Sitting of 31 August 1914

Preamble
The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts on the MSS. of Lord Polwarth, preserved at Mertoun House, Berwickshire, Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Guide to Reports on Collections of Manuscripts of Private Families and Institutions in Great Britain and Ireland. Part I. Geographical [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5383 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MARLBOROUGH STREET TRAINING COLLEGE (DUBLIN).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 12th May; Mr. Barrie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 460.]
MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th July; Mr. Staveley-Hill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 461.]
LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th August; Mr. Herbert, Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 462.]
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Copy presented of General Report to the Board of Trade upon Accidents that have occurred on the Railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACKLESS TROLLEY UNDERTAKINGS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd April; Mr. Burns]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 463.]

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary) Rules, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Trade Marks (Temporary) Rules, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for certain Residential Colleges in England and Wales (in force from 1st August, 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
WAR IN EUROPE.
  SYMPATHY WITH BELGIUM.

    MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY.
    The VICE - CHAMBERLAIN (Mr. Geoffrey Howard)reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 27th day of this instant August, as followeth:—
    I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
    I will gladly convey to the King of the Belgians the sympathy and admiration with which, in common with Myself and all My People, you regard the heroic resistance offered by His Army and People to the wanton invasion of His Territory, and an assurance of the determination of this Country to support in every way the efforts of Belgium to vindicate her own independence and the public law of Europe.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SCOTTISH HERRING TRADE.
  Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the distress occasioned by the accumulation of stocks of cured herrings at the Scottish and other herring-fishing ports, he will use his influence with the Russian Government to induce it to immediately remit temporarily the Import Duty on herrings and facilitate the importation of such fish into the Russian Empire through its Northern ports?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): His Majesty's Government have already placed the matter before the Russian Government, who have not yet replied. I will inform those interested and the hon. Member as soon as a decision is come to.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.
  Major HOPEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether in the case of Reservists who have been called up and Territorials who have been embodied, but who previously were not employed contributors, 1½d. per week will be deducted from their Army pay as insurance contribution?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): All Reservists called up for service with the Colours will be insured, and their contributions, at the rate of 1½d. a week, will be deducted from their pay. As regards men in the Territorial Force, the Insurance Commissioners are in communication with the military authorities, and an announcement will be made at the earliest possible moment.

  POTTERY GOODS.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that quantities of German and Austrian pottery goods have been imported into England without any trade or country of origin stamped thereon; that these goods have generally been sold as of British manufacture; that
  356
  even some of the manufacturers and factors in the pottery district have sold these goods as British manufacture; and that cheap copies of registered English shapes and decorations have been regularly imported from Germany and Austria; and whether, when he is considering measures to help British trade, he will bring in a short Bill to compel all pottery goods imported in future into this country from Germany and Austria to bear in indelible and plainly readable letters, burnt into the pieces and under the glaze, the name of the country of origin?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): If the allegation is that goods of German and Austrian manufacture have been sold under a false trade description the existing law provides a remedy. I have some doubt, however, whether the compulsory marking of such goods with their countries of origin would be of ultimate benefit to British trade.

  FOODSTUFFS FROM DENMARK AND HOLLAND.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked whether the German Government have cancelled the Import Duty on food-stuff from Denmark and from Holland; whether the disaster to the two Danish vessels, steamships "Maryland" and "C. H. R. Broberg," sunk by mines, will tend to divert Danish produce from England to Germany; and whether the Government have taken any steps to assure the continuance of the importation of foodstuff from Denmark to England as heretofore?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am having inquiries made as to the reported action of the German Government with regard to duties on Danish and Dutch foodstuffs, and I will inform the hon. Baronet as soon as I hear the result. I trust that the action which is being taken by His Majesty's Navy will have the effect of keeping open the trade routes between Denmark and this country. I should add that the mines referred to in the question were laid down by the Germans, and that no mines have been laid down in the North Sea by British ships.

  UNSTAMPED LETTERS AND POST-CARDS FROM SOLDIERS.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Postmaster-General if he will cause instructions to be given to our troops as to the posting of letters, as a large number have arrived from the front unstamped which have been surcharged on delivery; and if he will consider the question of allowing a percentage of letters to travel free or, at any rate, not to be surcharged on arrival?
  Mr. WINGasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that surcharges are being made on letters and postcards from soldiers on active service to their relatives, although passed by the censor and marked active service; and will he issue instructions that such letters must not be surcharged?
  Mr. DICKINSONasked the Postmaster-General whether letters and postcards sent by soldiers serving abroad in the Expeditionary Force to friends in En gland and bearing an Army Post Office stamp are being charged for on delivery in England; whether this is the case with letters that are unstamped or insufficiently stamped; and whether he will state definitey what are the postal arrangements in regard to this matter?
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Post Office authorities are exacting the usual charge from the recipients of unstamped letters in cases where such letters bear on the envelope official evidence that they come from soldiers serving with the Army in the field; and whether, in view of the difficulty soldiers in the fighting line must have of obtaining stamps, he will give instructions for all such letters to be treated as if they were on His Majesty's Service?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): It has hitherto been the practice of the Post Office to charge the recipient of letters written by soldiers from the front and unstamped with the sum of 1d. payable by the recipient of the letter. It has, however, been decided by the Government that in future all letters written by soldiers on active service may be sent to this country without any prepayment by the soldier, and without any charge being
  358
  made upon the recipient of the letter. In other words, correspondence written by the soldier on active service to his relations or friends will be carried free of charge. This exemption from postage may be subject to the French Government refraining from making any charge for the conveyance of the mails to the sea.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the latter part of his reply? He seemed to indicate that if the French Government refuse to carry letters from the troops to the sea it will be necessary to make a charge.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is a hypothetical question, and I hope the position indicated will never arise.

  CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING EUROPEAN CRISIS.

    WHITE PAPER (PENNY EDITION).
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether an edition in a handy form can be issued of Correspondence respecting the European crisis (Cd. 7467 and Cd. 7445) to be sold at the price of 1d., and be obtainable at every post office?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Arrangements are being made for the publication of the correspondence in a convenient form at the price of 1d. Steps will be taken to place it on sale at all post offices.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether it would not be better to reduce the bulk of the document in order that the salient points may be more easily apprehended?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Arrangements are being made to accompany the document with a synopsis.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the Ambassador's Report also be included?

    HORSES (PURCHASES FROM ABROAD).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if any steps are being taken

    359
    by the Government to purchase horses from Argentina, South Africa, Spain, and other countries where they are plentiful, to replace those which have been impressed and will hereafter be impressed for Army requirements, so as to secure the uninterrupted progress during the coming winter and next year of necessary farm operations?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): No steps of the nature suggested are at present being taken, but the Board are fully aware of the situation, which is being carefully watched.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the Board of Agriculture are in constant communication with the War Office on this matter?
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: Yes, Sir.

    ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND (DISTRESS).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any information about the amount of distress in the islands of Scotland on account of the number of Reservists being called up; and whether any special effort will be made to deal with this before the weather makes it impossible in many instances for boats to call regularly at the islands?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have no such information. I understand that there is some shortage of harvest labour in the Orkney Islands, which steps are being taken to meet.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend inquire about the Western Islands?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Inquiries have been made by the Local Government Board.

    BRITISH COLONIES (NEWS BULLETINS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether daily news bulletins are sent daily to other British Colonies similar to those sent to the West Indian Colonies under the agreement with
    360
    the West India and Panama Telegraph Company; and, if so, whether all information about the War issued by the Official Press Bureau is being thus sent gratis wherever possible?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The principal Colonies and Protectorates have standing arrangements with the Press Agencies, under which they are furnished with daily news bulletins, and all news of importance or general interest which is issued by the Press Bureau will doubtless be communicated to them under this arrangement.

    SUGAR PRICES.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the present and prospective shortage of beet sugar and the high price of all kinds of sugar, the Government will encourage the erection of beet sugar factories this autumn and the sowing of sugar beet in Great Britain next spring by exempting Home-grown sugar from Excise Duty for the next ten years?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The Government have, of course, no intention in the present circumstances of proposing an Excise Duty on Home-grown sugar.

  GOVERNMENT MORATORIUM.

    EXTENSION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the-Government has arrived at any conclusion in regard to the extension of the moratorium; and, if so, whether he will indicate what such conclusion is?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement as to this on the Adjournment to-day.
    Mr. COWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an announcement that the Bank of England has given notice to all who may send to it pre-moratorium bill for discount that "in the event of any bill which has been accepted for discount being unpaid and refused reacceptance it must be taken up by the discounter as heretofore," whether this notice is intended as an intimation of a departure by

    361
    the Government from its policy as stated in the House of Commons, and, if so, whether the new conditions indicated in the notice referred to are intended to apply to all pre-moratorium bills presented at the Bank of England after this date?
    Mr. MONTAGU: There is no intention whatever of departing from the policy of the Government, as stated in the House of Commons. The notice was issued in order to expedite the discounting of the bills and to obviate the necessity of getting the bills approved by the bank before they were discounted. If objection is taken to the course pursued the bank is prepared to withdraw the notice, but it must then insist upon the approval in all cases preceding the discounting of the bill.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received the answers to his questions with regard to the extension of the moratorium from the National Federation of Building Trades' Employers, the Institute of Builders, and the London Master Builders' Association, and whether the building trades are opposed to the extension of the moratorium beyond 4th September; and whether, in the event of any such extension being made, he would consider their request that the building trades should be excluded from such extension in order to enable employment in the building trade to be continued, which the master builders regard as impossible if the moratorium is extended?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is to-day making a statement on the Adjournment with regard to the moratorium.

    ENEMY'S MINES (INSURANCE).
    Mr. COWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the State scheme of insurance against war risks for fishing vessels is now in operation; whether such insurance covers the risk of destruction by floating and other mines; and whether, in the event of this specific risk not being insurable, he will state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the interest of the British fishing industry to indemnify owners of British trawlers and other fishing craft against these risks?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The scheme referred to by my hon. Friend is in operation, and covers the usual King's enemy risk, which includes destruction by mines laid by the enemy.

    HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT STAFF (RESERVISTS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister what provision has been made for the wives and families of the members of the Session staff of the Houses of Parliament who have been called up as Reservists?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will consult the authorities of the House with regard to this matter.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some announcement on the subject when he is in a position to do so?

  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN MERCHANT VESSELS.

    SUPPLY OF GOODS TO ENEMY.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a company, consisting of members of British and other nationalities, is being formed for the purpose of acquiring German and Austrian merchant vessels which have been driven by our Navy into neutral ports, he can say what action the Government intend to take to prevent the company from using these vessels for supplying goods of any kind during the war to the countries with which we are at present at war?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. If the hon. Member will be so good as to furnish me with particulars of the company to which he refers, the matter will be inquired into.

    BRITISH HONORARY COLONELCIES HELD BY GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS.
    Mr. HOAREasked whether it is proposed to take any steps with reference to the honorary colonelcies of regiments and the orders of knighthood now held by Germans and Austrians?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not intended to take any steps at present.

    JOINT STOCK COMPANIES' DIVIDENDS (ALIEN ENEMIES).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the subjects of countries now at war with the British Empire are shareholders in companies registered in the United Kingdom or in our Oversea Empire, he can take steps which will prevent these alien enemies from receiving dividends from these companies, either directly or through agents within the British Empire, during the period of the War?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am issuing to the Press a notice from the Board of Trade directing joint stock companies that dividends or interest becoming due after the outbreak of war should not be paid to persons resident in enemy territories or in accordance with their instructions.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Siemens Bros., under the title of the Siemens Dynamo Works, Limited, are announcing publicly that they have received a contract to supply the British Government with electric lamps for the ensuing twelve months; and whether he is aware that though this business is registered in England as a limited company with £600,000 capital in 120,000 shares, these shares are largely the property of alien enemies, 70,465 being held by Arnold W. von. Siemens, Karl von Siemens and George von Siemens, all of Berlin, 19,783 by Alexander von Siemens, and 19,210 by G. von Chauvin, who is registered here as an alien enemy; and other blocks of shares are hold by persons with German names, thus ensuring that practically the whole of the profits on such Government contracts and other orders for cables, etc., which have been given by His Majesty's Government to this firm would, in the ordinary course, accrue to the advantage of these alien enemies; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a Receiver be immediately appointed, so that while the plant and factories are used
    364
    for the production of articles required in this country, so that British workmen shall not be thrown out of work, there shall be no profits sent, during the currency of the War, to the King's enemies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that the best, answer I can give to the hon. Member is to assure him that the general question of the position of limited companies in this country which are controlled by alien enemies is at the present time receiving the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. I cannot say more at present.

    WHEAT STOCKS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Government deciding to provide, by legislation or otherwise, some financial inducement to farmers to retain upon then-premises their stocks of wheat now being harvested, or to sow this autumn a larger area than usual of their land with cereals, he will, without delay, make a public announcement to the above effect in order to avoid the premature marketing of this year's grain and to encourage the early sowing of grain for next year's harvest and the immediate preparation of the laud for such purpose?
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The matter is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but at present I am not in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on Thursday last.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Would the hon. Baronet make an early announcement on the subject, as this is essential if farmers are to do the duty which is expected of them?

    MARES IMPRESSED (RETURN TO OWNERS).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an effort will be made to return to their former owners for breeding

    365
    purposes after the conclusion of the War marcs which have been impressed on farm premises for military requirements?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): This has been carefully considered, but it is not, I regret to say, practicable.

    ARMY ENLISTMENT.
    Mr. CROOKSasked whether recruiting officers have called attention to the fact that recruits are not joining the Colours so readily as they might on account of the uncertainty of the allowance for dependants being adequate and being paid weekly; and whether any steps will be taken to remove this uncertainty?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): No reports to this effect have been received, but to remove all uncertainty as to the adequacy of the provision made for a soldier's wife and family a leaflet is being issued, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member. As I have already stated, arrangements are being made for the weekly payment of separation allowance in cases in which it is desirable.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will steps be taken to insure the insertion of that leaflet in the Press?
    Mr. BAKER: I will see to that.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will it be necessary to make application in order to have the separation allowances made weekly, or will it be done automatically?
    Mr. BAKER: It will be arranged through the local relief committees.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Is it intended to pay the monthly allowance to relief committees and allow them to act as bankers, or will the hon. Gentleman explain what is intended?
    Mr. BAKER: Substantially the hon. Member's interpretation is correct, but I will send him a copy of the Army Order, which will be published very soon.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will say what special arrangements
    366
    have been made to obtain recruits for Lord Kitchener's Army; whether a committee has been appointed to arrange for publicity in connection with the movement, and if so will he give the names of that committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: As regards the general arrangements in regard to recruiting there is nothing to add to the statements which have already been made in this House and in the Press. If the committee to which the hon. Member refers is that which is being formed of Members of this House he should, I think, address himself to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I am not aware of any other committee.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman give me some information about the committee?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will endeavour to do so when I have had time to consult my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Does the hon. Gentleman say that a circular has been issued from the War Office to Members of this House?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of any.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTERasked the Under-Secretary for War if non-commissioned officers who have taken their discharge from the Army can join in their former rank the Army now being recruited?
    Mr. TENNANT: As was stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on Thursday last, ex-non-commissioned officers would be enlisted in the first place as privates, but may be selected immediately for promotion to non-commissioned rank. Ex-soldiers with previous experience as non-commissioned officers need have no fear, I think, that their experience will not be used.
    Mr. FORSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number hesitate to join the new Army on that account, and can he not see his way, the need for non-commissioned officers being so great, to relax the strict rules?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will represent what my hon. Friend has said to the Adjutant-General, and see if anything can be done.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A number of private notice questions have reached me. I propose first to take those which arrived before the House, met. The others I will take later in the order in which they were handed in.

    SOLDIERS' WIVES (SEPARATION ALLOWANCE).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to aske the Under-Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether he is aware that an order has been issued that soldiers' wives who married after 14th August, 1914, will receive no separation allowance from the Government; whether he is aware that every facility has lately been given for soldiers to marry; and whether he can see his way to rescind the order that the wives of soldiers married after 11th August, 1914, shall receive no separation allowance from the Government?
    Mr. BAKER: This order was given after very full consideration, and there is no intention of altering the decision.

    BELGIAN REFUGEES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a large number of refugees from Belgium coming to this country are absolutely destitute, and barely clothed, having been driven from their homes, which in some cases have been burned during the War; and whether he will consider the desirability of employing State funds in order to relieve these destitute people?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We all have the greatest sympathy with these destitute refugees from a country for which we feel so much as we do at this moment, but there is a certain number of funds which are being raised by private action for the purpose, and I would rather wait and see how that works out before answering the Noble Lord's question.

    ENGINEER APPRENTICES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, in view of the fact that several engineer apprentices in the Royal dockyards
    368
    have been mobilised with the Territorial Force, it will be possible, with the consent of the apprentices, to allow them to join the Army Ordnance Corps of Artificers, and so complete their term of apprenticeship?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand the hon. Member to refer to apprentices in the naval establishments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty informed him on the 27th instant that their period of military service will be allowed to count as part of their apprenticeship. As regards their transfer to the Army Ordnance Corps, I would add that no officers or men are being transferred from the Territorial Force to the Regular Forces, and that in any case the completion of a full apprenticeship is a necessary qualification for admission to the Armament Artificer Section of the Army Ordnance Corps.

    CABLE RATES.
    Mr. COWANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience and loss suffered by the commercial community in this country and the Colonies owing to the prohibition of the use of codes in cabling; and whether, considering the largely increased revenue thereby derived by the companies without any corresponding outlay on their part, he will use his influence to induce the cable companies to substantially reduce their rates per word while the use of codes is in abeyance?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The companies concerned have already been in communication with the Treasury, and the matter is receiving careful attention.

    HARVEST (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education will, in view of the necessity of encouraging both recruiting and the completion of this harvest and the preparation for the next harvest, issue a notice that boys who may be temporarily engaged in field work in lieu of men who have recruited will be

    369
    excused from school attendance, and that both their parents and themselves will be relieved from penalties.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I have no power to suspend the operation of the law of school attendance without legislation. The by-laws in most agricultural districts already make provision for exemption of children who are of an age to be useful in field work. The matter is one which, I think, can safely be left to the discretion of local education authorities and magistrates, with whom the enforcement of the law for school attendance rests.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it the fact that latitude is now allowed to local authorities in those places to grant exemption during the months of the harvest, and not exemption during the winter months?
    Mr. PEASE: As long as the child has to attend the school 250 times the school is open. I think it is left a great deal to the discretion of the local authorities as to the months in which a child may be exempted in order to help in agricultural work.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that copies of his answers are circulated for the benefit of the local authorities with a view to assisting agriculture, having regard to the difficulties in which it has been placed by recruiting?
    Mr. PEASE: The Prime Minister stated last week that the Government will put no pressure on the authorities with regard to these matters, and, therefore, the local education authorities may be relied upon to exempt children who can be usefully employed in support of the agricultural industry.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Surely this is a matter in regard to which the answer of the right hon. Gentleman might be circulated?
    Mr. PEASE: If I thought there was the slightest necessity for circulating it among the local authorities I should certainly do so, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that they may be trusted, and that the matter may be left to their discretion.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTER: Will the Boy Scouts, who are doing most useful work in the Government offices, also be exempted from full attendance?
    Mr. PEASE: If they are over eleven years' of age they may be exempted; and if they are over thirteen years' of age they will naturally be exempted if they have passed the reasonable standards.

