army (Annual) Bill.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 44 of the Army Act.)
  "In Section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scale of punishments by courts-martial) after the word "flogging" in Subsection (5) thereof there shall be inserted the words "and other than personal restraint by being kept in irons or other fetters," and the words "and such field punishment shall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour" in the same Sub-section shall be omitted, and the words "and such field punishment may be of the character of hard labour" shall be inserted in lieu thereof.—[Major Hayward.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I feel I owe the Committee a similar apology to that tendered by the hon. and gallant Member in moving his new Clause,

  1619
  and my excuse must be the same, namely that it was impossible to get the Clause on the Paper owing to the Second Reading of the Bill only having taken place yesterday. This new Clause is really a repetition of one which I moved when the Army (Annual) Bill was in Committee last year, and its object is to abolish that detestable and degrading punishment known as Field Punishment No. 1. When I had the honour to move this Clause last year I entered at some length into the arguments which, I conceive, make the abolition of this form of punishment not only eminently desirable, but imperative in the best interests of the Army itself, and, that being so, I do not propose to detain the Committee by repeating those arguments to-night, and that for two reasons. I believe every Member of the Committee is fully versed in the pros and cons of this controversy, and also I am not without a confident hope that it is quite unnecessary to do so, because it may be within the remembrance of those hon. Members who were in Committee last year that the new Clause was withdrawn on that occasion in consequence, and really in pursuance, of a very specific and a very definite undertaking given by the Secretary of State on that occasion
  I will read the words of my right hon. Friend in respect to the undertaking. They were:
  "I will give an undertaking that we will institute forthwith a series of inquiries to obtain the opinion of the military authorities in France, here, and in other theatres, with a view to seeing if a substitute can be devised for this form of punishment without impairing the means by which discipline is maintained."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1919, Col. 1292, Vol. 114.]
  The right hon. Gentleman led us to believe that these inquiries would he pursued forthwith, and that we should have the result of the inquiries and his decision based upon them during last Session because he went on:
  "I would suggest that there is no reason why there should be any delay. I will make these inquiries and see what Amendments can be made in the rules of procedure. Before the end of the present Session. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1919, Col. 1922, Vol. 114.]
  That was last Session. I do not think that anyone would venture to dispute that, on the strength of that undertaking, the Committee had the right to expect that this matter would be dealt with last
  1620
  Session by the right hon. Gentleman. I called his attention to it on several subsequent occasions, both when the Army Estimates were before the House and by means of question and answer, but up to the present we have had no reply. I am not referring to this in order to charge the Secretary of War with breach of an undertaking or even to complain of delay, particularly if the reforming zeal of the War Office now is to be commensurate with that delay. But I do think that time has come when we have a right to expect that decision of the War Office upon this matter.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has read to the Committee some words which fell from the Secretary of War in last year's Debate. I hasten to assure him that the Secretary of State has not failed in his promise. He instituted an inquiry amongst the commanding officers abroad, and the general consensus of opinion amongst those officers was that a field punishment which could be carried out in the face of the enemy without depriving the Army of the services of the man, and which was a deterrent, was essential. In its absence the alternative might be that there would be more sentences of death, or that a man might be tried and sent to a base prison, and, of course, the Committee will be aware that in the stress and strain of a great campaign there would be men who would rather like to be sent to the base prison than remain in the danger zone. Therefore it was essential, in the opinion of these commanding officers, to maintain some form of speedy punishment as being a deterrent, and it has been very difficult, I believe, to discover any other punishment which can be substituted for this one with advantage. The hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware that changes have been made.
  Major HAYWARD: The Secretary of State himself made an excellent suggestion for a substitute.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: In the form of punishment. It is now given in accordance with a form which is in possession, of the commanding officer, and so designed that it shall not be unduly severe. I do not know but that the decision of these commanding officers may not again come under the purview of the Committee to