    "CALL TO ARMS."
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Postaster-General whether the attention of the Postmaster-General has been called to the copious display of invitations to recruit made with the willing consent of the owners and drivers of London taxi-cabs, and whether the Post Office will immediately adorn in similar manner every mail cart and van driven through the towns and country districts of the United Kingdom?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): My right hon. Friend will be quite willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, and he is in communication with the War Office.

    CONVENTION OF LONDON (CORN MERCHANTS).
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if his attention had been called to advices from Hamburg, through Amsterdam, which state that the Association of Corn Merchants has decided to begin all new business exclusively upon the terms of the German Dutch Corn Convention, and to abolish absolutely the Convention of London, and what action will be taken in the matter by His Majesty's Government? May I add that I do not want to suggest anything in regard to the observance of the Convention in London.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have seen the announcement in question, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division on Friday last. The alleged change in the trade arrangements under which Hamburg corn merchants propose

    371
    to conduct their oversea business would seem to be of little importance at the moment.

    LISTS OF CASUALTIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether any list of casualties has been received at the War Office other than those published in the public Press, and whether it is not possible to publish even an incomplete list as soon as any names are received, in order to assuage the anxiety naturally felt by the relatives of officers who are known to be at the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: The only lists that have been received are those of the wounded at base hospitals and those who have been brought to this country. This list will be published as soon as the relatives have been informed.

    LAND VALUATION.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would consider the advisability of suspending the operations of the land valuation until the termination of the War, thereby liberating a very large body of men who, from their special qualifications, would be able to render valuable service in connection with the prosecution of the War, and further liberate a large amount of public money, now expended on land valuation, for the purposes of the defence of the Realm?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative. Every facility is, of course, being given to officers of the Land Valuation Department, who wish to volunteer for service, but I see no reason for throwing the remainder of the staff out of employment.

    WAR OFFICE LAND PURCHASE, WILTSHIRE.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the extent of the area of the land recently purchased by the War Office at Chisledon and Ogbourne, in Wiltshire, and the purpose for which this land is intendeds and the nature of the building and other work
    372
    which would be required to render it available for the purpose for which it is required, and when this is likely to be sufficiently completed for the land in question to be made use of by the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret I have not had time to get the figures.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman state generally what the purpose is? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

    PARCELS FOR TROOPS (DUTIABLE ARTICLES).
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state for the information of the public, whether parcels intended for His Majesty's Forces on the Continent, which contain articles such as tobacco, which would be liable to Customs Duty on entering France in ordinary circumstances, can be sent without risk of their delivery being delayed or prevented?
    Mr. TENNANT: This is a question which, as it involves a foreign country, should come through the Foreign Office, and there has not been time obviously to get the necessary information. I hope to be able to get an answer from the Foreign Office.

  PUBLICATION OF INACCURATE NEWS.

    PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the "Times" yesterday published dispatches from two correspondents at Amiens to the effect that the British Expeditionary Force had met with "defeat and disaster," and that the British regiments had been "broken to bits"; that the Secretary of State for War issued during the day a reassuring bulletin contradicting these sensational messages; that the Press Bureau warned the public against such statements, because "there are no correspondents at the front, and the information is derived at second and third hand from persons who are often in no condition to tell coherent stories, and are certain to be without the perspective

    373
    which is necessary to construct or understand the general situation"; and whether, having regard to the untold pain and anxiety caused by the dissemination of such misleading statements, the Government will return to the time-honoured practice of this country and allow Press correspondents to accompany our Army to the front?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible too highly to commend the patriotic reticence of the Press as a whole from the beginning of the War up to this moment. The publication to which my hon. Friend refers would appear to be a very regrettable exception. I trust and believe that it will not recur. I doubt whether my hon. Friend's suggestion is the best way under the altered conditions of modern warfare of dealing with the matter. The Government feel, after the experience of the last two weeks, that the public is entitled to be impatient for prompt and authentic information of what is happening at the front, and they have to-day made arrangements which they hope will be more adequate.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the dispatches and letters which were published in the "Times" yesterday were submitted to the Press censorship, and were they passed by the Press Censor, and if so, why?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe they were.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in various parts of the country, particularly in Edinburgh, some newsboys have been sent to prison and fined for calling out false news in the streets, and is it proposed to take any action with regard to the "Times"?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed the poster that was issued by the "Observer" yesterday, which was more alarming and a greater offence than any of the others?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I was not here. I did not see it. It may become necessary, of course, to ask the House to pass
    374
    some drastic form of legislation. I should! be very loath to impose it until the urgency has actually arrived.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the Prime Minister say why the Press Censor passed the message?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter can be raised on the Adjournment.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should like to press for an answer to the question as to why the Press Censor passed it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say. I have no responsibility in the matter. The Noble Lord can raise it on the Adjournment.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.

    ARRANGEMENTS FOR RETURN.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make as to British subjects detained abroad?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am glad to have an opportunity to make a further statement on this subject before the House adjourns. The countries as to which there is still anxiety about the position of British subjects are chiefly Switzerland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Belgium. In Switzerland the arrangements as to-special trains which I announced last week have been exactly carried out. Six trains carrying an average of about 700 were sent from Switzerland last week on every day except Monday, and a train containing the remainder of those who at present wish to come back from Switzerland started yesterday. The efforts of His Majesty's Minister at Berne will now be devoted to assisting the return of any British subjects who enter Switzerland from neighbouring countries. He is in possession of funds for this purpose.
    With regard to Germany, I am informed that Mr. Gerrard, the United States Ambassador at Berlin, has gladly undertaken the distribution of money to British subjects in distress from the funds which are at his disposal, and that he has arranged such distribution, not only in Berlin, but in the different Consular districts throughout Germany. In com-

    375
    pliance with the suggestion I made, notices have been inserted in the newspapers in Germany informing British subjects that they can apply to the American Embassy, or the nearest American Consul, for information and assistance. Lists of British subjects with whom the United States authorities are in touch are believed to be on their way to this country, and, as I have already stated, the relatives or friends here will be informed in all cases where we have their addresses as soon as these lists are received.
    A considerable forward step has been made with regard to the arrangements for the return of British subjects from Germany. Hitherto a limited number of these persons have been returning from certain places, mainly in the South and West of Germany, but from the greater part of Germany no one has been allowed to leave. The parties of those leaving have been allowed to cross the frontier with the exception of men of military age, about 100 of whom are known to have been there detained. A few men beyond the ordinary age for service in arms have also been detained. From this country German women and children have, I understand, been allowed to leave freely ever since the War began. In order that a proper scheme of exchange of non-combatants should be carried out, it is therefore necessary that women and children, and men not subject to military duty, should be allowed to leave any part of Germany, and not only certain limited districts, and that those not subject to military duty now detained should be allowed to leave, in addition to the women and children.
    To this end His Majesty's Government were glad to receive through the American Ambassador last week a statement that the German Government would allow British subjects to leave Germany provided that His Majesty's Government would allow German subjects to leave the United Kingdom. It has been decided to take up this suggestion, except as concerning persons under duty of naval or military service, and persons of military age who will not give an undertaking not to accept such duty on returning, and persons held in custody in this country for sufficient cause. In pursuance of this
    376
    decision, I was able to write to the American Ambassador last night, making definite proposals for an exchange. I asked His Excellency to be kind enough to convey to the German Government the willingness of His Majesty's Government to permit the return to Germany, subject to reciprocal treatment for British subjects in Germany, of (a) women and children, (b) males under sixteen or over forty-four, (c) males between these ages, provided they are under no present liability for military service, and will, before leaving this country, give an undertaking to take no part, direct or indirect, in assisting the operations of the War. I hope to hear before long that the German Government will permit the repatriation of the same, classes from Germany, and that they will give facilities, as we on our side will do to the best of our ability, for proper arrangements being made by the United States authorities for such repatriation to take place.
    With regard to Austria-Hungary, we have been informed that the Austro-Hungarian Government are disposed to give facilities for British non-combatants to proceed to Italy, or Switzerland, and the same definite offer is therefore being conveyed to them through the American Embassy as in the case of Germany. With regard to British subjects in Belgium and Luxemburg, His Majesty's Government are asking the United States Government to add to the obligations which they owe them by requesting their representatives in the districts in which British Consuls are no longer working to do the best they can for their welfare. I hope to have further news about the plans for repatriation when the House meets again, and if there is news before then I will communicate it to the Press. Meanwhile, I must reiterate the fact that I know of no sure means of sending money or letters to British subjects in Germany or Austria-Hungary.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will have that answer printed, and placed in the Vote Office; and, in view of the rising of Parliament, can he arrange for copies to be sent to Members who leave their names at the Vote Office?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think I can arrange that.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the hon. Gen-Gentleman say whether the American Government have a representative in Liége, where British and American citizens are believed to be in the enemy's hands?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not quite certain. I will find out and inform the hon. Member.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why is the age fixed at forty-four, seeing that the maximum age for enlistment in this country is thirty-five?
    Mr. ACLAND: I understand that the ages of sixteen and forty-four are the minimum and maximum ages for service in Germany.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman consider as to the advisability accepting any assurance whether German subjects between those ages will or will not take part in the War?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am very anxious not to put unnecessary difficulties in the way of an exchange. I think that as long as we are sure that persons who are under a definite duty for military or naval service do not return to Germany, we ought to be willing to depend upon the honour of those not under such duty if they will give an assurance that they will not undertake such duty when they return.

    PRECAUTIONS AGAINST EPIDEMICS.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps are being taken to prevent any epidemic of disease occurring in this country in consequence of the arrival of refugees and others from those parts where disease is likely to be?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): As the hon. Member sent me notice but a few minutes ago, I can give only a general reply. Although there is no reason to apprehend any immediate danger of the kind suggested in the question, the Local Government Board are fully alive to the necessity of taking precautions. When we learnt a few days ago that a considerable number
    378
    of refugees were coming in from the Continent, the Board sent a medical inspector down to the port to make a special examination of those who arrived. Two-days ago we sent a reminder to local authorities of their duties in connection with the prevention of small-pox, with instructions as to the course to be taken in the event of an outbreak. I can assure-the hon. Member that the Local Government Board are exercising every vigilance-to safeguard the health of the people.

    INSURANCE POLICIES (EXTRA PREMIUMS).
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I beg to ask the-Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in the cases where officers at, the time of effecting their policies have not arranged to pay an extra premium, and also in the cases of some restricted policies taken out by civilians who have volunteered, an extra premium of five guineas per cent. on the amount secured by their policies becomes payable immediately they are called out for active service, and if this amount is not paid the policies become void, and as many are unable to pay, would he either approach the insurance companies and ask them to waive their demand, or else give such assistance from the Treasury as would enable the sum to be paid, if persisted in?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question-on this subject last Thursday, when he-stated that the question was under consideration, and it was hoped that the matter would be settled without the intervention of the State. I am not yet in a position to give any further answer, but I still hope that it will not be necessary for-the State to intervene.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Would it not be possible to ask these companies, at least, to forego their demand now, and be content to recoup themselves by deducting 5 per cent. if and when the insurance money has to be paid?
    Mr. MONTAGU: A communication has been addressed to insurance companies, and the matter is still in progress of negotiation.

    TROOPS FROM INDIA.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for India whether he is in a position now to make any statement to the House with regard to troops from India and their participation in the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] A statement was made in another place.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Secretary of State in another place, as that statement gives all the information I have on the matter.

    West Indian Colonies (Week-end Telegrams).
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether week-end telegrams, at reduced rates, will be introduced for the West Indian Colonies as one of the results of the new agreement with the West India and Panama Telegraph Company?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the negative. The company will, however, give a deferred service at half the reduced ordinary rates.

    Telegraphists' Cramp.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telegraphists at Leicester and at Edinburgh, owing to the disability of having contracted telegraphists' cramp, have been denied the increased pay recommended by the Holt Committee; and whether, having regard to paragraph 264 of the Holt Report that persons suffering from telegraphists' cramp ought to be transferred to other duties of their class, carrying the same scales of pay as that to which they were entitled as telegraphists, he will say if the withholding of the increased pay under these circumstances is with his knowledge and sanction?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is the case that some officers who suffer from telegraphists' cramp have not been allowed increased pay, because the necessary certificate of ability to perform the highest duties of their class could not be given in respect of them. No increment above the efficiency bar in the scale of pay can be granted in the absence of such a certificate;
    380
    and the Holt Committee reiterated the view expressed by earlier Committees, that the certificate should not be given on compassionate grounds. I shall be pleased to inquire into the circumstances at Leicester and Edinburgh if the hon. Member will supply me with further particulars.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is now prepared to appoint the Committee of Inquiry into the Regulations issued from his Department affecting the importation of Irish cattle during the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, which was arranged with the ex-President of the Department and the representatives of Ireland; and whether the terms of reference will be such as were then agreed upon?
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the advisability of affording necessary facilities for future trading in live stock between Ireland and Great Britain, he will arrange for the promised inquiry to be held with the object of enabling safe and speedy animal transport?
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informs me that he made no arrangement of the precise kind suggested by the hon. Member for North Meath. The scope of the promised inquiry was outlined by him in his speech on the 16th June, to which I would refer the hon. Member, but no terms of reference have been agreed upon. I suggest to the hon. Member that the present is not a convenient time to proceed with the inquiry.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange a future time when it will be more convenient, as the question is important?
    Sir H. VERNEY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question later on.

    Chinese Labour (Gold Coast and East Africa).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Aboutiakon gold mines of the British Gold Coast Colony are import

    381
    ing Chinese labour; if so, whether this has been done with his sanction; and will he state under what conditions these labourers have been obtained and the terms of their agreements?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have no information on the subject, but am making inquiries.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Chinese labourers have yet been brought to the gold mines in British East Africa; and, if so, whether such labourers were accompanied by their wives?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. There are no gold mines in British East Africa and no Chinese labour is employed there.

    Sporting Cartridges (Customs Inspection).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that Customs officials have no instructions to Tamper with goods going to Ireland, he will say by whose orders, and on what authority, cases of sporting cartridges ordered from Birmingham by Messrs. Nooney and Son, merchants, Mullingar, in the ordinary course of their business, have been in the present month examined, disturbed, and delayed at Holyhead, and again at North Wall, and a charge made for each examination, amounting in all to 10s.: and whether he will have this money refunded and an apology tendered?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I can only repeat that no charge for examination was made by the Crown.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, namely, whether this money will be refunded and an apology tendered? I hold the receipt.
    Mr. MONTAGU: No charge has been made, and, therefore, I cannot refund anything.
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes, it has been made, and improperly made. I will repeat the question next day the House meets.

    Income Tax.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has
    382
    been the amount of earned income during the last three completed years on which Income Tax has been paid on incomes of £175, £200, £225, and £250, respectively; and also the figures for earned incomes in excess of £250?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I regret that the information asked for is not available and cannot be obtained from the Income Tax statistics.

    Coolmahan River (Conviction for using Gaff).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conviction of Thomas Feeny, of Ballard, county Cork, by the Recorder and justices sitting at Midleton, for using a gaff in the Coolmahan river; whether the justices at the Petty Sessions dismissed the case; whether the only evidence against the accused was that of a constable who did not get near the person at the river; whether the constable gave a different version of the case before the Recorder to that which he gave before the Petty Sessions Court; and whether, seeing that the accused is a very respectable man, and that several witnesses saw him at divine service at the time the alleged offence was committed, and saw him go to his own home, and that it is well-known to the police and to the local inspector of fisheries that there was a miscarriage of justice in the case, he will say what steps he intends to take to redress the wrong done to this man?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This matter is at present the subject of inquiry.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Keady Urban District Council protesting against the proposed sale of the town of Middletown to middlemen, excluding the occupiers; and whether he intends to take any action to sustain the Land Act principle and prevent the expenditure of public money in opposition to the intentions of the Legislature?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have received the resolution referred to. The Estates Commissioners have not sanctioned any ad-

    383
    vances to middlemen in the town of Middletown, whose holdings are entirely sub-let, but in some cases they decided to make advances to tenants whose holdings were partially sub-let. The cases of the sub-tenants were carefully considered by the Commissioners, and they decided that they could not make any advances under the Land Purchase Acts to the sub-tenants, most of whom hold under weekly or monthly tenancies.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Remission of Death, Duties in Case of Persons Killed in the Present War).
    (1) Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1900 (which relates to the remission of Death Duties in case of persons killed in war), shall have effect as respects the present War as if it applied to property passing to ancestors as well as to property passing to the widow or lineal descendants, and as if the amount of the duty to be remitted or repaid under that Section were, instead of the amount therein mentioned, the following amounts:—

    (a) Where the value for the purpose of Estate Duty of the property passing to the widow, lineal descendants, or lineal ancestors does not exceed five thousand pounds, the whole of the Death Duties leviable in respect of that property; and

    (b) Where the said value exceeds five thousand pounds—

    (i) in respect of the first five thousand pounds, the whole of the Death Duties; and

    (ii) so much of the duties leviable in respect of the duties leviable in respect of the remainder as exceeds the sum which, if accumulated at compound interest at the rate of three per centum per annum from the date of death with half-yearly rests would, at the expiration of the period of the normal expectation of life of a person of the age of the deceased at the time of death (calculated in accordance with the Tables of Mortality of Government Life Annuitants, 1912), amount to the whole of the Duties so leviable.

    (2) The benefits of the relief given by this Section as respects the first five thousand pounds shall be enjoyed rateably by the several beneficiaries entitled to the
    394
    relief according to the amount but without regard to the priorities of their several beneficial interests.
    (3) Where the relief in respect of Estate Duty afforded to the widow, lineal descendants, or lineal ancestors by Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1914, would be greater than that afforded to them in respect of Estate Duty by this Section, the relief in respect of Estate Duty shall be that under the said Section fifteen and not that under this Section, but in other cases the relief afforded by the said Section fifteen shall not apply to any Estate Duty to which this Section applies.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "to" ["property passing to ancestors"], to insert the word "lineal."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment. The object was stated by the Chancellor on Friday last. It was thought that the words "ancestor" alone was not quite clear.
    Question, "That the word 'lineal' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (b) (ii), to leave out the word "three" ["three per centum"], and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
    When the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter on Thursday last he said:—
    "The Government consider that it would be unjust and unseemly that the revenue should profit by the premature death of those who sacrifice their lives m the service of their country, and especially so if it were to the detriment of their widows and children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th August, 1914, col. 176.]
    Those words make it quite clear that the intention was that the revenue should not benefit by the premature death of those who lose their lives in the service of their country. That is the basis of the Bill. That being so, it is necessary to consider exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes in this Sub-section. He proposes that Death Duties in these cases should not be paid in full, but that a calculation should be made as to the normal expectation of life, and that, subject to the 3 per cent. tables, the sum which would have been due in the ordinary course should be reduced by a certain amount. I have consulted several tables

    395
    to see what is the expectation of life of a person of, approximately, the age who is likely to be subject to this provision. I find that a male person of the age of thirty has an expectation of life of 33.07 years. I find in the 3 per cent. scale that the present worth of a reversion of £100, payable at the end of thirty-three years, is £37.702. All we have to consider, with a view of carrying out the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is whether or not 3 per cent under the circumstances is a reasonable estimate of the value of money. I turn to the "Times" Financial Supplement of 31st July, the last day on which the Stock Exchange was open. I find that on that day 2½ per cent. Consols were quoted at 67–70. Two and a half per cent. Consols at 67 and 70 represents an interest of 3 4–7 per cent. That being so before the actual outbreak of war, and considering, as I pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was here on Thursday, that these deaths will occur during the period of War, or very shortly after the termination of the War, is it reasonable to suppose that our premier security, 2½ per cent. Consols, will be so appreciated in value by the operation of the War that instead of representing an investment at 3 4–7 per cent., they are likely to represent an investment at 3 per cent?
    On the contrary, I think anyone would take a very sanguine view of the financial position if they estimated that it was probable that at the termination of the War, when the Stock Exchange was opened again, or at periods during the currency of the War, the 2½ per cent. Consols would stand at 62½. Standing at that, they represent an investment of 4 per cent. The purpose of my Amendment is, that if the Treasury really mean to make no profit, and if they really mean in this case, on the succession to an estate of the lineal descendant or the direct ancestors of the deceased, that the estate should not be made to pay anything in consequence of the earlier death of the deceased, then they must take a reasonable rate of interest, probably representing approximately the value of money during the period for which they are dealing. Is this 3 per cent. table really put in as a matter of form, and is it the sort of thing that would
    396
    do in any ordinary Bill dealing with any subject of the kind in a time of peace? In recent years we have got into the habit of thinking that 3 per cent. is the probable value of money of an absolutely safe Government security. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his representatives on the Treasury Bench to give effect to what he said himself on Thursday. Do not let us pretend to give from the Treasury the equivalent of the loss to the estate due to the premature death, when really we are putting in words in this Bill which means that we are keeping back at least one-fourth of what is due to the deceased's estate.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be carried out by the figure given, and the 3 per cent. table is what an insurance company would take in its calculations in this matter. The hon. Member may take into his calculation the value of money now. What we have to consider is the probable value of money during the probable remainder of the testator's life, if he had not been killed. I think 3 per cent. is a fair table, and a table that would be used in a commercial transaction.
    Mr. PETO: I called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday to the fact that I should raise this question. I object to the calculation on a 3 per cent. basis. I have dealt with the difficult case of a person meeting his death at the age of thirty, and I think if the hon. Gentleman will consult his financial advisers, he will find that my estimate of 4 per cent. is much more nearly the general accepted estimate than 3 per cent.
    Amendment negatived.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. Buckmaster): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words, "enjoyed rateably by the several beneficiaries entitled to the relief according to the amount but without regard to the priorities of their several beneficial interests," in order to insert the words, "apportioned rateably among the several persons who would otherwise bear the duties remitted or repaid according to the amounts which they would so bear, and without regard to their respective rights of priority."

    397
    Perhaps I may explain in detail the meaning of this Amendment. It deals with a matter which I think the House will understand is a matter of considerable difficulty. It is a very easy thing, if you only had to consider a sum of £500 passing on the death of the deceased. You can make it equitable in respect of Estate Duty and Succession Duty without any consideration of the character of the interests of the lineal descendants who receive the benefit of the £5,000. If you are dealing with an estate which passes to lineal descendants or lineal ancestors that is larger than £5,000 you are then faced with this difficulty: that you have to consider the first £5,000 as free from duty, and it may well be that the first £5,000 is so disposed of by the will as between the various lineal descendants, or the lineal ancestors, as that the whole of it might come to the widow, whilst the balance of the estate passes to the children. In such a case, unless proper arrangements were made in the Bill, the person, whoever he or she might be, who took advantage of the first £5,000 would get the relief by statute. It is desired that the relief should be equitably apportioned amongst all the people who take the benefit. The Clause as originally drawn was drawn for that purpose, and I think it did carry it out, but the words that are proposed to be substituted are possibly more clear, and it is for that purpose that the House is asked to introduce them. I think the House will see in the circumstances that that was exactly the object it wished to secure, that the benefit of this remission shall be properly and equitably divided amongst all the people coming within the class of lineal descendants, and that it should not be by the mere accident of some priority that one person should take the larger benefit.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words, "apportioned rateably among the several persons who would otherwise hear the Duties remitted or repaid according to the amounts which they would so bear and without regard to their respective rights of priority," there inserted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. POLLOCK: On this question I desire to call attention to a point merely for the purpose of publicity. The hon. Member for Cambridge has put down a question not for oral answer, and I would like to call public attention to that matter on the discussion of the Bill. On the title of this Bill it only applies to the remission of Death Duties in the case of persons killed in the War, and the question I wish to ask is as to whether or not other cases are covered, such as persons who, having been injured in the War, died subsequently after the War had been determined. This is a matter upon which the public would like to be reassured, because the relief at present as given by this Bill, as interpreted by any person who merely takes the Bill in his hand and reads it through, would be relief merely in the cases of persons killed in the present War, and no relief will be extended in the cases of deaths caused by the War which did not fall within the chronological limit of the War. I, therefore, desire to ask the Solicitor-General if the purposes of this Bill are not very much wider. The Clause which it is proposed to make applicable in the present Bill is Clause 14 of the Finance Act of 1900. That Clause is to my mind not very perfect and not very easy to understand, but as I interpret its purpose, it means that whether any person dies from wounds or accident or disease inflicted incurred or contracted during the course of the War within twelve months after the ceasing of the War, he shall be entitled to the relief provided if at the time that the disease or the wounds or the accident was inflicted, incurred or contracted the deceased was subject to the Naval Discipline Act or to military law; in other words, while the forces, both by land and sea, were mobilised by His Majesty. That, I understand, is the purpose of Section 14 of the Act of 1900. If so, the relief intended to be given by this Bill is much wider than appears upon the face of it. I hope the Solicitor-General will make a public announcement that what is included is much wider than appears upon the face of this Bill, and that what we are passing is relief to the mobilised forces of the

    399
    Crown, not merely where the combatant falls in war, but where he falls within twelve months after the ceasing of the War, provided that the cause of death is wound, accident or disease inflicted or contracted in the course of serving His Majesty the King during the War.
    Sir STANLEY BUCKMASTER: I am very glad indeed to give the assurance not to the hon. and learned Member, who, I am sure, knows very well no such restrictions are intended, but to others who do not know, that the Bill bears the interpretation he desires and not the interpretation that unlearned persons might think from reading Section 3. The real fact is that, as the hon. Member knows very well, it has been decided again and again that the short title of a Bill is nothing but a label, and that the label cannot be used for the purpose of interpreting the contents of a measure. It might have been better to put in words that the Bill had not such limited operations as suggested, and I am glad to give the assurance the hon. and learned Gentleman asks for, and to assure him that the whole of Section 14, which he rightly interpreted, applies to this Bill.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Remission of Esiaie Duty in Respect of Property Passing More than Once owing to Deaths Caused by the War).
    When the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that Estate Duty has become payable on any property passing on the death of any person to which Section one of this Act applies, and that subsequently Estate Duty has again become payable on the same property or any part thereof passing on the death of some other person to which Section one of this Act applies, the whole of the Estate Duty payable on such subsequent death in respect of the property so passing shall be remitted, or, in case the duty has been paid, repaid, and the property shall not be aggregated with any other property passing on such subsequent death for the purpose of determining the rate of Estate Duty.
    Mr. MONTAGU: When this Clause was under debate the other day, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University
    400
    pointed out that we should do something to protect the corpus of the estate in case there were several deaths owing to the War. We have introduced this Clause in the Bill in order to meet the point more fully than was even suggested on Friday. It not only gives quick succession relief, but we give to every death after the first completed immunity. The Clause as it stands is open to some ambiguity because it might mean it only applies where the estate is left to lineal descendants, and in order to make that perfectly clear I shall move later at the end that this Section shall apply whether or not on any such death the property passes to the widow or the lineal descendant or ancestors of the deceased.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Before that Amendment is moved. I beg to move to leave out the words "to which Section 1 of this Act applies." and to insert instead thereof the words "killed in the War."
    The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman suggested will not meet the case that I am bringing before the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman says, this Clause is intended to prevent a second Death Duty being paid, but it limits the second Death Duty to persons mentioned in Clause 1, and the only case in which it could apply would be where the father and son are both killed in war, and the grandfather succeeds, or where the father and the grandfather are killed and the grandson succeeds. Surely that is not the intention of the Government; surely it is the intention to protect brothers. Where one brother is killed and the property passes on to another, and he also is killed, and when it then passes to the widow or the like, or to the third brother, surely such a case is intended to be covered. As the Clause now stands, such a case is not covered, and hence I move this Amendment. That part of the Clause would then read—
    "On the death of some other person killed in the War the whole of the Estate Duty payable on such subsequent death.…. shall be remitted."
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I think hon. Members will see that the Amendment

    401
    suggested by the Government is much more complete and comprehensive than the one which has been suggested by the hon. Member, and it covers the other points as well. It should be borne in mind that the Clause is intended to provide that where an estate passes more than once owing to the accident of the War, only one Estate Duty shall be charged, and that irrespective of the person to whom the estate passes. That is the intention and purpose of the Clause, and although as it stands it may appear to be ambiguous, the Amendment suggested by the Government will make it clear.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I am very much indebted to the Government for having considered this matter so favourably. I know such cases are not very frequent, but they are pathetic cases when they do happen.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I am not sure whether the term "killed in war" accurately defines what is intended.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I am quite satisfied with the Amendment which has been suggested by the Solicitor-General, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I beg to move to add at the end of the Clause the words "this Section shall apply whether or not on any such death any property passes to the widow or lineal descendants or ancestors of the deceased."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time and passed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Considered in Committee [Progress 28th August].
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Courts to Defer Execution, etc.)
  (1) From and after the passing of this Act no person shall—

  (a) proceed to execution on, or otherwise to the enforcement of, any judgment or order of any Court (whether entered or made before or after the passing of this Act) for the payment or recovery of a sum of money, except on an application for the purpose to that Court; or

  (b) levy any distress, take, resume, or enter into possession of any property, foreclose, realise any security, forfeit any deposit, or take any other measures, for the purpose of enforcing the payment or recovery of any sum of money, or in default of the payment or recovery of any sum of money, except on an application for the purpose to the High Court, or, alternatively, to the County Court in such cases as may be provided for by rides or directions under this Act.

  (2) If on any such application the Court is of opinion that time should be given to the person liable to make the payment on the ground that he is unable immediately to make the payment by reason of circumstances attributable, directly or indirectly, to the present War, the Court may, in its absolute and final discretion, by order stay execution or defer the operation of any such remedies as aforesaid, for such time and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit.
  (3) Where a bankruptcy petition has been presented against any debtor, and the debtor proves to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy that his inability to pay his debts is due to circumstances attributable, directly or indirectly, to the present War, the Court may, in its absolute and final discretion at any time stay the proceedings under the petition for such time and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor may make such-rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving full effect to this Act.
  (5) The powers given under this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers of any Court.
  (6) Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or power of pawnbrokers to deal with pledges.
  (7) Any stay of execution or of other proceedings and any postponement of the operation of the remedies of a creditor, which has been granted or ordered by any Court since the commencement of the present War and before the passing of this Act, shall be as valid as if this Act had been in operation when the stay or postponement was granted or ordered.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) paragraph (a), after the word "money" to insert the words "to which this Sub-section applies."
  It is proposed that in the rules or directions in the case of a pending action or actions it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff first to get judgment, and the plaintiff may give notice before he gets judgment.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think if these rules provided for secrecy in a matter of this kind it would be very unfortunate. I do hope that it is not contemplated by these rules that all these matters should be decided in camera.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to know If the rules will provide for an appeal. It is a very important Bill which may very seriously affect a large number of people. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent of mine in the following terms:—
  "I venture to trouble you with a statement as to the particular position in which I find myself in consequence of the War, a position which is not remedied by the moratorium. My income is entirely derived from property let upon all sorts of tenancies from £15 up to £400, and amounting to about £5,500, which, after deducting the outgoings, leaves me an income of £1,100 a year."
  My correspondent goes on to say:—
  "Since the commencement of the War I have not received a single penny for rent, and my expectations for the future are very doubtful. I cannot borrow any money on properties that cost me £20,000, and they are now practically unsaleable. There must be many people in my situation, and the only way to avoid bankruptcy I can see is for the Government, to do certain things."
  I do not agree with the proposal which my correspondent outlines in his letter, because it means that the Government should take certain steps which I think it
  404
  is impossible for them to do. This, however, raises a very important and a serious question, and one which is not limited to the case of my correspondent. There are in all probability a large number of people in a similar position, and unless there is an appeal to the High Court it may be possible that a large number of people may be ruined by the passing of this Bill. I know that is not intended by the Government, and I know that the Bill says that proceedings shall only be taken provided the War affects them, but a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, a magistrate, or a minor Court of that description, may take views as to what is affected by the War which are not perhaps the right views or the views which a judge of the High Court would take, and which consequently might inflict very great injury on a large number of people. I will hand this letter to the right hon. Gentleman, together with his name and address, because I think it is a matter which deserves very serious consideration.
  Mr. DENNISS: I think the matter which has been mentioned by the hon. Baronet does not arise under this Amendment.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) as to whether these proceedings should be held in private or in public—
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I think it will be found that this point is the subject of an Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on, and it would be better to get rid of the Amendment first.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that would be the better plan.
  Sir J. SIMON: I will deal with the points which have been put on this question when we come to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "property" ["possession of any property"], insert the words "exercise any right of re-entry."
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word

  405
  "security," to insert the words "except by way of sale by mortgagee in possession or."
  It has been pointed out that while it might be reasonable to say that a mortgagee ought not to foreclose or realise his security, it might be unnecessarily hard to say that the mortgagee who had already entered into possession and had been in possession for many years, should have this Bill thrown in his way before he had exercised the ordinary rights of mortgagee in possession. This is why I ask the Committee to insert these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "or take any other measures."
  After the word "money" ["enforcing the payment or recovery of any sum of money"], insert the words "to which this Sub-section applies."
  After the word "any" ["in default of the payment or recovery of any sum of money"], insert the word "such."
  Leave out the words "except on an application for the purpose to the High Court, or, alternatively, to the County Court in such cases," and insert instead thereof the words "except after such application to such Court and such notice."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "Provided that in cases of tenancy and premises let at a rent of not less than £50 per annum, in which the rent has been in arrear for over one month, the provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply."
  The Amendment provides that the Act shall not apply to cases where the rent is more than £50 and where it has been in arrear for more than a month. The object of the Act is to give relief to small tenants who may find it difficult to meet their demands during the War, and I submit that, as far as bigger classes of property are concerned, it is not intended to relieve the tenant to such an extent that he should be allowed to remain in possession and not have his goods distrained upon if he is in arrear for over a month.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am going to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether the case he has in mind, or, at
  406
  any rate, a portion of it, could not be met in another way. I am quite aware that my proposal does not go as far as his, but, subject to the view I may gather during the Debate, my own feeling is that his proposal goes rather too far by way of exception. This Bill as it will be altered by the Government Amendments, will apply, so far as distress for rent is concerned, both to past and future agreements. Future agreements having nothing to do with rent have nothing to do with the Bill at all, but there is an exception made in the case of agreements for letting or renting. It may be true that the case of premises let at a large rental is different in some respects from the case we have mostly in mind, but I am not at all satisfied, so far as regards past letting agreements, that the mere fact that the rent is £50 or more is a good reason for saying this Act of Parliament shall not apply. Take one case which would appeal to many people. Take the case of an officer in the Army who may possibly be living in a house at more rent than £50 per annum. It seems a curious thing to say that because the rent is more than £50, therefore this Act shall not apply. I am sure there must be business premises taken perfectly properly by people who had no thought of war Jet at more than £30 per annum, and, if the general principle of the Bill is accepted, it is hardly reasonable to say that distress, ejectment, re-entry and all the other powers are to be exercised without any regard to this Bill.
  After all, it is only after taking into consideration both sides that you are to say whether failure to pay is due merely to this supervening emergency. I would suggest, therefore, that we apply some such provision to future agreements. If a man now rents premises at more than £50 per annum, he knows the circumstances under which he takes them, and I think there is much force in the view that he should not receive exceptional privileges under the Bill. If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will see a provision down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert at the end of paragraph (b) the words "This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred

  407
  and fourteen." That saves the application of the Statute so far as rent is concerned, even though it be rent under a new agreement. If the hon. Member thinks it would meet the case, I would be prepared to alter the words in brackets, so that they would read "other than rent not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum." The Bill would then be available for rent of any sums so far as it relates to agreements before the War, but so far as it relates to agreements after the War began it would not be available, and would not apply if the rent were more than £50 a year.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: On that understanding. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words,
  "This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteeen hundred and fourteen."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the Committee, move the Amendment as originally drafted?
  Sir J. SIMON: Very well. I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words,
  "This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteen hunched and fourteen."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: (indistinctly heard) The Bill, as originally introduced, protected the land purchase annuitants just as much as the tenants. You have now so altered it that you have earmarked merely the word "rent." You are giving protection to tenants of very large rentals, and, as the land purchase annuitants are really tenants of the State, I think the Bill should apply to them. It is a Bill which I do not think ought to be passed through all its stages to-day. It is not so
  408
  very urgent, and I would therefore ask the Government to consider between this and the next stage whether the word "rent" is not susceptible of some definition which would include land purchase annuitants.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put a difficult point, but it has been present to our minds. I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill, as now altered, will not apply to purchasing tenants, and I confess the view I have been disposed to take has been that on the whole it is undesirable that it should apply to them. The splendid punctuality with which these annuities have been paid is one of the most remarkable features of the recent agrarian history of Ireland, and I would be sorry if a Bill of this sort were to do anything to weaken that punctuality. I rather imagine it would be an arguable point if the Bill as originally drawn did apply to those annuities. But we have quite deliberately left the thing as it is. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman feels strongly upon it, I will have inquiries made while this discussion proceeds, and when we come to the Clause applying the Bill to Ireland that will be an appropriate place to raise this point. But I rather hope the Committee will take the view that it is really better not to make any application of this Bill to the payment of annuities under the Irish Land Acts. That certainly was our intention. There is one other point raised by the hon. and learned Member to which I must refer. This Bill is not one which, in the public interest, we can deal with in a leisurely way. I do not at all say that it is a substitute for the moratorium. Nothing of the sort. But it is obvious you cannot judge what is the right thing to do in reference to the moratorium until you know exactly what the position is under this Bill. The moment the Bill passes rules will have to be drawn up, and, in view of judicial authorities, it is very important that if such a Bill is to be passed, it should be passed with the greatest promptitude consistent with reasonable care. I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will, while this Debate is going on, consider what is best to be done when we reach the Clause applying the Bill to Ireland, and I trust, also, he will bear in mind that our fixed intention was that the Bill