  1621
  which I have referred and which was appointed by the Secretary for War, and that they may not review the whole code. I am not in a position to say whether or not that may be so, but I think it possible. At any rate, the hon. and gallant Member asks what was the response made by the officers commanding abroad, and I beg to inform him that that was that the present punishment should be maintained. I regret, therefore, that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before this goes to a Division, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will carry it to that, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman representing the War Office whether this field punishment is being carried out by sentence of court-martial in the Army of Occupation in Germany? Are our soldiers being tied to a gun-wheel or to a post in the streets of German towns and held up to the ridicule of the German inhabitants? The people of this country would like to know that. There is no punishment in the British Navy comparable to Field Punishment No. 1. A man may not be tied to a post or a stanchion, and we are not allowed to handcuff men for punishment, or put a man in irons as a punishment. All punishments which hold men up to ridicule have been abolished in the Navy for many years. I think every naval officer in the House would bear me out that the discipline has improved enormously. This Field Punishment No. 1 does not conduce to discipline, and it is contrary to the whole instinct of the British people.
  Captain LOSEBY: My hon. and gallant Friend will probably be aware that one of the rules during the recent War was that the administration of this particular form of punishment should not take place in the full view of any civilian population.
  Major HAYWARD: I myself have seen British soldiers tied up in the streets of France.
  Captain LOSEBY: Perhaps in isolated cases the rule may not have been followed, but hon. and gallant Members who can speak with full knowledge of these matters will bear me out that this rule of administration was and is observed. What we want, if we could get it, is some substitute for this particular form of punishment in
  1622
  time of war. Modern warfare is so awful that in some instances men quite naturally will do anything to escape from it; men to whom, I frankly acknowledge, imprisonment would come as a boon. It would be wrong and foolish to take away the power of administering some punishment, and thus allow a criminal or a coward to escape, and in cases of this kind some punishment is essential. I am sure, however, that all soldiers in this House will be pleased to hear that this particular form of field punishment has been modified. I most cordially agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that some speedy punishment on the spot must be left for the purpose of discipline in the Army.
  Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I would like to ask whether the right hon. Baronet has consulted the opinion of the regimental officer, not the officer commanding the battalion, but the officer actually in command of the company or platoon of men liable to this form of punishment. The question was put to the Secretary for War last year, who undertook that the regimental officer should be consulted, and that his opinion should have due consideration. I should like to know whether that has been done. I would also like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for War when he said his own feeling was that the fact of making a man turn out with his arms and accoutrements under the orders of the drill sergeant once or twice a day would be more desirable and more of a deterrent than this degrading punishment. That is my opinion, and it is the opinion of a great many officers in the Army. This form of punishment not only degrades the man who is punished, but it has a very bad effect upon the other men in the company or battalion, because they see it, and it degrades everybody who comes in contact with it. I appeal to the War Office to move forward with the times a little bit, and now that they have got rid of flogging and other degrading punishments, I think it is time that this punishment should disappear as well.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: With regard to the points that have been raised since I last addressed the Committee, it must be remembered that this form of punishment is only inflicted under conditions of active service. With regard to the soldiers being tied up for exhibition to the German

  1623
  populace, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the Committee that no commanding officer in France would dream of doing that.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I asked whether this punishment was being carried out in Germany in the case of the Army of Occupation. If so, the German population would know it was going on. I think from what happened in France it is difficult to keep this sort of punishment private, because part of the punishment itself is that it is a public punishment. A man has made a beast of himself or some other offence, and the punishment is made a public function. That is my point, and may I have an answer as to whether it is being done in Germany to-day or not?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to make an explanation, but he has really modified his statement which was whether this punishment was carried out in view of the German populace. I am sure anything of that sort would be most reprehensible, and no British officer would indulge in such a thing for one moment. As to whether regimental officers were consulted by the Secretary of State other than commanding officers, I am able to say not
  only were commanding officers of regiments consulted, but also majors, captains and lieutenants, and beyond that the private soldiers themselves. The inquiry was a very full one, and I think the Committee will be well satisfied that the Secretary of State has carried out the pledge which he gave to the Committee.
  Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the opinion of the regimental officers coincided with the opinion of the commanding officers?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The general consensus of opinion was in favour of the proposal, but I cannot distinguish as to what the percentages were in each case. I am in a position to say that the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State will review the punishments, including this one, so that the Committee have the further assurance that not only has the Secretary of State consulted the officers and carried out his promise, but the decision will be considered by the Committee which has under consideration the whole question. With that assurance I ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw this Motion.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 105.

  Division No. 81.]

  AYES.

  [9.59 p.m.

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Irving, Dan

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Sexton, James

  Cairns, John

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Swan, J. E.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Martin, Captain A. E.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Mills, J. E.

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Myers, Thomas

  Hayday, Arthur

  Newbould, Alfred Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Major Hayward and Colonel Penry Williams.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Bruton, Sir James

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

  Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

  Gardiner, James

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Gould, James C.

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Gregory, Holman

  Barrie, Charles Coupar

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Bell, Lieut Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

  Hancock, John George

  Brackenbury, Captain H. L.

  Edge, Captain William

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Hood, Joseph

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Neal, Arthur

  Simm, M. T.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Jameson, J. Gordon

  Parker, James

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Pearce, Sir William

  Stanton, Charles B.

  Johnson, L. S.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Perring, William George

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Taylor, J.

  King, Commander Henry Douglas

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Waddington, R.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Rae, H. Norman

  Wallace, J.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Remer, J. R.

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Maddocks, Henry

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Winterton, Major Earl

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Rodger, A. K.

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Morison, Thomas Brash

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Morris, Richard

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Mosley, Oswald

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Seager, Sir William

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Seddon, J. A.