  409
  should not apply to the payment of annuities under the Irish Land Purchase Acts.
  Mr. HOLT: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why payments under the Irish Land Purchase. Acts are not debts due in pursuance of contracts made before the War! I should have thought they were included.
  Sir J. SIMON: The view I have been disposed to take was that such debts would not be the result of ordinary private con-tract, but are really obligations to the Crown. I do not think that taxes are governed by this Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly used the phrase, "Kent and taxes." Reference has been made to the case of an officer shot during the war and unable to pay. But what about the Irish land purchaser who gees to the War? He also may be shot.
  Sir J. SIMON: May I suggest we can deal with this matter better when we come to the Clause applying the Bill to Ireland. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes these annuities to be included, let him propose words to that effect. Let us at any rate say either that they are or are not to be included. We do not want any mystery about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman can put down an Amendment, it will mean only three or four words, and we can discuss it when we come to the Irish Clause.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I will not take the responsibility of adding to the list if the Government are not disposed to do it themselves, because I am rather against the Bill as a whole.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: This Subsection applies to all sums of money—to everything except rent, and it is particularly rent we want it to apply to. The words are, "Due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the 4th day of August, 1914." It seems extraordinary that the Sub-section should apply to sums of money except sums other than rent, whereas we want to have rent included. It starts by saying,
  "This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent),"
  etc. But we want rent to be excluded.
  Mr. DENNISS: The great object of this Section is to prevent distraints for rent, especially on small properties, whether the tenancies were created before the War or after it. That is the intention of the Section. It was threshed out between the various parties who met the other day, and everybody agreed that as regards the rents of small properties no distress or ejectment or any such action should take place whether the letting was before or after the War began.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I quite agree, and the Committee were of opinion that it should be extended beyond the 4th August. Really the Section applies to all sums of money, except sums other than rent, while it is intended to include rent.
  Mr. BOYTON: The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is anxious about the Irish land annuities. I am anxious to know if I am liable to the Government for rates. Is there any exemption which prevents the Government unduly pressing me for rates which may be due?
  Sir J. SIMONindicated assent.
  Mr. BOYTON: May I ask where it is to be found?
  Sir J. SIMON: The liability to pay rates is enforced in this country by application to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. That Court makes an order, and that order may take the form of an order for distraint. If the rates cannot be paid as far as that order is concerned, it will come within Sub-section (a). So far as distress is concerned, if there has not really been an order it would come under Sub-clause (b).
  Sir F. BANBURY: That means that the rates cannot be enforced if the Court to which application is made refuses to make an order.
  Mr. BOYTON: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation. There is another point I wish to put. Assume I am the lessor of property paying rates, such rates being included in the lessee's rent. If the lessee fails to make payment to me, will the Government ask me for payment of the rates which I have not been fortunate enough

  411
  to recover in my inclusive rent? In such a case, will an order be made against me personally?
  Sir J. SIMON: Supposing that the rates are due from the tenant, as is ordinarily the case—except in the case of flats and small properties which compound—suppose the rates are due from the tenant, in the event of their not being paid under the ordinary law, it is on the tenant that the distress goes, and the tenant will be protected against any such proceedings being taken under the terms of this Bill. Therefore, persons who find that it is impossible to pay rates in view of the special conditions which the War has brought about will have the protection of this Statute, so far as the Court thinks it right to give it them. But then there are cases where the rates are paid by the land-lord, either by compounding, or because he is the landlord of flats. The hon. Gentleman wants to know what is the position there. The answer is that the Court that makes any order for relief against an application for distress or protection against remedies for rent may in such a case attach conditions. The Court might, and probably would, in a proper case say to the tenant: "It is all very fine your urging that you should not pay your rent to your landlord. But the landlord has to pay the rates, and therefore unless you comply with the conditions we are going to impose, some such condition probably as that you shall put your landlord in funds to enable him to pay the rates, we shall not be able to give any relief at all so far as regards the payment of rent." The Court will be able to deal with any special cases by attaching suitable conditions before it grants relief.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I thought that was what was meant by the Section. I have been asked by the Corporation of the City of London to put this question: How are they going to pay their way if they are unable to get in their rates? What is to happen in that case? That is one of the reasons why I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cork that there may be some doubt as to whether the Bill is not going to do more harm than good. Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what is to happen in
  412
  the event of a large number of people being unable to pay their rates to the local authority.
  Sir J. SIMON: This is developing into a conversation in which I am always assisting. I would point out that the tribunal which is to deal with these cases is to consider the interests of both sides, and that is provided for in words which no doubt the hon. Baronet has seen. That is one of the considerations which must-make any tribunal cautious before it grants relief. I should have thought the cases very rare indeed where a man, who desires exemption from payment of rates has not other liabilities in respect of which it would be more easy to get some relief than in the case of rates. It must be borne in mind that the rates must be collected with reasonable promptitude if the local finances in any area are going to be carried on satisfactorily. I think we may trust to the good sense of those who will have to administer the Bill to give due consideration to this very obvious proposition.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite sure that I have as much confidence in this tribunal as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, under the circumstances, I will accept what he says.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: I want to know what the position is of the tenant who pays taxes in with his rent. Suppose the landlord refuses to pay, is the local authority to be then in a position to come on to the tenant for the rates due, or is the tenant to have the same protection in respect of rates as he is being given in respect of rent?
  Sir J. SIMON: So far as I can see he has. I must not be understood to say the present law does that. This Bill is not intended to lay down the normal procedure; it is for exceptional cases. If you have a case in which the claim is rightly made against a defendant, but the defendant can show that, owing to the very exceptional circumstances in which we are now living, it is right that he should be given some relief or time, no doubt he would get it.
  Mr. DUKE: Having followed the course of these things, I can say with regard to rates that the distresses by means of which

  413
  rates are levied would not be issued during the War if there are circumstances which arise to afford an excuse for their not being levied. I see no great complexity about it.
  Amendment made in proposed Amendment: After the word "rent" [" other than rent"], insert the words "not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum." [Sir. J. Simon.]
  Question, "That the words 'This Subsection applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "Court" ["if on any such application the Court"], insert the words "to which the application is made."—[Sir J. Simon.]
  Mr. MORRELL: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "or declare any policy of life insurance to be void by reason of default of the payment of any premium when due except on such an application as aforesaid."
  My object in moving this Amendment is to draw the attention of the Committee to the cases of a very large and deserving body of people who are at present suffering very great hardship in consequence of the War—the holders of small life policies—who, in consequence of the War, are unable at the moment to pay their premiums, and who are in danger in consequence of that of losing the benefit of all the premiums they have paid before the War commenced. I am told that large insurance companies are threatening and are, in fact, taking steps to declare these policies to be void, just as if there were no war going on. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prudential Company is doing it!"] I believe other companies are doing so. I have here a letter from a constituent of mine, who is accustomed to this class of business, who says there are many thousands of policy holders in Birmingham alone—people who have paid their premiums, say, from £5 to £20—who, during the present crisis, cannot do so, and are at the mercy of the offices and societies,
  414
  and who will lose all. That seems to be a very hard case, and one with which the Government are bound to deal. I hope the Attorney-General, or someone on the-Treasury Bench, will tell me what steps-the Government propose to take in order to deal with these cases. I see a little further down on the Order Paper art. Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which expressly excludes them, and which says that nothing in this Act shall affect any power to forfeit a policy of insurance for nonpayment of premium—that is to say, an Amendment in the name of the Government runs directly counter to my Amendment.
  I want to know if insurance premiums are not to come under this Bill, and how these people are to be provided for? Are the Government really going to allow these large insurance companies to secure an immense profit at the expense of this large class of persons by lapsing all policies? What do the Government propose to do? As the Committee knows, these people cannot come within the terms of the moratorium because their payments are too small. I questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject on Thursday, and he said he was in communication with the insurance companies on the subject. When I questioned him further, he could not say that he had any particular scheme in hand, or that he was proposing to do anything, and he could give me no assurance whatever. I confess I am not satisfied. It is time the Government realised that this is a very serious matter, and they ought to be able to produce some scheme for relieving these people. At any rate, they ought to allow the policies to continue and to make any arrears a first charge in the event of any claim being made under a policy. That would not involve any hardship to the company and would permit these life policies to continue to exist. I hope the Attorney-General will be able to give me some assurance that the Government have the matter in hand and that they intend to deal with it—if not in this-Bill, at any rate in some other.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I would suggest with regard to these very difficult cases, and those which we cannot now foresee, that the Government should insert an in terrorem Clause giving them power to

  415
  extend this Bill by Order in Council particularly to classes of cases not now mentioned in the Bill, so that an insurance company, if it acted badly, could be told that if due consideration were not given the Government would by Order in Council make such an extension of the Bill. I think the Government are wise in proceeding cautiously, but there may arise hard eases such as the hon. Member pats forward. If they took the power such as I suggest, they would be able to say to a company which was proceeding badly, "If you treat your clients badly, we will make the extension." By that means, without actually defining the matter in the rather drastic way the hon. Member proposes, the Government would still be able to effect everything in their power. I do not know whether such words might be inserted as appear in Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, which says,
  "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, at any time determine the operation of this Act—"
  That clearly affects time—
  "or provide that this Act shall have effect subject to such limitations as may be contained in the Order."
  Why not have such a power to extend the Bill in regard to these doubtful cases which may arise in the future as in the Government's opinion may seem desirable?
  Mr. LYELL: The hon. and learned Member has made a very interesting suggestion. He proposes that a Clause should be inserted which should be something in the shape of a rod in pickle which could be used by the Government at any stage at their discretion. The efficiency of a rod in pickle depends upon the will to take it out and use it if necessary. At the present moment what is in the mind of the Government is to be found in the Amendment on the Paper to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) has referred. If we are to judge anything from that Amendment in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the intention of the Government to except from the operation of this Bill this particular question of insurance policies for small amounts, so that we are to infer that the rod in pickle proposed by the hon. and learned Member for
  416
  North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is going to remain in pickle, because the Government say by putting that Amendment on the Paper that they have no intention of taking that rod out for the benefit of insurance companies. I ask the Attorney-General to give us some information as to the effect of the changes the Government propose to make in the law by this Bill. I would ask, in the first place, whether the moratorium is not to apply to insurance policies where the amount payable monthly or yearly is under £5, but does apply where the amount is over £5. If so, that appears to be very much like making one law for the rich and another for the poor. The large policy holder who makes a payment of over £5 is to be relieved under the moratorium and is to escape payment at a time when it may be difficult to pay, but relief is deliberately refused to the small policy holder—at any rate, I understand that is to be the effect, and I hope it will not be so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I have been a loyal supporter of the Government for the last month, and I am one of the most devoted supporters of the Government at the present moment, but my support does not go quite so far as is indicated by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). I prefer to wait and see what they are going to do. I do not want to put into their hands the power to do anything they like outside the House of Commons, and I prefer that we should have some knowledge of whatever rules and regulations they make.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOWETT: The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork that there should be a rod in pickle does not, to my mind, at all meet the case, because, in some instances, just six weeks' arrears will put a man entirely out of benefit, which means that in the case of death the whole of the money he has paid is lost. It is small comfort to those who are left and who ought to have the benefit of the insurance money, to learn that there has been a rod in pickle and that somewhere and at some time later on other people will have their grievance redressed. This is a most serious matter among certain sections of the public. I have had letters on the subject myself, and I believe similar letters have been sent to

  417
  Citizens Committees up and down the country. Let the House understand that the country is taking serious note of certain things which are occurring at present. The poorer section of the community has got it firmly fixed in their minds that with regard to the banking interest, and with regard to those insured persons who pay large premiums and those who owe large sums of money there is protection—there is the moratorium. It was passed quickly. There was no such thing as pages of Amendments put down by Members of the House. It was hurried through all stages in the matter of half an hour or an hour, and as soon as ever a Bill come on which raises the question of small debts, small insurance policies, questions dealing with those people who suffer more than any other section of society, the section of people who are called upon to fight, and who are driven practically to fight whereas other sections of society can please themselves whether they fight or not, there is opposition. The poor are feeling, and in my opinion most bitterly, some of these differences, and if this House today does not make it clear that it intends to do justice to the poor in this matter there will be a reckoning day sooner or later.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: May I suggest that the Amendment should exclude insurance policies entered into after the outbreak of the War. I think there is a good deal to be said for support of the Amendment with regard to policies entered into prior to the War, but at the same time some consideration should be made for people entering into contracts now with their eyes open, and we should not leave the Bill too wide for future transactions.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am not sure that I quite follow my hon. Friend's suggestion, because it seems to me that the case that needs very anxious consideration is the case of policies of insurance, and especially policies of insurance with industrial companies entered into before the War. A great deal of thought has been given to this matter, and I may as well be frank and confess that I still feel a good deal of doubt as to what is the right way to deal with it, but, plainly, it is not right to deal with it in this Bill offhand, unless we are
  418
  quite clear that we see how it will work out. There is this, of course, to be considered. You may regret it, but it is undoubtedly true that the finance of many industrial insurance companies essentially depends upon the calculation that a certain number of policies will lapse. No doubt the tendency for policies to lapse in time of stress is very greatly increased, and that is a hardship with which everyone here must sympathise, but you have to be careful in making provision that policies are not to lapse for non-payment of premium in the interests of those who find it difficult to pay, lest quite unintentionally you may strike at the whole actuarial basis on which policies are issued which are held by people who do pay. It is undoubtedly a very difficult side of the matter. I do not think it would be right to say that every man who has entered into a policy of life insurance and has paid, perhaps, one or two weeks of premium should thereby get such a vested interest in his policy as entitles him to prevent the policy from being forfeited in the event of non-payment. If I saw my way to draw a line by which I could select the cases of people who have got an established right in a policy from a long course of punctual payments, that would be a very different thing. But the reason why, for the time being, we have thought this ought not to be done was because it seemed to us that the object was so full of difficulty, and the result of such a proposal so uncertain, that it might be desirable to see whether it could not be dealt with by other means.
  My hon. Friend Mr. Morrell asked what was being done about it. I can speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I know how much of his time has been devoted to considering this class of question, and many of us have been considering whether the matter might not be better dealt with by diverting the local charitable assistance which is being organised all over the country in order to relieve suitable cases of this sort by paying these premiums. If you did that you would do nothing, of course, to strike at the root of the actuarial solvency of a company, and at the same time you would save the cases which everyone wants to save. The hon. Member (Mr. Jowett) made a reference to this Bill being discussed by

  419
  lawyers. Lawyers in this matter are no better than other people. I hope they are no worse. The hon. Member himself gave us assistance, which we very much valued, when we had a discussion the other day—most of us lawyers—and I think he will bear me out that even the lawyers of this House were only concerned in showing that this Bill is so framed as to carry out its real object without imposing impossible conditions upon those who, after all, are entitled to have their debts paid if there is no reason to the contrary. Then an hon. Member behind me asked whether or not the moratorium did not apply here. I doubt whether it does. A premium due on a policy of insurance is not a debt. No one can sue you for it. An insurance company cannot put you into Court because you do not pay. A contract of insurance of that sort is a contract by which there is a certain definite consequence of your not paying, which is that you lose the right which you would otherwise have to call for a sum of money in a certain event. I question very much whether the moratorium has anything to do with that. Certainly there is not the slightest difference here between insurance policies entered into by poor people for small amounts and insurance policies entered into by other people for larger amounts paid at longer intervals. The thing is so complex that we did not feel we were warranted in bringing into this Bill a provision which, for all we could tell, might produce very serious consequences upon the very institutions whose dealings in this matter we want to maintain.
  After all, the House is going to meet again. From time to time we shall have an opportunity of seeing how this works. If it be true that industrial insurance companies take an unfair advantage of this situation we can deal with it, but may there not be something to be said for really seeing whether that is in fact the experience of the next few weeks, rather than doing this now, which I defy any Member of the House, if he does it, to say will have a definite and ascertainable consequence? I cannot judge what would be the effect of saying that in the case of these insurance companies you are not to allow any single policy to lapse
  420
  until you have made an application in which the insured will be entitled to say he would have paid his premium if it had not been for the War. I cannot tell what would be the consequence to these insurance companies, not merely on the rights of those who are in danger of lapsing, but on the rights of other people who are relying on the insurance companies to pay them their money. The view we were disposed to take, acting as a committee of public safety, in this matter and desiring to do what is generally approved and what is right, was that really it is better not to put this into the Bill—at any rate at present. We had better see how it works out and deal with it hereafter if need be, and in the meantime I should have thought this was exactly one of the cases where the organised charity of localities, which is proceeding with such fine spirit, might with general consent and approval be used in order to relieve those cases, which no doubt exist and which may be very many, where these policies are in danger of falling through no fault of the insured. I can assure my hon. Friend that if he will produce any sort of scheme with a reasonable basis we will put it into the Bill in a minute, and it is not from any want of sympathy or desire to do what is fair, but because we really do not feel justified in adding this to the list until it is clear to the general intelligence of the House that it is a safe addition to make. With very great regret I am bound to say at present that it would be a dangerous addition. Obviously if it was going to be made it could not be made by adding these words here. Words must be added earlier in the Clause, but this is a matter of argument.
  Mr. MORRELL: I feel very much disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The Attorney-General was extremely sympathetic, but from beginning to end he made no definite suggestion of any sort except that these unfortunate people, many of whom have been paying premiums now for twenty years past, should rely on charity to tide them over the difficulty which they are in in consequence of this War. In the first place, the Attorney-General put the case of people who have only paid, say, for a month or two or a few weeks. It would be quite easy to have a Clause which will say,

  421
  "where a man has paid his premium regularly for at least two years." At any rate, that would protect a certain number. Then he says there would be cases which will occur in which it will be a hardship for the company if they were not allowed to lapse policies. If you were to carry an Amendment of this sort, it would be quite possible to put in a provision that the High Court shall take into consideration the regular payment and all the circumstances of the case, and therefore protect the insurance companies against any undue application for relief. I still say I think it is time, considering the extent of this grievance, that the Government ought by now to have been able to decide on their policy, and to give us a more definite statement than they have done. My right hon. Friend says the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a lot of consideration to this question. He was not able to say in the least what was the result of this consideration. I suggest to the Attorney-General that at any rate the claim might be allowed to be set off against the benefit. That is that the premiums which were deferred might be set off against the benefit when the policy falls due. That could not possibly damage the insurance companies very largely.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry, but even in a time of crisis we must have some regard to business considerations. To say that an insurance company, which is taking £30 a year from me in order to pay £1,500 when I die, will not be any worse off if they deduct £30 when I die, really does not meet the case.
  Mr. MORRELL: I quite see that it goes some way to meet the case. If they deducted not the whole, but certain small payments during the War, it might have been possible to meet this difficulty. At any rate, I have made a suggestion, and the Attorney-General has made no suggestion whatever, except that these people should rely upon charity.
  Mr. LYELL: I wish to express my great disappointment at the reply of the Attorney-General. He has spoken of the hardship to the companies who have entered into actuarial calculations in which they have reckoned upon a certain proportion of lapsed policies. It is obvious that this country will have to go through a prolonged period of strain and
  422
  stress, greater than you are going to cover by the moratorium, and goodness knows there will be many lapsed policies during that period. Some companies have derived an unenviable reputation for relying upon revenue from lapsed policies. No one can measure the duration of the War, but if it lasts for eighteen months or two years, surely it will be time enough then to lapse a policy. What I gather is that a person who has failed to pay his premium is explicitly shut out by the Bill from the benefits of his policy. According to the definite language put in the Bill, a person concerned shall not have the power to go to the Court and get relief. Why should not discretion be given to the Court to say whether he is to have relief or not? I cannot understand why discretion should be given to the Court in all other directions, and not in this case. The Court is to be put in a privileged and super-legal position. It is to be put in the position of the Keeper of the King's Conscience with power to do equity where the law fails. But in this particular case no discretion is to be allowed to the Court. Is that to be the attitude of the Government? I hope the Attorney-General will give further consideration to the matter between now and the Report stage. I hope he will see whether something cannot be done in this particular case.
  Mr. DUKE: I think the Committee on both sides would desire to meet this difficulty if we could, but I must say that I sympathise with the Attorney-General in the feeling that if this Amendment were accepted you would introduce a power which would interfere with the working of very delicate machinery. If you were to dislocate industrial insurance in this way, it would give the go-by to the conditions on which industrial insurance can only be carried on. It is possible that the emergency might be met by giving very limited power in the form of a provision dealing specifically with industrial insurance. I venture to suggest to the Attorney-General that he should consider whether it would be possible to make a limitation of the power of forfeiture by inserting words like these:—
  "The forfeit of any policy of life insurance granted in consideration of weekly or monthly payments, if such

  423
  policy shall have been in force (for some period of time, naming it) before the commencement of the War."
  That would have the effect of assimilating the position of an industrial policy to some extent with that of an ordinary life policy. Members, of course, know quite well that in the case of an ordinary life policy one of the conditions endorsed is a condition which gives a surrender value. To a larger extent than in this country some foreign countries have laws providing that the surrender value is a matter which is beyond the power of the insurance company to control. I do not think there is a surrender value in the case of industrial policies. My recollection is that the proviso says that in the case of default for a certain number of payments the policy lapses. I think it would not be a very grave interference with the finance of the insurance companies if they were required in cases where policies have been in existence for such a long time that they have received substantial benefits, and where there must be some accumulation for the good of the holder of the policy, to go to a magistrate or County Court registrar in order that he might interpose his judgment as to whether there were circumstances connected with the default which existed through the existence of the War. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider that proposal, and see whether he could give this degree of indulgence in regard to industrial policies maintained for a considerable period. At any rate, if the matter is so serious as to affect the solvency of companies, the House will be meeting from time to time, and the companies will not be slow to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer of their difficulties. If a Grant were made to meet cases where the breadwinner has gone to the War, or is out of work in consequence of the War, I think the money would be well bestowed.
  Sir J. SIMON: I wish to know what the suggestion is. It is obvious that anything which may be done will have to be done under strict limitations. I understand, first of all, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Duke) proposes that it might be limited to policies of life insurance in cases where the premiums are payable weekly or monthly.
  Mr. DUKEindicated assent.
  Sir J. SIMON: Does he propose any limitation as to the size of the amount insured or is his view that, if you limit it to policies where the premiums are payable weekly or monthly, you may be pretty sure that you are dealing with small transactions?
  Mr. DUKE: I think practical experience shows in connection with industrial insurance policies that there are no policies worth speaking of which would be affected by this Amendment, except those for small amounts. It is suggested by an hon. Member on the other side that you might limit it to policies of £20 without doing any harm. I am sure it would be a help if the Attorney-General could accept that suggestion.
  Sir J. SIMON: Then the hon. Member suggests that there ought to be some limitation to meet the point in regard to people who have now got a certain length of run in the policy. It is suggested that the period should be three years. I think a period of two years is enough, but I do not at the moment wish to commit myself to that period.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I would suggest that the limit should be £25.
  Sir J. SIMON: If the policy is not more than £25, it should have been in force for two years before the War began. I gather that is the general sense of the Committee, and I ask leave to consider the proposal. It is obviously not a matter that can be dealt with now.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I quite agree with the proposal of the Attorney-General. So far as the other policy is concerned, I do not think you ought to extend the moratorium to it at all. I will tell the Committee why. As a matter of fact, every life insurance policy is a moratorium as it stands. It allows thirty days' grace, and further than that, no reasonable office ever discharges a policy without ample notice, and most of the good offices continue the policy for twelve months after default. Some offices require that the man insured must be examined again by a doctor. Therefore, in the case of ordinary life insurance there is no necessity for the exemption. As to industrial policies which

  425
  have no surrender value, I think the concession is very desirable. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lyell) spoke of some offices making a good thing out of lapsed policies. There is no reasonable office which would not prefer that a policy was continued rather than lapsed. I think where a man pays fortnightly or monthly for a small sum, some indulgence should be allowed, and I support the request that the Attorney-General should have time to consider this matter.
  Mr. MORRELL: I feel grateful for the concession that has been made in this matter, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (6), after the word "affect," insert the words "any power to forfeit a policy of insurance for non-payment of premium or."
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "discretion" ["in its absolute and final discretion"], to insert the words "after Considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties."
  Mr. DENNISS: I would like to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the word "parties." It seems to me that that is rather too narrow, and that the Court ought to be able to take into consideration other interests as well as those of parties. There are many other interests which will come in. Some of them have been illustrated to-day during the course of the Debate. I would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider whether the Court should be limited in its discretion by the use of the word "parties."
  Sir J. SIMON: The words which we have put in the Clause were put in in order to meet a suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He pointed out that a Court might otherwise spend the whole of its time in considering the hardship of the man who has got to pay, and shut out the hardship caused to the man who has a right to be paid if he is not paid. We have first the words, "after the considering all the circum
  426
  stances of the case," Surely those are sufficiently wide!
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), after the word "discretion," insert the words "after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties."
  At the end of Sub-section (3) insert the words,
  "This Act shall apply to all proceedings for the recovery of possession of tenements under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, as if they were in all cases proceedings for the payment or recovery of a sum of money due and payable on account of rent."
  Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (4), insert the words,
  "and may by those rules or directions provide for any proceedings for the purposes of this Act being conducted, so far as desirable; in private and for the remission of any fees."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am very doubtful about the propriety of these words being inserted. It seems to me a very strong thing to say that the entire of these proceedings are to be heard in private. Take the case of an entirely unmeritorious application which is dismissed. By this procedure you would get rid of the pressure of public opinion to prevent further unmeritorious applications being made. I would say that in every case there should be publicity, I do not see that there is any shame in any man applying to the Court if the circumstances are such that the War has rendered him unable to meet his engagements. On the other hand, what about the case of people who are in the ordinary position? Nothing is done to prevent abuses. This Act is unlike any other Act which we ever passed. This step has never been taken in regard to former wars. Now we are going to have the additional relief given that the whole of the proceedings are to take place in private. Even divorces do not take place in private. In this case, primâ facie, your position is that the man is entitled to a relief because he is an object of judicial sympathy, yet you say that the Press is not to be allowed to publish a single one

  427
  of these cases. Take the very case which we have been discussing, the case of the insurance companies. Would it not be a very salutary thing as against some of the insurance companies, which were found to be working oppressively towards the working people, to have the facts published that the judges had stated that the insurance companies should not have attempted to forfeit the premiums of the working man? I quite agree that there are cases where clearly there ought to be power, on a proper application, to have the matter heard in private, but to say that all this business should go on in private seems to me to be most objectionable.
  Mr. DUKE: I regard the proposal which my hon. Friend has just made with regard to applications with something like dismay. It would be ruin to business men to go into a public Court and expose their business transactions and declare, not to the creditors who are aware of their position, but to all the world, that owing to the effect of the War upon their business, they are not able to carry on without indulgence. If you are going to have public newspapers devoted to the difficulties of firms with regard to matters which are essentially of a private character, as between themselves and their creditors, it would be better, to my mind, that the Government should withdraw this Bill, because it would be better that a man dealing with a harsh creditor under the control of the Court should have the ordinary jurisdiction than that he should make an advertisement to everybody that owing to the effect of the War he cannot carry on unless the Court helps him. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press this. The position in the English Court is that a man who has to make this application at the present time under the ordinary procedure of the Court makes it in Chambers. It is founded upon the course of procedure. The suggestion made puts a penalty upon the endeavour of the State to assist business men and people owing money over these difficult times. That penalty cannot possibly be enforced. Men will face ruin just as readily from the force of circumstances as from having to make an application of this kind. If business men in this House think it necessary that there should be
  428
  some check on dishonest applications, to my mind the utmost extent to which the Committee ought to go is to empower the judge before whom the application comes in Chambers to direct that the application should be made to him in Court. I am not aware that to have that penalty for any man who made a dishonest application would deter more than a few persons from proceeding under this Bill.
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Member for Cork will remember perhaps that this Amendment was put down because of some criticisms of the Bill as originally printed that were made by Members from Ireland. One of them, I think, was the hon. Member for Cork City, and it was pointed out that, unless we put in some such words, there would be this difficulty, that although in England we have practically such applications in Chambers, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and though technically such Chamber procedure is open to the public, yet for all substantial purposes it is a private procedure. I understood from the hon. Member for Cork City that there is no such practice in Ireland, or that at any rate in cases in which a judge does Chamber work he is practically sitting in an open Court in the ordinary way. It is not for me to say whether it is a good or bad practice in these cases, but it appeared to me that in this class of case the argument which has been used by the last speaker was a very strong argument. I do not say that every application must be private, but that it should be competent for those who make the rules, to provide, so far as desirable, that these applications should be private. In reference to the suggestion which has just been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot doubt that if a judge found a case coming before him which he thought in the public interest should be dealt with in the presence of an audience with a prospect of its being reported in the newspapers, he would certainly exercise his power of saying "this had better come into open Court," and if it would meet the hon. and learned Gentleman—because I sympathise a good deal with his views of things not being done in private—I would undertake when these rules are made to represent that some such provision should find a place

  429
  in them. It is obvious that some cases might arise in which a man would prefer not to seek to get relief under this Bill at the expense of advertising his position to the whole world.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: My object is to limit the Bill as much as possible. I want the Bill to have as small an application as possible. I do not regard the Bill with any enthusiasm. On the contrary, I think it a very doubtful expedient, and I am afraid that it can only work mischief in many cases. I entirely accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I should add in reference to what he said as to the Courts in Ireland that the practice in the two countries is different.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (6). The great majority of pledges I should imagine are cases in which the amount is under £10, and in those cases the persons who pawn goods have a year in which to redeem them, and if there are any cases in which the Court should have power they are those cases in which persons pawned the goods quite eight or nine months ago, and who owing to the War are not in a position to redeem them within the period of a year. In those cases, as long as this Bill lasts, probably during the currency of the War, the pawnbroker shall not have the right to sell the pledges, and you might possibly extend it to the extent of a year afterwards. I should have thought that if any class ought to be relieved under this Bill, it should be this class. As regards pledges for a larger amount than £10, surely the Government does not intend any particular exemption for pawnbrokers in dealing with mortgages any more than in the case of other big mortgages dealt with under this Bill! There is no particular reason why a mortgage dealt with by a pawnbroker outside the Pawnbrokers Act should have any exemption as compared with the mortgage dealt with by any other person. Therefore I move to strike out this Sub-section altogether. I submit it was put in owing to a misconception. As far as the smaller
  430
  cases are concerned, they are undoubtedly matters for which provision should be made.
  Sir J. SIMON: I confess I am not quite so familiar with this branch of the law as no doubt I ought to be. I have done my best to inform myself, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the Sub-section only excludes pawnbrokers from its operation so far as they are dealing with pledges. It has nothing to do with loans made by pawnbrokers at all. As I look at the Act, a pledge means an article pawned to the pawnbroker, and, as I understand it, it is only the smaller class of transaction that would really be covered by the Sub-section. As the law stands the pawnbroker cannot treat an article pawned as if it were his own until twelve months have passed. That is a permanent moratorium, and a very proper and reasonable one. I do not think we should be called upon to say that the pawnbroker, after the twelve months have elapsed, should make an application every time, having regard to the value of the article pledged. In regard to pawnbrokers dealing with ordinary pledges—I am not referring to other parts of their business—I think the provisions of the law meet the necessities of the case. I do not think we would be doing a good thing—for it is often necessary to borrow money from the pawnbrokers—if we were to put additional difficulties in the way of the pawnbroker exercising his right under the Statute. He has rights which he can exercise at a proper interval of time, and I think it would be better to leave the law as it stands. I do not feel disposed to accept this proposal.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: While I am not in the least satisfied with the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, still I do not intend to divide the House, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to add the words "or give any power to stay execution or defer the operation of any remedies of a creditor in the case of a cum of money payable by or recoverable from a subject of a Sovereign or State at war with His Majesty."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment contains the substance of a new Clause of which I gave notice, but does not appear to be quite wide enough. Will it include such cases as persons carrying on business in Germany and having a branch in this' country? My Amendment included that as well. I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite satisfied that his words are wide enough to meet the case.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think the words are all right. Of course, if the plaintiff is an alien enemy, he could not sue; he is debarred from our Courts. I think the words which I have submitted are all right, but I will have them looked into again, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: There are a good many English companies the shares of which are wholly held in Germany. Technically they are English companies, but the men who hold the shares are alien enemies in Germany and Austria. They ought not to be able to get over the difficulty on the technical point that a company, in which alien enemies hold the shares, is registered here as an English company.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: There must be a great many Englishmen who hold shares in' German companies, and I think we ought to be very careful. Will the learned Attorney-General read the Clause as amended?
  Sir J. SIMON: The Sub-section, as amended, will read, "Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or power of pawnbrokers to deal with pledges, or give any power to stay execution or defer the operation of any remedies of a creditor in the case of a sum of money payable by or recoverable from a subject of a Sovereign or State at war with His Majesty." I think the words are right. I do not see any way by which you could examine the register of a company registered in this country, and carrying on business in this country, and deprive them of the application of this Bill merely because their shareholders are Germans or Austrians. I think it would be very difficult to carry that out. The way in which it would work out would be this: Suppose such a case came before the
  432
  Court, the tribunal would have the right to examine into all the circumstances of the case, and it would be a very proper circumstance to consider the position of the shareholders' list of the company.
  Mr. DUKE: The right hon. Gentleman has founded his observation on the view that the dividends, for instance, or the profits of trading in England of companies which have alien members will result in the payment of money to those aliens during the war. I understood the position to be otherwise—that no money was to go out of this country to alien enemies whether they are shareholders or otherwise.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "discretion" ["final discretion"], insert the words "after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties."
  In Sub-section (3), after the word "discretion" ["final discretion"], corresponding Amendment made.—[Mr. Munro.]
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some answer to the question which I put to the Solicitor-General, and which referred to a very hard case?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am bound to say that I do not think that the remedies which this Bill provides are remedies in regard to which we ought to encourage unlimited right of appeal. After all, we are dealing with a case where one of the parties is, presumably, not able to pay, and nothing is so unprofitable as a series of appeals going up in the Court, where one of the parties to the litigation cannot pay. I think there was a great deal of force in what was said, that it would not be right that a quite subordinate person should deal with anything of very great importance, in a case such as the hon. Baronet mentioned, but I think it could be provided for under the rules. For instance, it could be provided that where a matter was over a certain amount it should be dealt with by a judge of the High Court, in order to exclude altogether the risk of its being finally decided wrongly by

  433
  someone subordinate. I hope by that means we shall probably get the substance of what the hon. Baronet wants.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I very strongly object to any decision of any kind without some appeal. No doubt what the learned Attorney-General says is perfectly right, that it is not desirable to encourage appeals, but if there be no appeals you are apt to get a doctrinnaire set of decisions which are all wrong, and which would never have been given if there had been the knowledge that they could be appealed against and reversed. I have seen that in several instances where no appeal has been given. Where appeal is given the tendency is that better and more careful judgments are delivered, and in the long run the cost of appeals is reduced. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor should make rules by which every man should have the ordinary right of appeal in some Court or other, and if that were done, I am quite sure the result will be a saving of costs, and the obtaining of carefully-considered judgments.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am prepared to take the assurance of the Attorney-General that there will be some sort of protection.
  Question put, and agreed to,

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title, Application and Duration.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914.
  (2) In the application of this Act to Scotland the Court of Session shall be substituted for the High Court and also for the Lord Chancellor. "Act of Sederunt" shall be substituted for "rules," "a petition for sequestration" shall be substituted for "a bankruptcy petition," "diligence" shall be substituted for "execution," "decree" shall be substituted for "judgment or order," and the sheriff shall be substituted for the County Court.
  (3) In the application of this Act to Ireland the Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor.
  (4) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, at any time determine the operation of this Act, or provide that this Act shall have effect subject to such limitations as may be contained in the Order; but, subject to the operation of any such
  434
  Order in Council, this Act shall have effect during the continuance of the present War, and for a period of six months thereafter.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "order" ["judgment or order"], to insert the words
  "and shall be deemed to include any warrant authorising diligence. 'Creditor in a heritable security' shall be substitute for "mortgagee," and proceedings in removings and ejections in the case of subjects let at a rent not exceeding twenty-one pounds shall be substituted for 'proceedings for the recovery of possession of tenements under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838."
  This Amendment will facilitate the working and adapt the terminology to Scotland. In considering the Amendment I had the advantage of the advice and assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported."
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. DENNISS: As this Bill is going to be reconsidered in some respects on Report, may I ask the Attorney-General, in connection with the power to give relief against payment of rates, will he consider whether the word "person "in the opening of Clause 1 really covers an authority which has power to make and levy rates? I have considerable doubts on the subject, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it.
  Sir J. SIMONassented.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported.
  As amended, considered.
  Sir J. SIMON: Carrying out an arrangement which we made just now, I have some words to move, the object of which is to bring within the scope of the Bill certain cases where industrial assurance policies might otherwise lapse for non-payment of premium.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) (b), after the word "deposit" ["or forfeit