  The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause in the names of the hon. Member for the Seaham Division (Major Hayward) raises, I think, the same point.
  Major HAYWARD: Not quite, I think.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 46.)
  "In Section 46 of the Army Act (which relates to the powers of a Commanding Officer) the words from 'may award' to the first '28 days and' in Sub-section (2) (d) thereof shall be omitted."—[Major Hayward.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Major HAYWARD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This new Clause is to make it impossible for a commanding officer, as distinct from a court-martial, to inflict the Field Punishment No. 1. The Committee have just decided to retain this form of punishment as inflicted by court-martial, but it is a very different proposition that the punishment should be inflicted by commanding officers. It is to make that impossible that I now move this new Clause. I will not enter the subject at any length, because, even in the very exceptional cases when, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, this form of punishment may be necessary for the maintenance of discipline—although that is a position which I do not accept—it must occur to the Committee that this is far too important a power to place in the hands of a commanding officer, especially in these days, when commanding officers have not that experience and knowledge of military law, and of the handling of men, that the old Army officer had. Moreover, anyone who knows anything of the administration of military law
  1626
  in France during the last four or five years, knows that that administration was carried out on most unequal lines, owing to the different mentality, temperament and experience of the various commanding officers. The great majority of the commanding officers were men of discretion, who could be trusted never to inflict this form of punishment except for the very gravest offences; but there were exceptions, and again and again during the last Parliament there were brought up in this House cases where this terrible form of punishment was inflicted for the most trivial offences. I believe that, if those cases had been inquired into further, it would have been found that that punishment had been administered by a commanding officer. I venture to suggest that this is a form of punishment so terrible that it ought not to be inflicted except by a properly constituted court-martial.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I do not propose to enter again into the question of field punishment, as the Committee have already dealt with it. It is felt that the power should remain in the hands of the commanding officer to apply this punishment, and that he should not be compelled to send the case to a court-martial. It might even be that the man would prefer to be tried by his commanding officer, rather than appeal to a court-martial. It must also be remembered that this new Clause would include not only Field Punishment No. 1, to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred as objectionable, but also Field Punishment No. 2, which is a very much milder form, consisting of extra work, extra drills, and so on, and I think no Member of the Committee could reasonably take any objec-

  1627
  tion to that. Therefore, I am sorry that I cannot accept the Clause.
  Mr. HOGGE: Surely an explanation of that kind ought to be supported by better arguments. I know nothing at all except what I have heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep it up!"] There are a great many men in the country who have suffered both Field Punishment No. 1 and No. 2 who will keep it up for a very long time, and it may be very inconvenient for the hon. Member in his own constituency to defend his vote in favour of the degrading punishment, which was extended to so many gallant men prior to the outbreak of the War. The right hon. Baronet says it would be very much better for the man to have an option. Why should not the Government give an option? He suggested that it might be very much worse for the man if he were sent to court-martial.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I did not say it might be worse for him. I said if the Amendment were passed it would be obligatory to send him to court-martial.
  Major O'NEILL: Every soldier at present, if he is going to be sentenced by his commanding officer to any punishment which involves forfeiture of pay—and field punishment does—has the right of electing trial by court-martial.
  Major C. LOWTHER: I understand the right hon. Baronet to say the trial would also include Field Punishment No. 2. This Committee is placed in a very awkward position, because most of the new Clauses have been handed in in manuscript. We are not in a position really to say what their effect is without seeing them on the Paper, I protest very strongly against the way this stage has been taken so quickly after the Second Reading, which has not given hon. Members interested in the subject a fair opportunity of going into these very important matters. In the old days the Army (Annual) Bill was merely a question of renewing the standing Army. There are in this Bill a number of new Clauses, which are the result of certain recommendations, and it places me in a very difficult position. I protest very strongly against the way in which the Committee Stage has been forced on this House in this hurried manner.
  Question put, and negatived.

  NEW CLAUSE (Amendment of Section 19).
  "Section 19 of the Army Act (which relates to drunkenness) shall be amended as follows: After the word 'imprisonment' there shall be inserted the words 'for not more than six months.'"—[Major O'Neill.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Major O'NEILL: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This raises the question of the punishment which it is at present possible to give for the offence of drunkenness. The maximum punishment now is two years hard labour. I think most hon. Members will agree that if a man is such an incorrigible drunkard that he deserves two years hard labour for drunkenness and nothing else, he is not worth keeping in the Army at all. This point was dealt with by the Committee on courts-martial last year, and they make the following recommendation:
  "The maximum sentence for drunkenness in the case of a soldier of two years' imprisonment with hard labour, appears to us to be excessive."
  They say:
  "If the Army Act is revised we recommend that various punishments and especially this one shall be re-considered."
  I raise this in order to ask the right, hon. Baronet what the War Office proposes to do with regard to amending this punishment and punishments generally.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The punishment dealt with in this Clause will be one of the punishments which will come under review by the Committee which is now sitting at the War Office. The hon. and gallant Member has another Amendment later on which deals with a similar matter. The Committee will review the whole code of punishment, and the whole of these matters will be given very careful consideration. As the Committee will have observed from the whole tone of the Debate, the direction and tendency at the War Office in all these cases has been towards leniency. Therefore, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the point which he has brought before the Committee will have special attention when the Committee which is sitting at the War Office comes to consider it.
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
  Major O'NEILL: I do not propose to move the next Clause, which seeks to

  1629
  amend Section 44 of the Army Act 1 did not know that there was a Committee sitting to consider the whole question of punishments under the Army Act. I think it was appointed many months after the Committee on Courts-martial made their Report. I should like, however, to move a new Clause relating to Section 56.
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member move it now?

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 56 of the Army (Annual) Act.)
  "At every court-martial held under this Act which involves a serious charge, or any question of special difficulty, there shall be appointed a fudge Advocate who shall be a fully qualified barrister or solicitor. A certificate of what is a serious charge or a question of special difficulty shall be furnished in every case by the Judge Advocate or some person nominated by him for the purpose."—[Major O'Neill.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I merely raise this question owing to a recommendation of the Committee on Courts-martial, that there should be introduced into our system of discipline in the Army a number of officers who have special legal knowledge and who could deal with court-martial questions and legal questions which arise at the courts-martial in a way which the ordinary officer who has purely military knowledge could not possibly deal with them. During the war a large legal department, which one might almost call the Department of Law and Justice, was built up in the Army, and in that department were many officers, all of whom in civilian life were either barristers or solicitors. They did most excellent work in reviewing courts-martial, and sitting as Judge Advocates upon courts-martial. In every case where questions of difficulties were involved, one of the properly trained court-martial officers always sat as a member of the court in order to keep the court straight upon questions of law. The Committee on Courts-martial appointed last year made a recommendation that that system should be carried into the general system of the Army. They said:
  1630
  "During the War a system was introduced of employing in connection with courts-martial special officers who were either barristers or solicitors and who were called court-martial officers. There appears to be a consensus of opinion amongst both witnesses and persons who have submitted suggestions that in some form or other this should be made permanent. We agree with this view."
  Further on they suggest that the tentative scheme submitted by the Judge Advocate-General should be further considered. Here again I would ask the War Office what is being done with regard to this very important recommendation which I hope will be carried out without delay.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There have been two Committees appointed. One has been appointed to consider the recommendation contained in paragraph 6 and 7 of Mr. Justice Darling's Committee's Report, which deals with the Court and the punishment, but there has also been a second Committee appointed by the Secretary of State, which has to work out in detail the recommendations in connection with the appointment of legal advisers and legal questions contained in paragraphs 8 and 16 of the Report to which the hon. and gallant Member has just referred. He will be very glad to see that in a footnote there is an instruction to the Committee to proceed as expeditiously as possible in the matter. I hope that with that assurance he will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  Major O'NEILL: Is it the intention of the War Office to carry out the principle of the recommendation?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The Committee is now considering this very matter.
  Major O'NEILL: If it is not the intention of the War Office to carry them out what is the use of appointing a Committee, when they have just appointed this Courts-martial Committee?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. Member need not be under any great apprehension. The words are, "to work out in detail."
  Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

  Accommodation to be provided.

  Maximum Price.

  Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished

  Tenpence per night.

  Breakfast as specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Army and Air Force Acts.

  Tenpence each.

  Dinner as so specified

  Two shillings.

  Supper as so specified

  Sixpence.

  Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat.

  Tenpence.

  Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse.

  Three shillings per day.

  Stable room without forage

  Sixpence per day.

  Lodging and attendance for officer

  Three shillings per night.

  Note.—An officer shall pay for his food.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in paragraph beginning "lodging and attendance," to leave out the word "tenpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling."
  This has reference to the allowance to householders on whom soldiers are billeted for lodging and attendance, when meals are provided. The substitution of one shilling for tenpence may not seem a large increase. Perhaps next year, if the Committee is generous, it may be increased to 2s., and it will be open to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) to move an Amendment to that effect. It may be objected that this will mean an extra tax on the Treasury, but it will relieve the actual taxpayer on whom the soldier is billeted. If soldiers are billeted on civilians we hope that they will be well looked after. A little extra money will always help towards that There are, of course, many people who would be only too pleased to look after soldiers in their houses without any payment at all. Hon. Members are inclined to treat this matter lightly, but it is not a small question when many thousands of soldiers are being billeted.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This is a part of the Bill in which I took a special personal interest. I found that the figures fixed for billeting, as remuneration for services rendered, were, in my view, too small. They were 6d. per night. Having gone into the matter very carefully with the financial experts of the Department, the figure was raised to 10d. per night. Taking the whole of the figures of the Schedule together, hon. Members will see that they add up to 3s. 4d., and
  1632
  adding up the actual cost of the services, based upon the Board of Trade Return for March, 1920, and including the increased price of bread which has just come into force, the actual cost to the civilian who supplies these services will be 3s. 3¾d., a margin on the right side of a farthing. No one individual, of course, renders all those services. I only instance this to show that we have gone into the matter very carefully, with a desire that the services should be remunerated reasonably. It is fair to assume that the people of this country are willing to render that patriotic service when necessary. It is equally only fair that the people should receive, at any rate not materially less than it costs them.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think that the hon. Baronet has quite grasped the meaning of this Amendment. Later on I propose to ask the Committee to agree to increasing the price of meals, which the hon. Baronet has dealt with. This is a simple matter of lodging and attendance. I find that in the provinces the usual price charged to decent men for lodgings, without meals or anything else, is a shilling per night. Why should not a shilling be paid for the soldier?
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I was taking the second item of breakfast. I did not know the Amendment applied to the first line of the Schedule.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am glad I rose again. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment and give for the soldier the same amount as is given by the civilian