  435
  any deposit"], insert the words or enforce the lapse of any policy of insurance to which this Sub-section applies."
  At the end of Sub-section (1) insert the words,
  "This Sub-section applies to life or endowment policies for an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds or payments equivalent thereto the premiums in respect of which are payable at not longer than monthly intervals and have been paid for at least two years preceding the 4th day of August, 1914."
  Sir J. SIMON: An Amendment was inserted just now in Committee in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer providing that the Sub-section should not apply to future contracts, but owing to the fact that we made an exception as to rents, instead of the Clause reading "applies to all sums of money except sums," we propose that it should read "This Sub-section shall not apply to any sums."
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) leave out the words "and final" ["and final discretion"]. In Subsection (3) leave out the words "and final."
  Amendment made to Amendment agreed to in Committee: Leave out the words "applies to all sums" ["This Subsection applies to all sums"], and insert instead thereof the words "This Subsection shall not apply to any sum."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND AND ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILLS.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Wednesday, the 9th September."
  I desire to say a few words to explain this Motion. When on the 10th August I moved the Adjournment of the House to the 25th, I said
  "the postponement must be without prejudice to the domestic and political position of any party."
  436
  I added that when we met on the 25th
  "we trust we shall be in a position to wind up the business of the Session"
  with proposals which might meet with general acquiescence, and, moving a further adjournment for a shorter time—only ten days—I reiterate what I then said. In the short interval that has elapsed since we sat on last Tuesday, the preoccupations of the War and the position at the front have been such that the House, I am sure, in all quarters will recognise that our hope of bringing the Session to an immediate end has been necessarily for the moment frustrated. The Government is asking now for a further adjournment, shorter in point of duration, because under existing circumstances it seems to us eminently desirable that the Sitting and possible action of the House, with regard to the War, should be in the public interest facilitated, and a long adjournment, or an adjournment for more than a very short time, might be really injurious.
  I renew what I said three weeks ago, that it is our desire that no party in any quarter of the House should gain advantage or should suffer prejudice from the suspension for the moment of our domestic controversies. But, Sir, perhaps it is right that I should recall to the House, in view of suspicions and apprehensions which I am told exist, what was the Parliamentary situation at the time when, with general consent, those controversies were suspended. On the one hand, it was the avowed intention of the Government to put on the Statute Book before the close of the Session two Bills which had complied, or were about to comply, with the conditions and requirements of the Parliament Act. That intention, it is hardly necessary to say, remains unchanged. On the other hand, the House was on the eve of embarking at the instance of the Government—for reasons on which I need not now dwell because they are fresh in everybody's memory—on the consideration of an Irish Amending Bill, and I hope it is not necessary for me to say again here that we should regard it as most unfair to resort to what has been described as a "snap Prorogation," as if no such Bill had ever been introduced. When we resume after this very short interval, it is still our hope that it may

  437
  be found possible, at any rate without any revival of acute controversy, by means of negotiations and agreement, to arrive at something in the nature of a settlement. I would add in regard to the Welsh Bill special circumstances have arisen from the outbreak of war and its consequences which we think will make it right and proper that we should make some proposal as to that measure also to the House—a proposal which, I hope, will also meet with general, if not universal agreement. When that is so we see no reason why the proceedings of the present Session should not be finally wound up. I beg to move.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: With one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I am in entire agreement. I am quite sure that it is his desire, and it is certainly our desire, that, as the result of the War, nothing should be done in regard to any controversial matter to place any of the parties in the controversy in a worse position than they were in before the War broke out. That is a principle which I am sure would be accepted on all sides of the House, and by no one more strongly than by the Prime Minister. I do not think it necessary to say more to-night than this—that it will in my opinion speak very badly for all sections in this House if, when that is the principle upon which we are all agreed, some method cannot be found by which the raising again in this House of controversial matters will be avoided. I am going to say no more than this to-night: I do hope that some method may be found for avoiding a renewal of controversy. Of this at least I am certain, that if, from any cause whatever, we are reduced again to controversial methods, it will be a disgrace to this House, and the country will not readily forgive those who are responsible.

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

1. Slaughter of Animals Act, 1914.

2. Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act, 1914.

438

3. Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914.

4. Death Duties (Killed in War) Act, 1914.

Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to say a few words in reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister. So far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we have, I think, given sufficient evidence of the fact that we, at any rate, do not desire unnecessarily to introduce controversial discussions in the present circumstances. I may say, further, I think we have shown—at any rate, it is our feeling—that we have no desire that advantage should be taken of the unfortunate circumstances of the War to inflict injury upon any political party in this House. But we do make the claim that the circumstances of the War should not be allowed to damnify us and the position in which we stand. I do not think I would have arisen at all were it not that there is, unfortunately—and the Prime Minister has shown that he is conscious of it—a great deal of mystification, uncertainty, and suspicion, surrounding the position in which the Irish Bill—and, perhaps, after what has been said, the Welsh Bill also—stands at this moment. I desire, if I can, to explain how we understand what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He has stated that when the unfortunate circumstances of the War arose it was the intention of the Government to put these two Bills on the Statute Book, they having passed through all their stages in this House, and I understood him to say clearly and distinctly that that was still the intention of the Government.
But he went on then to say that, with regard to the Irish Bill, and having regard to the fact that the Government had proposed an Amending Bill, the consideration of which had been for the moment postponed, he intended, when the House met again after this short adjournment, to make some proposal—he did not indicate its nature—which, consistent with the placing of that measure on the Statute Book, would relieve the Opposition from being damnified by losing their chance of the discussion of this Amending Bill, and, having done that, it was his intention to place the Bill on the Statute Book. I understand from that, because I think it follows necessarily, that if this proposal,

439
which he hopes when he has explained it to the House will meet with general, if not universal, assent, fails to gain that general or universal assent, still the intention of the Government remains unchanged to place this Bill on the Statute Book, according to their original intention. That, I understand, to be the meaning of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope we may also take from his statement this meaning—that he is determined that these adjournments and the accompanying condition of uncertainty, suspicion and anxiety shall be brought to an end. I can assure him that, as far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we will give to any proposal that he makes for the purpose of carrying out that programme our most friendly consideration, because we are honestly desirous that this matter should be settled with as little controversy as possible. But we must emphatically say that any proposal which would have the effect of depriving us of the enactment of the Irish measure—and I presume I may say the same with reference to the Welsh measure—an enactment to which we were entitled practically automatically when the circumstances of the War arose, would do infinite mischief, and would be warmly resented by us.
Just let me say one word more. There has arisen in Ireland the greatest opportunity that has ever arisen in the history of the connection between the two countries for a thorough reconciliation between the people of Ireland and the people of this country. There is to-day, I venture to say, a feeling of friendliness to this country and a desire to join hands in supporting the interests of this country such as were never to be found in the past; and I do say, with all respect, that it would be not only a folly, but a crime, if that opportunity were in any degree marred or wasted by any action which this country might take. I ask this House—and I ask all sections of the House—to take such a course as will enable me to go back to Ireland to translate into vigorous action the spirit of the words I used here a few days ago. Feeling perfectly confident that men of all sections will realise the importance of the opportunity that has arisen, I rest content with the statement of the right hon.
440
Gentleman and the meaning which I place upon it—and which everyone who reads it to-morrow, will place upon it. I feel confident in the expectation that when the House does meet again after this short adjournment, that an absolute end will be put to the uncertainty; that with such proposals as may be found likely to mollify feeling, and to see that no injustice is done to anyone, these measures will be finally placed upon the Statute Book
Mr. BALFOUR: Everyone, I think, who has heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member will agree with him in hoping and desiring that this or any opportunity should be taken to bring to an end the long differences which have separated certain sections of opinion in Ireland from certain sections of opinion in England and Scotland. Nobody wishes better to the cause of lasting amity between the two countries than I do, and I am certain that in saying so I only speak the sentiments of every Member on this side of the House. If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, he thinks that the road to peace in a time of great national crisis is to be found in introducing into this House of Commons discussion upon a subject which cannot be discussed without great bitterness of feeling between the two parties, [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] It cannot! I wish it could be avoided, but it cannot be avoided. Everybody knows it cannot be avoided. If that is the only road which the hon. and learned Member sees, I wonder how he thinks this must strike the majority of the people of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] At any rate the majority of the people of England as represented in the House, and a very large minority, as everybody knows, elsewhere. I do not wish to continue this discussion. I am rather sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not leave it where the Prime Minister left it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
I may at all events be allowed to express my own views, but I do appeal to hon. Gentlemen who are going to separate for these ten days, and I ask them to consider whether in this House it is possible decently to introduce subjects of acute political discussion in the present circumstances? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is finished!" "We don't want it!" "Three years' discussion!" and "Prorogue!"] Everybody

441
knows that such a course would arouse passionate resentment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Everybody who knows anything, knows how excessively difficult it would make it to continue that absolute cooperation between every section of opinion in this country which now so happily prevails, and the responsibility is great of those who would throw into our midst this cause of discord at such a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Question!"] The responsibility is one which, I think, few on reflection would be able to sustain. At this moment, when this House is deprived of no small number of its Members, because they are serving elsewhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "On both sides!" and "The Irish Guards!"]—is it in a House thus maimed, and maimed for that reason, that you are going to ask us to discuss this question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame, shame!"] I observe, and I observe with regret, that what I have said seems to some hon. Members opposite—to many of them—to run counter in some way to their views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] I only ask these Gentlemen to reflect in the course of the next ten days.
HON. MEMBERS: "Reflect yourself!"
Mr. BALFOUR: I do not wish to introduce any controversy. If I said a single word—
HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, yes; every word you have said!"
Mr. BALFOUR: What words?
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]
Mr. BALFOUR: I most sincerely want to know—
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: As the right hon. Gentleman has given way, perhaps I may indicate the point in which I think he has misunderstood us.
Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: So far as I and hon. Members around me have been able to gather, no one on this side, or on the other side, has proposed to reintroduce the subject into this House. We regard all the stages of this subject as having been passed in this House, and if it
442
were introduced it could only be reintroduced to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. No one has proposed to reintroduce it here now, and no one has introduced it except the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman on reflection will see that he is mistaken. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think so. I do not wish, and I think it would be most inappropriate and unfortunate, at this moment, to go into the considerations connected with the Amending Bill and its relation to the original Home Rule Bill—most unfortunate! I do not mean to do it, but hon. Gentlemen I honestly think are labouring under a mistake if they suppose that it is possible to carry out the suggestion which I gather finds favour with the hon. Member who has courteously explained the situation to me just now. If anybody thinks it possible to carry out his views without producing a feeling of intense bitterness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—yes, intense bitterness—among the most earnest supporters of the Government at this moment—one of the most critical moments of its history—he is mistaken. The House may dissent—many hon. Members do—from what I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] At all events let them believe that I say what I do with the sincere desire of having the whole forces of this country united in a great crisis to meet a great national danger. I should regard it as a most ominous augury if hon. Members were to go away to-night quite clear in their minds that the considerations that I have ventured to lay before them are animated by anything in the nature of a resentful spirit, or that I have the smallest desire to extract out of this situation any party gain. Whether I am mistaken or not, those are my sincere convictions, and hon. Members, I think, should remember that probably I am as likely to speak for large sections of opinion in this country as the hon. and learned Gentleman has undoubtedly the right to speak for large sections in the country which he represents.
Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I do not wish to introduce any matter of controversy into the Debate to-day, or to prolong the discussion on the Motion for Adjournment, but I think it is my clear

443
duty to ask for some explanation of one of the statements made by the Prime Minister. As I heard him, I gathered that it is the intention of the Government not to pass the Welsh Church Bill under the Parliament Act, but to make some kind of Amendment or alteration in the terms of the Bill.
The PRIME MINISTERindicated dissent.
Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: If that was not the meaning of the Prime Minister, well, of course, I have nothing to add upon the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "We want to know!"] I do think, and I do wish to point out at once to the Prime Minister that, adopting the very principle laid down by the Leader of the Opposition, with, as I should have thought, the assent of the Prime Minister himself, we are entitled to have that Bill passed into law. The Leader of the Opposition said—and said with my complete approval, and, I believe, with the approval of everyone in the House—that no party and no section of opinion should be placed in a worse position than it was before. I appeal to that principle. If the Welsh Church Bill is not passed by the operation of the Parliament Act we shall be placed in a worse position. Surely that is unfair to us! Surely at this last moment, if any alteration were going to be made in the Bill, I should have thought that it was due to the Welsh Liberals, and, indeed, due to all parties in the House, that the Ministry should have approached us, and told us what were their intentions in regard to this matter. Since the last Adjournment not one single communication has been made to me, or, so far as I can gather, to any hon. Member from Wales. We have expected, and have a right to expect, that this Bill at any rate would pass into law under the operation of the Parliament Act. There can be no Amending Bill. If any Amendment is made it must now be made by Bill. If that is so then what has been the meaning of all our controversies, and all the pains and trouble that have been taken by this Parliament in regard to this matter? I hope that before anything further is done some communication may be made to us, and that we may have some
444
explanation on the part of the Government of the unexpected statement of the Prime Minister.
Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I listened with the greatest regret to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. I can only make this passing reference to it: that is that, enjoying my respect and admiration for many years in this House, I believe that he never did greater disservice to this country than by the spirit of that speech, even more than the words he employed. I cannot imagine that in this hour of extreme national peril that the right hon. Gentleman—an ex-Prime Minister of this country—should still refuse to act on the advice of his King. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is not entitled to bring in the name of the King.
Sir J. WALTON: I was not aware that I was not entitled to quote from the King's Speech. The King's Speech expressed the hope—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" and Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member pursues that course he cannot avoid going against the Rules of the House. The hon. Member must not pursue that course.
Sir J. WALTON: I apologise. I obey your ruling. I have said enough on the non-party question, because no one has had a deeper interest and satisfaction in the splendid way in which the Opposition in this House has backed up His Majesty's Government in the trying times through which we are now passing.
Mr. BONAR LAW: And you are taking advantage of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Shame!"]
Sir J. WALTON: We are not taking any party advantage of it. We seek for no section or party the slightest advantage.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I called on the hon. Member to deal with the moratorium.
Mr. SHERWELL: Is it understood, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from your last remark, that no further opportunity is to be given

445
to this House to pursue the question already raised upon the larger question of the Adjournment?
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: As this is such an important matter, and as it is of such interest to the House and to the country, I ask that it should not be shut out by discussion on this secondary matter.
Mr. PIRIE: Is it not in the interests of the country as a whole in this grave national crisis that this Debate should be brought to an end? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Of course, on the Motion for the Adjournment like this, almost any matter can be dealt with and can be gone into if the House so desires.
Sir J. WALTON: I desire now to begin the consideration of the moratorium. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" and Interruption.] I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]
Mr. GINNELL: I rise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
Mr. GINNELL: I want to know if you will allow a few remarks with reference to the Prime Minister's statements before the moratorium is discussed? I have only a couple of sentences if you will allow me—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Barnsley is in possession of the House.
Mr. GINNELL: He is dealing with a different subject.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will resume his seat, he can revert to the question again afterwards.
Sir J. WALTON: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the success he has achieved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!" and Interruption.] He has done the greatest service to the country in a time of a great crisis. [Interruption.] The question of the moratorium upon which I wish to address the House is of great importance to the country. I only want to occupy a few minutes, and my action will not debar hon. Members in the
446
slightest degree from discussing any other question. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government whether some modification of the moratorium is not very necessary. Anything German is very unpopular now, but I ask whether the German system of dealing with a great financial crisis by giving notes through their Imperial Bank, not only to bankers, but also to all manufacturers and traders in exchange for the deposit of securities of every sort and kind, should not be adopted here? I would ask the House to look at the conditions upon which the bankers have received financial credit. I consider that they have not passed that on to the traders and the manufacturers as fully as might be desired. They have acquired excellent credit from the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!" and Interruption.] I do not often intervene, in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" and "Let us hear the Prime Minister!"]
I have been asked to raise these questions and there are many people engaged in trade and commerce who do not desire to take advantage of the moratorium, but who are compelled by the action of others to become the bankers of their consumers. I would ask whether it should not be a condition of giving State assistance to bankers that they should undertake to give the whole of the additional credit thus acquired to their customers to enable them to keep the trade and commerce of the country going? In the North of England the exporters of coal to the Continent are compelled to take advantage of the moratorium. The colliery owners are compelled as the moratorium now stands to become the bankers of the whole of those customers who may take advantage of the moratorium. [Interruption.] All I ask is that traders and manufacturers ought to have the power to continue the trade and commerce of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!" and Interruption] I say that if manufacturers are not helped by State assistance unemployment will become widespread. Therefore I submit again to the Government that adequate assistance should be given to enable manufacturers to keep their works going and to give employment to their workers.

447
I apologise for detaining the House, but I consider that I have a right to offer on behalf of the coal-owners of the North of England, and on behalf of the iron and steel trade of that district, and also of the vast cotton trade, these views to the Government. I consider that no more important question could be raised in this House, and by raising it I have not debarred one single fellow Member from raising questions which appeal still more to them.
Mr. GINNELL: I deeply regret that the Prime Minister has left his place, because it will be my duty to say that the speech delivered by him has provoked what we have all believed to be a very unpleasant discussion on such an occasion as this. That statement is all the more regrettable coming from the greatest master of clear statement in this House. I take comfort from the fact, however, that there is on the Treasury Bench a Gentleman who, by virtue of his office, ought at least to know something of the apprehension that prevails in Ireland, and I ask him, Are we right in understanding the Prime Minister to mean that the Irish Amending Bill is to be dealt with this Session? That is a clear proposition. Are we right in understanding that the fate of the Government of Ireland Bill depends to any extent on the fate of the Amending Bill? That is the second clear and definite proposition, and in answering these two questions will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether he remembers, and whether it is still the fact, as admitted by the Prime Minister last July, that he had not up to that time received from any representative body in Ireland any petition, memorial, requisition, or resolution or prayer whatsoever for such an Amending Bill? And will he tell the House finally at whose request he is now proposing an Amending Bill which nobody in Ireland wants?
7.0 P.M.
Sir H. DALZIEL: This is not the time for anyone to make a party speech, and so far as I am concerned I should willingly have sat silent, but there are occasions when one must say what one feels. Whatever the result of their advice may be, the Government
448
must take the responsibility. As an hon. Member who has sat for about a quarter of a century in this House, I feel that I should be neglecting my duty to myself, to my Constituency, and to my country, if I did not say what I feel at the present time. My first remark is one of regret that we are under the disadvantage of not having present at this moment either the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). I know the importance of the question raised by my hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Walton), but I am sorry that he could not discuss that question in the calmness of the later stage of this Debate. It is no use disguising the fact that the Whole House has been living in domestic politics through a period of great suspense, and I might even say suspicion. I do not blame the Government for this one bit.
Mr. GINNELL: I do!
Sir H. DALZIEL: We know the great responsibility which the Government have had. We know the peculiar difficulties which have come upon them, and throughout we have pressed upon them to stand to the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I accept that pledge at the present time, and I have no doubt it will be adhered to, namely, that the measures we have won during the last three years are not to be sacrificed. I think the statement of the Prime Minister was a peaceful one, and I think it was intended to be peaceful. I am sure, however, that it did not go as far as some of us would wish, and we were groping for some sort of reason for still believing that the situation was going to be saved both for the House and for the country. I think every hon. Member of this House who puts aside his strong party view must, when he has time to reflect, regret the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). There was nothing in the Prime Minister's speech, or in the speech of the Leader of the Irish party, which called for such a violent outburst of passion as that which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. We admire, as we are bound to admire, the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have set party aside throughout the great trial through

449
which this country is now going. I believe the country admires it and is grateful for the support which hon. Gentlemen opposite have given to the Government. I ask them for a moment to consider the peculiar position which the hon. Member for Waterford is in with regard to this matter. It is not for me to defend the hon. and learned Member, but I am speaking upon information I have myself and facts which are available to other hon. Members of this House. Is it any secret that Ireland is calm and expectant because she thinks the work of years is going to be completed, and that there will be no raising again of this long controversy? They believe that the Parliament Act Bills are law except for the formal approval of the Crown. That is the position.
We do not want to raise these questions, and we do not want to raise the Irish question any more in this House. The position is this: We stand by the position as it was before war unfortunately broke out, and if you stand by that pledge of the Prime Minister, assuredly it means that the work done should be gathered, and the Bills we have passed should become law. What is the position as a result of all this doubt and suspicion? It is that you are testing the loyalty of millions of your countrymen throughout the world, and you are putting them to a test which may lead to a great strain. At this moment great mass meetings of men are being organised on the German side throughout the United States. Do hon. Members realise the far-reaching effect of action of that kind in a country where Germany is so strong? Why have they been organising? Because they are suspicious that Ireland, after all, may be denied what she has already won. There is a controversy there between Irishmen who trust the Government and Irishmen who view the action of the Government with suspicion. Think of the effect of this on Irishmen throughout the world in this hour of trial. Think of its effect in South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and all our Dominions throughout the world, to whom we are looking for support at the present time. I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see whether there is not some way out of this difficulty. I need not refer to the fact that
450
controversy of this kind must have outside the House. I do not think the House of Commons to-day has been at its very best. We are not speaking as party men, but as patriots. At this moment the danger that lies before this country in regard to denying to Ireland her measure would be great and beyond anything which the mind of man could conceive. Not only would Ireland be against you, but also your Dominions. Therefore it is for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see whether they can come to some kind of arrangement. These Bills, under the Parliament Act, have really been won, after having been well fought for. We have passed them three times, and they would have been law but for the unfortunate outburst of war
Can no settlement be found which will prevent the unfortunate reopening of this controversy on the floor of the House of Commons? There ought to be found a settlement, and we back benchers must take this question more into our own hands if the Leaders opposite cannot come to some settlement. We have been fed upon conferences and negotiations for months past, and apparently the Leaders cannot come one single stage nearer a settlement. I do not blame anybody in the matter. I know there are forces behind which make it difficult for the Leaders to come to any settlement, but I am sure that I speak for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his Friends when I say that they would go a long way to avoid the reopening of this controversial subject—but their Bill must be placed on the Statute Book. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am sorry hon. Members opposite sneer at that remark, and it shows that they will not look at this situation from our point of view. They do not look at it from the Irish point of view or the English point of view which ought to be considered. Practically we have got our Bills through, and therefore we are entitled to have them. I think some basis of settlement might be arrived at for the moment, and this is very important. It might be suggested that the operation of the Bill should be delayed so as not to take any undue advantage of the present position. Let the Bill be placed on the Statute Book, and let some compromise be agreed upon as to the time of its operation and the time for the discussion of

451
the Amending Bill. I am sure it would be a matter of extreme regret, and, indeed, it would be a permanent danger to this Empire, if at the moment when our men are risking their lives in the field—[IRISH MEMBERS: "Our men too!"]—I mean it in an Imperial sense—if we were to meet again without being able to approach these questions upon the basis of a permanent settlement.
Mr. CAVE: I beg the House of Commons not to pursue this discussion. The Prime Minister, a short time ago, said in clear terms when he moved the Adjournment of the House, that he desired that no party in the House should be prejudiced in this matter by the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Irish!"] The right hon. Gentleman made no exception of any kind, and at that time no objection was taken to the Prime Minister's statement and no word of criticism was used. To-day the Prime Minister said, as we expected him to say, that he adhered to the words he used something like a fortnight ago, and he made the statement in words intended to be, and which were, pacific words. He was followed by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech to which I think no objection has been taken, and in which he echoed the Prime Minister's words, adding that it would be a discredit to all parties in this House if in the interval no settlement could be reached and no arrangement made which would give effect to those words. I think all of us were prepared to deal with the matter in that spirit and to do our best in the short interval which is to elapse to ensure the result which we all desire, namely, that nobody should take advantage of the present situation. If the matter had rested there I think this country would have been more fortunate, but the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford stated what he understood was the position and what was the result he desired. In saying what he did the hon. and learned Member must have been conscious that he was putting the matter in terms and expressing political views which could not be accepted in this quarter of the House. It was necessary that someone should say from this quarter, after that speech, what we understood the present
452
position to be, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London made his speech stating our view of the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your view!"]
Mr. BONAR LAW: It is our view.
Mr. CAVE: I think it is most unfortunate that one view was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, because that made it necessary that a statement should be made on behalf of the Opposition. We have had to-day, since that speech, three speeches stating a view which hon. Members must admit is a party view of the position in which we stand. I rose to say this: Is anything to be gained by pursuing this discussion? We cannot come to a conclusion. No decision can be arrived at by the House to-day, and the discussion itself is a disaster, or may be a disaster, to the country. We all desire that the country should at this moment show a united front. That cannot be if one section or the other insists on putting forward in this House to-day its view of the position on this question. I think that the country has confidence in the Prime Minister in his determination to keep faith with all sections of the House, and in his desire, if it be possible, to find some solution of the question which will prevent any appearance of division in the country. I assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that we have the same desire, and I do trust that at all events to-day we shall not pursue that which may be a perilous discussion for the country. The right and the fair and the patriotic thing to do is at all events to leave to the Government the time for which they have asked, and during which I earnestly trust that some decision may be reached which, whether it satisfies every Member of the House or not, may at all events appear to the great mass of the House to give effect to the principle which has been outlined, namely, that no party—[An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Irish party!"]—that no party, neither the Irish Nationalist party nor the Irish Unionist party, nor any section of the House, shall reap an advantage from the declaration of war which has taken place, or from the crisis which has fallen upon this country. I have no right to advise the House, but, so far as I can, I do beg

453
the House to take what I say in the sense in which it is meant, and not further to pursue this controversy.
The PRIME MINISTER: I can only speak by the indulgence of the House, but I am sure it will be granted me. I rise for a single purpose. I do not want to go back upon some, I think, rather regrettable phrases, or at any rate phrases which have been used in the course of this discussion, but I do wish, with whatever responsibility or authority I may be supposed to possess, to make an appeal to the House to bring this discussion to an end. I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me, and I am sure that my appeal will not fall upon deaf ears, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Here we are face to face, do not let us disguise the fact, with perhaps one of the most critical phases, for it is so, of one of the most momentous struggles in which this country has ever been engaged. How we are, all sections of us, happily united as the peoples of these islands have never been before, in a common determination each to play his own part and all to play the part of the whole, and that at such a moment we should be indulging in acrimonious discussion—I raise no question as to responsibility—in a matter of domestic politics, however important, is, I think, of the worst possible omen. With all the solemnity I can command—I know provocative things have been said, and when a provocative thing has been said it is very difficult not to try and find the most provocative answer one can in reply—I do appeal to the House to bring this discussion to an end, and let us preserve, at any rate as long as we can, and I for one am sanguine enough to hope that it will be sustained to the end, not only the appearance but the reality of a united House of Commons.

WAR IN EUROPE.

  BRITISH PRESS BUREAU.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not going to refer, after the Prime Minister's speech, to the question which has been raised, but, before the Prime Minister leaves, I should like to draw his attention to a statement which he made at Question Time, and
  454
  which, I am sure, he will regret. A question was asked with regard to an unfortunate article which appeared in the "Times" of yesterday, and which gave everyone in the country who read it the greatest anxiety. Some Gentleman sitting near me asked what responsibility would attach to a paper publishing a statement of that kind. I have just had put into my hand a copy of the "Evening News," the 6.30 edition, of this date, and in the stop press the following appears:—

  THE 'TIMES' AND THE PRESS CENSOR.
  We have received the following statement from the editor of the 'Times':—'Mr. Asquith's statement in the House of Commons this afternoon renders it necessary to make it quite clear the position of the 'Times' in publishing yesterday the dispatch which has provoked so much criticism in other newspapers to-day.
  The dispatch, which reached the office of the 'Times in the early hours of Saturday evening, was from the pen of an experienced and trustworthy correspondent who has seen lighting in many parts of the world and is not in the least likely to be deceived by idle rumours. As such it was necessarily treated with serious consideration by the editorial staff of the 'Times,' and, in accordance with instructions, was at once submitted to the Official Press Bureau.
  The Press Bureau retained the message for about three hours before returning it. When it again reached the office of the 'Times' certain passages, containing references to the correspondent's route, had been deleted. Other passages and embellishments, however, had been added by the head of the Press Bureau, who further conveyed an intimation that, in its new form, the dispatch was approved for publication.

  In these circumstances the editorial staff of the 'Times,' who were astonished at the decision of the Press Bureau and had made no arrangements for publishing the message, came, not unnaturally, to the conclusion that it was the wish of the Government that it should appear."
  The Prime Minister was very severe, and rightly so. I think the House regretted that a statement of a character which did cause so much intense feeling and agony to thousands of people in this country yesterday should have been published. A grave responsibility rests, however, on the Press Bureau. It is in connection with the whole conduct of this Bureau that I wish to speak to-day. I was unable to deal with the matter on Friday, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) had to go back to the Bureau, and could not remain in the House. I believe I was the first person in this House to suggest that a Bureau should be established. At the commencement of the War we had a series of statements made in the Press which caused unnecessary feeling to be engendered, and therefore when the Government announced that it was their

  455
  intention to establish a Press Bureau it gave satisfaction to everyone in the country.
  I first take exception to the constitution of the Bureau. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Walton Division, as the House is aware, has been appointed manager of this Bureau, and his brother the Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith) has been appointed the secretary, he being appointed, I presume, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division. I have letters from newspaper editors who complain that the hon. Member for Warrington acts more like one of the Kaiser's staff officers in his dealings with the Press. I do not think the Government appreciates the country's feelings in reference to this matter. The Prime Minister has said that it is his intention to go into the country to speak to the people and to let them know the danger this country is in, and that it is the duty of every man who is able to take up arms for his country at this time. I can assure my right hon. Friend that he could do no more great service towards accomplishing that end than if he at once took steps to put this Bureau in a position which would enable the country to take a human interest in what goes on.
  All human interest is entirely vanished from the statements which have appeared in the Press. The human element does not appear. The Government, I think, ought to have appointed a Minister in charge of this Bureau. If it is necessary for the Prime Minister to go about the country speaking of the necessity of obtaining recruits, why should there be this action of the Government in silencing information? It is killing recruiting in the country. I do not think my right hon. Friend has been in the country, and I do not think he knows the feeling in many districts where the people have no idea of the seriousness of the position which has arisen. That, at all events, is the opinion we hear stated by editors in all the country Press. I have here numerous quotations, with which I do not wish to trouble the House, stating the views of editors of country papers, and how this want of information is killing recruiting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "No!"]
  456
  It may not be so in the districts of which my hon. Friend has knowledge, but it is so in many districts. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that it is being an injury to recruiting. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That may be the opinion of hon. Members, and they are entitled to hold that view, but my view, and the view of a large section of the Press—the Press, after all, are not all fools—is that recruiting is suffering.
  I do not think it is necessary, and I do not wish to make any attack on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division. He has done his best in a very difficult position. He found himself without any staff. I believe he has 150 clerks in his Department who are reading through all the mass of literature submitted to him. He, in a most patriotic manner, came forward and offered his services to the Government, and I am sure that the Government appreciate the work he has done. The editor of a large daily paper in London told me that he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for much of the information he had been able to get. The real fact of the position is that we have to-day at the War Office a gentleman who has the full confidence of the country, Lord Kitchener, but who, at all events, is not in touch with our Parliamentary institutions. The idea of Lord Kitchener is that all information should be held back from the public. Lord Kitchener may be a great soldier, but he does not understand our Parliamentary institutions, and that the human element is, after all, what this country desires, and is the determining factor in all these matters. This feeling of the "mailed fist," as I may term it, appears to prevail very extensively. All sections seem to think that all power to-day should be with the military authorities. Everybody who has any military command appears to think that the Civil power must be subordinate to the military power. I hold the view very strongly that the Civil power must always be the predominant power, and it was for that reason that a good many of us considered the appointment of a soldier to the War Office was undesirable. Now let me proceed with the work of the Bureau.
  The Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, in reply to a supplementary

  457
  question which I asked, said he believed it was incorrect that accounts had appeared in the Continental papers, giving information regarding our troops which had not been allowed to appear in the Press of this country. Now in the Paris edition of the "New York Herald" of 10th August, it was stated that British troops from this country had arrived in France. On the 12th, I was attending a Departmental Committee of the Home Office, and I there gave to the Home Secretary a copy of a paper that I had that morning purchased at Charing Cross Railway Station, and I asked him to submit it to the Cabinet with a view of showing what information was appearing in Continental papers. The official announcement that British troops had been sent to France was made in the "New York Herald" on the 8th August. The arrival of General French in Paris occurred on the 15th August; yet no announcement was made in this country until the 18th August that British troops had been sent. Everyone in this House and in the country knows that communications are open daily between this country and Flushing. Everyone knows, too, that numerous statements have been made in this House with reference to the Expeditionary Force, and of how many divisions it is composed. I am not going to mention how many divisions have been sent, or how many remain to be sent, but while the ports are open as they are for people to travel backwards and forwards to Holland, and for Hollanders and Americans, and subjects of all nationalities, to pass through Holland to Germany, it is idle to suppose that large bodies of troops can be moved abroad from this country without its being perfectly well known to the Germans that it is being done. Colonel Von Bernhardi, of the German Staff, has pointed out in his great book on "Germany and the Next War," that the central organisation of the Army must be determined in the field from one centre, at which will be the Commander-in-Chief, and it is necessary that he should have the means of communicating rapidly with all sections of his army. He therefore has numerous cables, telephones, and even wireless telegraphy. It must be known directly to the Commander-in-Chief of the German Army at any time when an attack
  458
  is being made. He must know where it is being made. Yet in our Press all mention of piaces where such attacks are made is erased by the Press Censor, and, although the troops may have been attacked on a particular day at a particular place, and it is well known by the Germans, the fact is not allowed to be mentioned in our Press. Why should that be so? I want to give a few examples of what I have termed the "mailed fist" of the Bureau. On 10th August the "Daily Chronicle" submitted to the Censor a report from their special correspondent at Yarmouth regarding the splendid response made to an appeal for volunteers among local mariners to sweep the sea for mines. Here was a work of great danger, a magnificent work silently performed, and yet the public were not allowed even to know that these mariners were prepared to undertake it. The report was excised by the Censor. For what reason?
  Again the "Daily Chronicle" on 17th August received a long story from South Shields relating to the sinking of trawlers. The words "South Shields" were struck out; yet they appeared in five other London papers. I have a letter from the editor of the paper at South Shields, saying that when he was dealing with this question the hon. Member for Warrington treated him in what he considered a highly dictatorial manner, and one entirely contrary to the spirit in which the Press Bureau should be run. I have here a censored message to the effect that "an engagement took place between — and— on —. The French and British drove the Germans back with heavy loss." These blanks could be perfectly well filled in by the German Commander-in-Chief, because necessarily, in the conduct of this campaign, every single step that is taken is well known to the central administration. I have another instance, the overhauling of the "Galician." A message with regard to that was submitted to the Censor on 25th August, it was passed after many delays on the 27th, but almost immediately afterwards the Censor cancelled his assent. Nevertheless the report appeared in the "Times," the "Daily Mail," and other papers.
  The American papers are feeling very strongly on this question, and rightly so. The Declaration of War was allowed to be used by one New York journal, while the Associated Press, which represents 9,000 American and Canadian papers, had the information withheld from it. What was the necessity for hanging up information of that kind? What good did the Bureau imagine could be done by keeping our own subjects in Canada in ignorance of the news? Why was it given to one paper, and one paper only? Then, again, with regard to the Fall of Namur. That was not permitted to be sent by the Associated Press, or to any American papers except two, one of which receives the German official messages, while the other is usually anti-British. I have many other instances, but I will not keep the House much longer.
  I will come to the question of remedies. I would urge on the Prime Minister that a Cabinet Minister should take charge of this Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division, with every desire to do all he can, necessarily sitting on the benches opposite cannot have the authority of a Cabinet Minister, either with the War Office or with the Admiralty. I would suggest, too, that on the Committee there should be at least three trained journalists. Trained journalists can very readily separate the wheat from the chaff. No one knows that better than the Prime Minister—
  The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: And in a very few moments a trained journalist would be able to point out to the Censor what is required by the public and what is not required by it. Neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division nor the Prime Minister would surely claim to know what the public want in this respect!
  The PRIME MINISTER: Responsibility for the Press Bureau does not fall within the administrative sphere of any Cabinet Minister, and my colleagues at this moment are so fully occupied that I should be very sorry to add to the labours of any one of them.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: But I think the matter is sufficiently serious to justify our
  460
  asking that a Cabinet Minister should take charge of this Department, and I say that it is also essential you should have trained journalists on this Committee. A trained journalist knows what the public wants. Members of this House who have had no experience in journalism cannot say what the public require, and surely a trained journalist could do this work better than any man who, however good he may be, is simply groping in the dark in this matter. I would also suggest that there should be on this Committee Lord Roberts, representing the military side, and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), representing the Admiralty. Both of these Noble Lords have held the highest commands in the country, and, acting in conjunction with a Minister of the Crown, and with trained journalists, they would constitute a Bureau in which the public could have confidence—that is, if we are to have a Press Bureau at all, and that, I am now fully convinced, has been a mistake. But, if you are going to have a Press Bureau, you must have one which will enjoy the confidence of the country, and the present Bureau does not do that. This is not a war waged by an autocracy. It is a war waged by the democracy, and the democracy claim that they shall not be kept perpetually in ignorance of what is going on. The "Times," in its article yesterday, said, very properly:—
  "The time is past when a great, free and enlightened democracy can go to war in the dark."
  That must be the feeling of a great majority of the people of this country. The whole of the Press unanimously share that view. I hope hon. Members will take it from me, and will not dissent from the statement, that it is the unanimous feeling of the Press that recruiting is being damaged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I say the Press is unanimous on that point. I propose to give one quotation from the "Westminster Gazette." [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am not going to divide, and you may shout as much as you like. I want to read this very able passage from the "Westminster Gazette"—
  "The Press Bureau defends itself this morning for permitting the publication of messages which disturb the public mind and present the course of events in a false perspective, by reminding us that its duties are merely to prevent the giving away of military information which may be useful to the enemy. Needless to say, we do not wish the lines of censorship to be drawn any tighter than is absolutely necessary; and we do