  1633
  to the ordinary professional lodging-house keeper. This is not based on price, but on service rendered.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: While it is quite true I was dealing with food supplies at the same time the remarks I made are equally applicable to the service. The matter was very careful considered with a view to doing justice and acting fairly. I went into it and spent a long time over it with the experts in my Department and I am satisfied that it is a fair remuneration for the service rendered.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move in the paragraph beginning "Breakfast as specified" to leave out the word "tenpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "eighteen pence."
  The sum allowed for breakfast is tenpence. I have consulted great experts myself, not in this House, and I am told that not much of a breakfast can be provided for tenpence. I think eighteen pence is the lowest amount which should be paid for a breakfast at present. The Englishman has always gone in for a substantial breakfast unlike the foreigner who starts his day on coffee and rolls. Our greatness is attributed by some people to the fact that we insist on a good breakfast before we set out on the day's adventures. Next year, when the Bill comes forward, if prices have gone down, we can revert to the lower figure. I do not want to put too great a charge on the Exchequer, but I do not want humble people to be compelled to pay extra money in order to see that the lads billeted on them get decent food. I think the figure I suggest is very reasonable.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who poses here, and I have no doubt in his constituency, as an economist, should recommend that a breakfast which we have ascertained costs 10⅛d. should be paid for by the Government at the rate of 1s. 6d., or, in other words, that the taxpayer should be asked to pay 8d. over the cost of the breakfast. The breakfast as specified in the Army and Air Force Acts consists of 6 ozs. of bread, 4 ozs. of bacon, tea with milk and sugar, one pint. The cost, worked out on the
  1634
  basis I have stated, is the exact, accurate fractional cost of 10⅛d., and consequently I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman has given away his case absolutely. He says that one of the items for breakfast is 4 ozs. of bacon. I am informed by my wife that bacon is now four shillings per pound, so there is a shilling gone.
  Mr. INSKIP: That is the best bacon.
  Mr. WILSON: Am I to understand that the best is not good enough for a soldier? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the War Office, to increase the tenpence. I do so for a reason which I think will appeal to his economical mind. Very few soldiers are now billeted upon the people. That being so, surely he and the War Office are not prepared to ask the taxpayers of the country to billet soldiers and provide them with food at less than cost price. I do appeal to him to give the matter further consideration. If he does, I am certain that he will do something to make the Army more popular than it is at the present time. I hope, at any rate, if he cannot do it now, that he will consult with the Secretary of State for War and that on the Report stage he will be able to make an increase for the breakfast of the soldier.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "Supper as so specified", to leave out the word "sixpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling".
  The pre-war supper consisted of bread and cheese, but the standard of living laid down for the soldier before the War was too low. The pay of the soldier now, taking into account his allowances and special privileges, practically approximates to that of the ordinary workman in civil life. Therefore, the soldier's standard of living, taking into consideration the difficulties of Army life, should also approximate to the standard of living of the workmen in civil life. Otherwise, you will not get the best type of man into the Army. I do not think that a substantial supper after a hard day's work can be provided for the British soldier for sixpence. Therefore, I propose to make it one shilling. I am twitted by the right hon.

  1635
  Baronet for being an economist. If I am, I am very proud of it, but it is a question upon what you economise, and this is a matter in which I do not propose to economise. While we have soldiers and sailors, I think that they should be properly looked after, and I do not see that we should economise at the expense of the worthy and patriotic people upon whom the soldiers are billeted. Some people will give the soldier the bare scale laid down and try to make on it. Other kindly, patriotic persons will wish to make him as comfortable as possible and will give him a little over and above the scale laid down. Do hon. Members suggest economising at the expense of these people who are probably in humble circumstances? That is not the economy that I am prepared to advocate or that I was sent to this House to preach.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member's economy is running riot, because he has now indulged in a further proposal in the direction of extravagance by urging that the payment for suppers should be 1s. instead of 6d. On the basis I have already given the Committee, the actual and exact cost of the supper is 5⅛d., so that even on the 6d. in the Bill there is a slight margin on the right side. I cannot produce. I stronger argument against the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman than that we are here as trustees of the public purse, and we are not at liberty to distribute largesse or payment for services rendered beyond that which they are entitled to receive and that which the cost of the service really is.
  Dr. MURRAY: I should like my right hon. Friend to submit those figures to the Kitchen Committee, who must be profiteering according to the figures he has given us, and I should also like to know what fund their profits are going to, because they must be tremendous. I should like also to know if the right hon. Gentleman will give these figures to a Committee and have them compared with the ordinary charges in restaurants and hotels.
  Major BARNES: What is the amount which is estimated as likely to be spent in the present year upon billeting, in order that we might have some idea as to what my hon. and gallant Friend's
  1636
  proposal amounts to? The right hon. Gentleman talked about scattering largesse as if we were throwing away millions of pounds over this. If the scale is inadequate it will press hardly, first of all on the soldier, and then on the poorer class of the community, because the soldiers are likely to be billeted on people who are not very well able to bear the expense.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot give any figure of the estimated cost of billeting for the year, because I do not think any estimate exists. I do not think it would be correct to say that the people on whom the soldier is billeted are going to suffer, or that they are the poorest in the community; a lot of them keep inns and hotels. Further, this applies, not to times of emergency, but we are dealing here with route marches, and these are not very numerous, so that I daresay it is true that the whole amount of payment during the year for billeting will not be very much. That also cuts at the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, but the cost to the community will be great owing to under-payment. At any rate, the object I had in view in fixing these figures with the advisers at the War Office was to do justice and to see that a fair and reasonable payment was made. I assured myself, after going into the question exhaustively, that these figures are fair.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, as a matter of information, he will circulate, for the benefit of Members of the House, the names and addresses of innkeepers who will give us bed, breakfast, dinner and supper for 4s. 2d.?
  Mr. MYERS: My opinion is that everyone of these items, apart from the bottom one, ought to be challenged in the Division lobby. It is the most scandalous piece of sweating I have ever experienced in this House. The cost of bread, bacon, milk and sugar, the first essentials of the meals provided for our soldiers, is rising, and it is impossible to do justice to the men and keep near the figures specified in this Schedule. I hope we shall persist in challenging each one of these items—apart from the last one of the Schedule, which may be considered fairly reasonble—in the Division lobby, if necessary.
  Question put, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the Schedule."
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move in paragraph beginning "Where no meals furnished" to leave out the word "tenpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling and sixpence"
  The paragraph provides that
  "Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat"
  the price shall be tenpence. Therefore the magnificent sum which the Government suggest for this service is tenpence. In view of the figures of the last Division, which must have caused the Chief Government Whip some anxiety, I think the hon. Baronet might meet us on this point. Very few soldiers are now being billeted, and it would not cost much, although it
  The Committee Divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 45.

  Division No. 82.]

  AYES.

  [10.47 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Purchase, H. G.

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Rankin, Captain James S.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Remer, J. R.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Jameson, J. Gordon

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Johnson, L. S.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col W C. H. (Devizes)

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Rodger, A. K.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  King, Commander Henry Douglas

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Bruton, Sir James

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Seager, Sir William

  Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Seddon, J. A.

  Chadwick, R. Burton

  McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

  Martin, Captain A. E.

  Sturrock, J. Long

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Morison, Thomas Brash

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Waddington, R.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Meal, Arthur

  Waring, Major Walter

  Gregory, Holman

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

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Parker, James

  Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Yea, Sir Alfred William

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Perring, William George

  Hood, Joseph

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  NOES.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Irving, Dan

  Simm, M. T.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Cairns, John

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Stanton, Charles B.

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Swan, J. E.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Mallalieu, F. W.

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

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.)

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

  Finney, Samuel

  Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)

  Wallace, J.

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Myers, Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Waterson, A. E.

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  O'Connor, Thomas P.

  Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Hancock, John George

  O'Grady, Captain James

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Rae, H. Norman

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Hirst, G. H.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Sexton, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Holmes, J. Stanley

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and Major Barnes.

  would mean a great deal to the people who may have soldiers billeted on them. Probably Board of Trade figures will be produced to show that all these services can be done for tenpence, but it is not sufficiently remunerative.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: I think this particular item is the most iniquitous in the list. Just consider what tenpence means. The lowest sum at which lodgings can be furnished is one shilling, so that there will be a loss of twopence on every soldier billeted. Let us consider the items in regard to which expense is entailed. I assume that soldiers, like other people, are entitled to sheets. Now, the standard price—
  The CHAIRMAN: We have passed that point, and are now dealing with the pro-vision of meals.
  Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: It says, "Where no meals furnished." At any rate, there is a loss of twopence a night entailed on the people who have to put up these soldiers in their cottages, because the lowest sum for which lodgings can be obtained is a shilling. It is impossible to provide candles, vinegar, salt and all the other amenities which domestic life entails, for tenpence. What actually happens is that these soldiers who are billeted, in order to lead a decent life, have to pay out of their own pocket and for these reasons I shall support my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Members for Hull and East Leyton are not very grateful to me for the action I have taken. I found that the remuneration for these services was 6d., and the proposal is to raise it to 10d., but now the hon. and gallant Members say it is not enough, and that we must spend a little more of the ratepayers' money. Tenpence, I think, is a not unreasonable amount. It may be, and very probably is, that it cannot be done for 10d., but the billeting of the troops of His Majesty is a patriotic service which most people are not unwilling to render. I have had soldiers billeted at my own house. I think the payment is reasonable, and I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I hope the right hon. Baronet will reconsider his decision. It is not so much the service; there are, of course, accidents—there are breakages.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Breakages are paid for.
  Mr. HAYDAY: It is no use saying it is a patriotic service. The people who are called upon to billet these soldiers are among the poorest persons, and they cannot do it without the greatest sacrifice to themselves. The soldiers in the main are billeted upon poor persons.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is not under a misapprehension. This particular provision applies to the keeper of a victualling house only.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I thought it referred to general billeting, and if that is the case it is not right to say that 10d. is a sufficient sum. It is not sufficient indeed
  1640
  whether for licensed victualling places or for ordinary private households.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: There certainly is some misapprehension in the minds of some hon. Members. During a state of war or a state of emergency it is recognised by the Kings Proclamation that every one is liable to have soldiers billeted upon them. All classes are liable. But here we are dealing with ordinary billeting in times of peace, and it is confined to those who are described as victuallers.
  Mr. SWAN: Is the system not unfair to the soldiers themselves? The offer of 10d. is inadequate—bound to put the soldier in a most humiliating position. Does it not make a man feel that he is dependent on charity if the householder is not given sufficient remuneration? I hope the right hon. Baronet will meet the request of my hon. and gallant Friend and increase the amount.
  Question, "That the word 'tenpence' stand part of the Schedule ", put, and agreed to.
  Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Schedules and Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

OVERSEAS TRADE [CREDITS AND INSURANCE].
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the granting of credits and the undertaking of insurances for the purpose of re-establishing overseas trade and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums required for granting credits for such purpose up to an amount not exceeding at any time twenty-six million pounds and of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with the granting of such credits and the undertaking of insurances so far as those expenses are not defrayed out of sums received by the Board by way of commission in respect of credits or by way of premiums in respect of insurances."
Resolution agreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill be brought in upon the said Resolution and that Sir Robert Home, Mr. Bridgeman, and Mr. Kellaway do prepare and bring it in.

OVERSEAS TRADE [CREDITS AND INSURANCE].

  OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE) BILL,
  to authorise the granting of Credits and the undertaking of Insurances for the purpose of re-establishing Overseas Trade, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill No. 70.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

IRELAND.

  PRISONERS, TREATMENT (STRIKE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir S. Sanders.]
  Mr. HOGGE: I should like to ask for some information with regard to what is happening in Ireland to-day. We have had a Debate which is one of the most depressing one has had to listen to in this House. We had the position of the Government stated in a form which leaves very little hope that some attempt can be made at a settlement. There has been a trade union strike called, and the responses to it, if what one hears is true, are extremely grave. There are now out men who are connected with the absolutely necessary services of the sister isle, and I understand that negotiations are going on in this country which may result in sympathetic strikes on this side of the Channel, which may create a situation that many of us would deplore. It seems to me that the House of Commons ought to make a last attempt to get from the Government some word of hope with regard to a settlement. We on this side are altogether out of sympathy with the Government on this question. We resent must deeply the methods they are adopting in regard to the Irish people, and we think they are probably sending us into a course headlong which every one of us will regret. It is not sufficient for the Leader of the House to say that he and the Government have considered the situation, and that there is nothing to look forward to but rank and stubborn coercion. There is, after all, an opportunity in this country at present of contesting the Government's Irish policy, and that, of course, will be done, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.
  1642
  Henry) ought to understand that this is being done out of sympathy with the large mass of people in this country I say that advisedly, although my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are in a majority in this House, but he knows very well that the experience of the War and the experience since the Armistice of the organised forces of Labour in this country is such that other methods may be used on the other side. That everyone wants to avoid, and therefore we ought to have some information as to the extent of the strike which has been called in Ireland and with regard to the paralysis of the public services, and what steps it is proposed to take to deal with it, in view of the fact that the industrial side of the dispute may spread to this side of the Channel and that we here may be made the sufferers by the folly of the Members of the Government who represent the Irish Office.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: The seriousness of the situation is such as to warrant every opportunity being taken to see whether or not there is some way out of the difficulty which has arisen. The situation at the moment appears to some of us to be so grave as to warrant even the reconsideration of what has already been announced as the policy of the Government in this matter. It is exceedingly difficult to induce the working class by the policy of a strike to give their weight and general support to any matter of agitation which can in any way be termed political. The very fact that this strike which has been called in Ireland has, from the reports which have come to hand, succeeded to the extent even of stopping labour in the postal service, is a most remarkable feature. Generally speaking, that branch of the public service is the last to leave work at any time of industrial crisis. In this country that is almost unprecedented. The fact that in Ireland it has taken place is a wonderful manifestation of how much the people of Ireland generally are in sympathy with these unfortunate men who are in prison and how much the mind of the Irish people turns towards some different policy from that which the Government has adopted. My colleagues and myself are very deeply concerned about this matter, because we are fearful that unless some change of attitude is adopted, and if the present state of affairs is allowed to drift, the circumstances in that

  1643
  country in the near future must be considerably worse than they are at the present time. Surely it is worth some point of sacrifice in regard to the principle or the policy which the Government have deemed to be necessary if we are to avoid developments in Ireland which are going to create a state of things which must ring throughout the civilised world. If things do develop, it is possible, so long as the present policy is maintained, for the armed forces to be brought into conflict in a way different from anything that has happened up to the present moment. There is no Member of this House but who would sincerely deplore the possibility of such a thing taking place in Ireland. In view of the fact that this strike has made manifest the solidarity of the Irish people in support of those who are demanding the reconsideration of the Government policy, I hope, notwithstanding the limited amount of time that it is possible to give to a discussion of this kind, that there will be some indication that the Government is willing, in the face of these new and grave circumstances, to give some further consideration to this matter, whereby we may be prevented from drifting into a set of circumstances which will not make the position of the Government easier, which will not make their task of dealing with the Irish question any lighter than it is at the present moment, but which may possibly be the means of embroiling us in difficulties there of a vast character and also the possibility of setting alight a flame which may extend to other parts of the Empire in a way that will make it difficult for anyone to see where the thing will end. I do hope that there will be some indication from the Government that they are willing to review the whole situation, so that more peaceful conditions may be established than, unfortunately, exist as the present time.
  Mr. DENIS HENRY: I will deal first with the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge). A strike was declared to-day, and substantially the result of it is that on the railways in the South and West there was a cessation of traffic, but on the Great Northern Railway, which serves the Northern districts, the traffic was substantially the same as yesterday.
  1644
  In the Post Office a very substantial number of employés have come out. With regard to the northern post offices, I am not able to speak at the moment, but I take it that the usual service was substantially maintained there. So far as ordinary business in Dublin is concerned, it is practically held up. I am informed that a great many hotels are closed, and that shops are substantially closed. All that applies to Dublin.
  I have not been able, naturally—the strike prevents me to that extent—to get a full reply from the South and West. I think that I am giving a fair summary when I say that in the South and West the strike is operative substantially, and that in the North it is not. As regards the other matter to which my hon. Friend has referred, the House has had the advantage of the Debate in which Members on all sides of the House have taken part. I am not without hope that the Debate will do something to clear the air, and that it may have results for good, and perhaps help to end the trouble which exists. The House will, however, understand that I can give no promise on that score. It is really a matter for the consideration of the persons who are concerned—the prisoners and their friends on the one hand, and the Government on the other—but no people are more anxious than the Members of the Irish Government to see some mode of bringing this terrible difficulty to an end.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend mean that, as a result of the Debate, the Government have begun to try to find a via media between the men imprisoned without trial and themselves?
  Mr. HENRY: The hon. Member must not misunderstand me. The Debate concluded some time ago, but communications with the Government are difficult and I am absolutely unable to give an undertaking to that effect, because it is impossible to do so. I was only expressing the willingness of the Government.
  Mr. WALLACE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by clearing the air? Is it simply a pious hope or that something has taken place just now which will make the position easier for those men? Otherwise I cannot see the point of the reference to clearing the air.
  Mr. HENRY: I do not at all mean that any negotiations are going on, but I do hope that, as a result of the Debate in

  1645
  this House and the opinions which have been expressed, the people concerned in this strike will see their way to make some effort to meet the exigencies of the law and put an end to this state of affairs.
  Mr. SWAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that the Government will consider the advisability of changing their policy, which is simply goading the people of Ireland into rebellion? Can we get some assurance that the Government will change their mode of procedure so that we can get harmony instead of all this resentment? That is what we want to see—a change of policy which will produce contentment among the Irish people instead of all this discontent, which is due to partiality and military interference.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for two facts. In the first place, I regard it as essential to do everything I can to avoid the loss of human life. I should feel that I was guilty of a gross dereliction of duty, not merely as a representative, but as a man, if I did not exhaust every possible method of saving the lives of those men who are in danger. I have a second reason. I do not want this nation, which I believe to be a humane nation and a nation that loves liberty, to be exposed before all the civilised opinion of the world to the charge of having brought about the death of any of these men. Some modification of policy I am able dimly to see from the language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope I may read that into his words. I beg every man in the Government and every Member of this House
  1646
  to put it to himself whether at the present moment it is worth while on the one hand to sacrifice human life and on the other side to set into a further blaze of feeling the hostility to this country which, I am sorry to say, is raging in many parts of Ireland. Some one told me to-night that there are no fewer than 20,000 people around Mountjoy Prison. There is not a single one of them whose hearts is not torn and whose prayers are not sent to Heaven for the lives of these men. It makes me wonder as a politician to see such a lack of the sense of proportion in the running of the terrific risks which are involved in this policy, both at home and abroad, and it makes mo wonder also what little wisdom there is in the world. I hope we may look for some change of policy and some change of persons. The Attorney-General discharges his duty in this House with courtesy and with efficiency, and I am sure if it were left to his good Irish heart and his knowledge of the Irish people, that we would not be confronted with such a problem as this which is torturing all our hearts to-night. I hope also that the new appointments may mean something like a change of heart. Until you get out of the administration of Ireland the stupid and mad men and the narrow fanatics and bigots who are at present responsible for policy, I despair of a return to anything like peace in Ireland, and still more of this country maintaining, with regard to Ireland, the high reputation it enjoys for its treatment of other nations.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.