  461
  not regard the non-intervention of the Censor as affording the least excuse for journalists who yield to panic and sensationalism. But it is well to remember that the veto on correspondents at the front throws us back on stories obtained at second or third hand by correspondents not at the front, and likely to be coloured and exaggerated in passing from mouth to mouth. If the veto on correspondents at the front is to be maintained, we submit that it is the duty of the Press Bureau to keep the newspapers informed of the true state of facts at the front (of which in the circumstances it must be in sole possession) and to check the publication of messages which are bound to cause a false and painful impression."
  Nobody can dissent from that view. I hope the Prime Minister will in this matter see if he can do something to meet what, after all, is the strong feeling of the Press throughout the country. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I live at Shorncliffe, where troops arrived back wounded from the front on Saturday. I think it is my duty to bring to the attention of the House facts relating to the way in which the conduct of the War is being carried on, but I am not going to say anything in any way detrimental in the smallest degree to the interests of my country. Wounded men are making statements which show the necessity of having the fullest light on the conduct of the War. We had all the mismanagement of the Crimean War which was brought to light by Kinglake. There are men lying to-day in Shorncliffe Hospital who tell this tale. I am only going to deal with the men that were wounded. When they were wounded they were placed in trains, by chance or otherwise, which took days and days to reach this country. They had no food whatever supplied to them during the three days' journey in France in trains, except apples or food which they got at station sides. When these soldiers arrived at Folkestone there was not even the Red Cross or any other organisation to dress the wounds of these men, many of whom had kept their boots on for days. Septic poisoning— [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: That will not help recruiting.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the hon. Member who is supposed to represent a democratic constituency suppose that it is in the interests of recruiting that this mismanagement should not be known? The hon. Member does not seem to know that the people of this country want the truth, the whole truth, and are not afraid to be told the whole truth.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: You are not the man to speak it!
  Sir A. MARKHAM: If I am not the man, I do not know by what right he is. I fail to understand that interruption. I am merely saying that steps ought to be taken. On the arrival of these men at Boulogne there was no organisation to dress their wounds or any first-aid, and even when they arrived at Folkestone they were put down on the pier there, and there was no one to meet them. Is that what the hon. Member wants?
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: No, it is not.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I know it is not.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I would suggest to my hon. Friend that these facts be brought to the War Office—if they be facts—and I take leave, if I may, to doubt them. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that they may not be facts, and that they are very much exaggerated. I should like to inform the House that there is a large base hospital at Folkestone, and it is very improbable that there should be no Red Cross assistants there.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not what I said. What I said was that when these men arrived at Folkestone there was no intimation that they were coming, that no preparation had been made for them, nor to meet the boat. Is that what is going to happen with the Press Censorship? It happened that Colonel Wilson, of the Medical Corps at Folkestone, by good chance went down to meet the boat, but there were only two stretchers when this boat arrived. I am not going to refer to other cases to show the necessity of the Press Censorship being abolished. Are we not going to allow the people of this country to have the truth? When all the mismanagement occurred in the Crimean War, there was no rapid communication between this country and the Crimea. I will follow the wish of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War, and will give to him a number of cases which I may not mention to the House. I have only given to the House one case of men being without food and being in the position of net receiving first-aid, and

  463
  what I consider faulty management on the part of the War Office. It is not easy for the Press Bureau and those responsible to shelter themselves behind the plea that they are not responsible for what is given to them. I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division has done his best in a very difficult position, with this immense mass of information coming forward, to give the public the best he is allowed to give them. What I claim is that the public are entitled to the fullest possible information which is not detrimental to the public interest. It is perfectly possible for men of common sense to be able to give to the public a very different statement of the conduct of the War from that we have had up to the present time.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am not very willing to speak, but as the whole question of the Press Censorship and the Press Bureau has been raised by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham), I hope the House will excuse me if I say a few words about it. I consider that the attack that has been made upon my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. F. E. Smith), who is the head of the Bureau, is most unfair and is very ill-informed, and if the House wanted proof of it I would suggest that the last sentences of the hon. Baronet would be sufficient. How on earth could the Press Bureau be responsible for any faults in first-aid, or attending to the wounded, in the course of this tremendous struggle we have been waging against overwhelming odds, and in which the British Army has already covered itself with glory!
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I never said it was responsible.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I certainly understood the hon. Baronet to say that this was part of the fault of the Press Bureau. Whether that is so or not, I can tell the hon. Baronet that my right hon. Friend has been battling with zeal, energy and tact against overwhelming difficulties and obstructions. In the first place, as we have so often learned in British history, there was no preparation whatever made for the supply of organised news by the Government. It is thought that the problem might be dealt with on the old
  464
  principle of solvitur ambulando, and that some method would be found of doing it, but no method had been provided. Two years ago a Committee was appointed, on which the newspaper Press was represented as well as the War Office and the Admiralty, but their deliberations merely went to the extent of a voluntary self-control by newspapers of the publication of news in times of national emergency. I am quite well aware that an Act has been recently passed giving the Government greater power, but it did not go beyond that. When the War broke out it was believed and intended that the newspaper Press should be represented at the front by authorised correspondents, who would be under proper censorship. The whole of that was prepared, and I do not hesitate to say that it was not the fault of my right hon. Friend, nor of the Secretary for War, that those correspondents did not go to the front—it was in deference to the protests of our Allies. If that is so, what responsibility falls upon either the Secretary for War or my right hon. Friend? Personally, I have expressed the opinion privately, and I now must express it publicly, that it was a great misfortune that expert writers were not allowed under proper supervision to accompany the Army in the field. But it was not the fault of the British Government. Why I say it is that I foresaw what has happened—that rumour would take the place of narrative of fact, and that every petty incident as told by a private soldier or a non-commissioned officer who is, no doubt, speaking the truth as he saw it—but he could only see a very limited part over a narrow area—would be taken as an accurate account of what was happening in this terrible and long-drawn battle. That has happened, but it is not the fault of my right hon. Friend that those correspondents were not there.
  8.0 P.M.
  I go further, and I say that when the Press Bureau was formed and organised it was not intended that it should take upon itself the supply of full narratives of events to the public. The idea was merely that a censorship should be exercised upon what was to appear or not to appear in the daily and evening Press, and that bulletins or a bare recital of orders and facts should be issued through the Bureau in the ordinary course. Therefore

  465
  my right hon. Friend was suddenly called upon to organise a new service for which he had no adequate staff, and very little opportunity of forming one. I consider that he has manfully struggled with immense difficulties, and that, on the whole, if the public has had a certain amount of light thrown by the official dispatches, it has been largely because he has insisted upon this being done as far as he could. There is another point. The whole of the censorship has not been directly under his control. When the hon. Baronet complains that the issue of cablegrams from this country has been seriously and foolishly interfered with, especially in regard to the service to the United States, perhaps he does not know that the staff of Press Censors at the General Post Office is not under the control of the Press Bureau, but is quite independent. Unfortunately, as always happens in time of War, you cannot expect the best of your officers to be appointed to this work. All these gentlemen have meant well, but if they had had, as has been pointed out in this House, a training which would enable them to deal quickly with news, it would have been better. But they have not had the training which enables them to appreciate what should be given to the public. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) raised this question before on the Adjournment of the House, and since he did so there has been a marked improvement. I am far from saying that the system is adequate, still less that it is perfect, but I do say that as it has had to be improvised these faults were bound to occur, and I believe, honestly, that everything the Press Bureau can do to remedy it is being done at the present moment. I am sure there has been an improvement, and I believe the House may look forward to a better and fuller supply in the future. It is impossible that they should be able to remedy the want of expert correspondents at the front able to give a full and impartial account. That is due to circumstances over which they have no control.
  I am bound to say also that whilst, of course, the Press Bureau has been hardly tried, so also has been the newspaper Press itself. They have been inundated with stories coming from all quarters,
  466
  which was bound to be the case when they had no authorised and authoritative correspondents, giving various and partial accounts of what had happened, and they have had to pick and choose, and perhaps the very existence of the Press Bureau has made them a little less careful than they would otherwise have been. Sending to the Press Bureau, they imagined when they obtained permission to publish their duty was discharged. They were the functus officio in that way. The Press Bureau has had an avalanche of letters and documents of all sorts every night, and if mistakes have been made I think the House ought to feel rather sorry than angry that that has been the case. My right hon. Friend did not set up the system. It was a thankless task, and I consider that he has put both the House and the country under a great obligation.
  As to the fact of news being doled out, so to speak, in small and insufficient quantities, perhaps it was inevitable under the circumstances. We were under the force majeure of public opinion abroad, and not here. I regret it, but I do not think it has had the serious effect the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) imagined, and I believe that now the public is realising the conditions under which the Press and the Press Bureau work, they will do all they can to co-operate in keeping up the national spirit under the great trial to which they are now exposed. The Press itself has had the testimony of Lord Kitchener in the House of Lords and the Prime Minister here, that on the whole it has discharged its duty with a great sense of responsibility and self-control. Therefore I do not ask consideration for the Press, but I ask consideration for the Press Bureau, and although I should not have wished to see the system established on its present lines, as it is neither the fault of our Government nor of those who have been appointed to do this duty, I think the House might be well advised in not attaching too much importance to these complaints of detail which we receive every day and transmit, and try to have remedied, and for which the remedy will be provided by experience in what is essentially empirical and transitory, and may result in a better system being set up in case—which Heaven forbid!—we are exposed to these terrible trials in the future.
  Mr. PIRIE: (indistinctly heard) The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) may count on one thing to-morrow—plenty of columns to support his attack. I am glad to think he has been answered so well and thoroughly by a man who is a greater expert than I can pretend to be. I entirely echo what has fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) in his description of the difficulties and the way in which they have been overcome, and I think that, with the modification the Prime Minister hinted at in the future, we may rest assured that we shall have every legitimate demand for information supplied. I think this House has to remember that war is not waged for the benefit of the Press. It has also to remember and to discount some of the unfortunate statements, even in the last few days, when it has been stated in this House that the public abroad get more information than the public in this country. That is not the case. If they saw the small half-sheet, which is all that the French public at present get, and the meagre telegrams, they would realise how well off we are in this country. Not only that, but abroad you have a law, which the welfare of this great city might require to have enacted very soon, that no newspaper shall come out more than three times in a day. That should be quite sufficient to gratify the national wish, but the more it is gratified, the more it demands. It would be quite sufficient for the public information if they got three editions in the day, at the most—in the morning, in the middle of the day, and in the evening. Perhaps before long we may come to that. The hon. Baronet spoke about democracy and autocracy, and said this was a democratic war. I have never known a war successfully waged to be a democratic war, because if a war is to be successful it must be managed by an autocrat. The real power in this country at present is centred in the War Office, and we have to submit to it till we get out of this crisis. Members of Parliament have to learn to take a second or a third place for a short time. As regards recruiting, I was happy to see today a statement that Lord Kitchener is highly satisfied with the success which has attended his efforts. I deny that the people of this country are failing to answer legitimate demands from them.
  Sir A. MARKHAMmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. PIRIE: I read it in the Press, anyhow. Even if I had seen them I should be the last to bring forward a solitary instance. I will just instance the possible danger of indiscretion in the Press by reminding the House of what took place in the last great European War in which France was engaged in 1870. It was newspaper indiscretion in the "Soir"' and the "Temps" that enabled the German authorities to learn of the proposed retreat to Sedan—one of the greatest military catastrophes. I cannot even share the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson), who regretted the absence of war correspondents. I think we shall be perfectly well served in every way, and I hope the present system will continue, with the improvements and modifications that the Prime Minister promised.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have raised this question of the censorship before, and have had several communications between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith), and can testify to the courtesy and promptitude with which he received every suggestion which was made to him. I believe he has adopted already one of the suggestions which I made to him, namely, that the censors should have the assistance of trained journalists. Such faults as there are in the Press Bureau are not, I am sure, due to the right hon. Gentleman, and such improvements as have been made are due to him, and it would be very unfair, having had these relations with him, that I should not bear testimony to the excellent way in which he has performed his functions.
  Mr. PETO: I have felt very strongly, as no doubt many other hon. Members have done, the indignation with which I read these articles in the "Times" yesterday, and particularly in the night edition, printed alongside the official version of what had occurred, which seemed rather a belated statement, considering the time it was printed. I felt indignation at seeing in a newspaper, particularly a newspaper like the "Times," in large black print, a headline such as this: "Broken British Regiments," and then, a little smaller, "Untarnished Honour of Our Troops."

  469
  As if anyone in this country required the assurance of the "Times" that the honour of our troops was untarnished at the present time. It is most unfortunate that an article such as this should have been printed. At the time the Press Bureau was established we were promised, by the First Lord of the Admiralty—I think his words were "a steady stream of reliable information." It was felt throughout the country that it was a somewhat novel experiment for a country such as ours to be engaged in war and have no direct information from competent and experienced Press correspondents at the front, but we were told we were to have a steady stream of reliable information. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) will give to the House the reasons why these particular articles were allowed to be published, and if he can give us any information as to why the stream has been so very restricted and so very far the reverse of steady. I have no doubt, so far as we have had it, it has been reliable, but in the other two things which were promised it certainly has been woefully deficient.
  My other reason for mentioning this matter is that there are a great many people, I believe, still so great was their alarm on reading these articles in the "Times" yesterday, who do not feel fully confident as to whether the truth is contained in these stories, second or third hand, as the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) has indicated, gathered from sources which could not possibly give any kind of picture of really what has happened, or whether the authoritative statement of the Commander-in-Chief is to be accepted and if it is not to be regarded as a somewhat whitewashed and emasculated edition of what really represents the truth. Therefore I hope we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman a statement, not only of what his reasons were for allowing these statements to be printed in the Press, but an assurance which will reassure the public that these articles, of which we complain, really do not represent the true state of affairs at all. I notice this House has passed two measures for the defence of the Realm. The second, which received the Royal Assent to-day, gives the authorities power to try by
  470
  court-martial persons who spread reports calculated to promote disaffection or alarm among His Majesty's subjects, and it seems to me certainly from the effect I have found, not only among comparatively humble people, but among people who are well read and educated and so forth, that this appears to be precisely the sort of thing which is referred to by this Defence Act Number 2, which specifically states that this is an offence punishable by court-martial. I would ask the Home Secretary to consider when the House is not sitting whether that particular form of penalty is really appropriate, and whether it would not be wise to take power during the currency of the War to suppress altogether the publication and sale of any newspaper which prints articles at all comparable to those which created such a feeling of anxiety and alarm wherever read yesterday. It is not within my knowledge or competence to praise or to blame the Press Bureau, but I do wish to say that I entirely dissociate myself from the speech of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham). So far as I am capable of forming an opinion, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) in regard to the duties undertaken by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith). His work is an arduous and difficult one, and he ought to have the sympathy of the House. I am sure that he has the sympathy of the House, and that he will have the sympathy of the country when he makes his statement this evening. I hope he will be able to tell us that the stream of information which will pass through his Bureau will be a little more steady and full than it has been in the past.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I thought the hon. Member was satisfied.
  Mr. PETO: I did not say I was satisfied with the volume of information received. On the contrary, I said exactly the opposite. I do hope that in future it will be a little more in accordance with what the First Lord of the Admiralty promised us. I think it will be for the advantage of the country if it is, and particularly it-will tend to render it impossible for any responsible journal in future to publish

  471
  tittle-tattle picked up far from the fighting line which can represent by no possible means what is taking place at the front, or the effect of it.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I do not wish to criticise the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division. I am perfectly certain that he has done all that was possible for him to do in order to see that the conduct of his Department was all that could be expected of it. I desire to raise what seems to me a bigger question than the mere question whether the Press Bureau is satisfactory or not, and that is the question whether the whole system of publicity that obtains at present is a right one or not. I sincerely believe that as long as the present system is in existence we shall have repetitions of that awful and mischievous business from which we all suffered yesterday. If you try to suppress news in a free country—I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman has done that; I blame the Government for it—then the public will get some sort of news—unreliable news if they cannot get trustworthy news. The only criticism I would address to the Press Bureau is that they have been rather too anxious in censoring some of the messages sent out, and perhaps they have not been allowed to have a free hand in supplying news. For instance, what was to prevent the publication of the official news which was published yesterday? What was to prevent it being published on Thursday, Friday or Saturday? Ever since Wednesday our troops at the front were not molested at all, except one Cavalry regiment. If that was so, why was not the country told at the first possible moment of the issue of the glorious fight between our men and the enemy? Military necessity cannot be pleaded. The public, after all, are intensely interested in this matter. They have to suffer for it, and to pay for it in treasure and unemployment. Why should not the public be told exactly, so far as possible, what goes on at the front? When a battle has been fought and when a position has been evacuated, the enemy knows as well as the Censor what has happened. When once a battle has been fought, and when once a position has been evacuated by troops, no harm can be done by publishing the fact. [An HON.
  472
  MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I can understand that military necessity should compel the Censor not to publish that a retreat had been made to a certain place or to certain places. The public are quite content not to know where the troops have retreated to, but once a battle has been fought at Charleroi, or anywhere else, there is no reason why the Press should not give the information to the public.
  I may ask another question. It is stated—I do not know whether it be true—that two regiments were very severely cut up, and it is common knowledge, every Member of the House knows, what are the names of the two regiments which are mentioned as having been engaged in that encounter, and yet those two names have always been censored and kept out of every newspaper that has published the report. If the fact that two regiments have been severely cut up is published at all, why should the further fact that these regiments are so-and-so be eliminated? I fail to see why that is so. I did not rise merely to make a criticism on these points. The real point I wish to make is that until and unless the Government allow Press correspondents who have had long experience, who are in responsible posts, and whose very positions depend upon the reliability and the trustworthiness of the news they send from the front—until and unless the Government allow Press correspondents to go to the front, you will have recurrences of the thing which alarmed the country so much yesterday. I quite agree that even the most experienced war correspondent should not be allowed to send uncensored messages to their papers, but everybody knows that the censorship will be at work at headquarters at the front. It would be easy for those messages to be sent, and I appeal to the Government, in a free and liberal country like this, not to allow any counsels to deflect them from the old time-honoured policy of this country of taking the people into their confidence as much as possible and making known all the facts that can be made known without damage to the military situation.
  My hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pirie) spoke of the alleged fact—I do not know whether it is true or not—that in 1870 the retreat of MacMahon was made known to the Germans by two Paris newspapers. Of course those are things that ought not to

  473
  be allowed to be published. They ought to be severely censored. I hope that the censorship will see to it that no news of that sort which may possibly help the enemy should be made known. But may I put in a plea for the splendid record of the old war correspondents who have done so much for the English Army in the past? I cannot see any reasons for, and I never heard a word uttered in this House or outside of it to justify, the absence of Press correspondents from the front. If the glorious traditions of our Army are to be maintained, then the public must get to know, not through any official documents, but in the lurid, if you like in the yellow, and rhetorical descriptions given by correspondents from the front, what really has occurred. These men can be trusted, if the Government will trust them, not to emulate the sad example from the effects of which we all suffered yesterday on reading the "Times."
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: I do not rise to criticise the hon. and learned Gentleman who has charge of the Press Bureau, or to criticise the action of the Press Bureau. I have confidence in those who have control of it, but there are some suggestions which they might consider. There is a certain lack in their descriptions. There is a certain lack of experience in their criticisms, and especially in their excisions, and the charge of this duty seems to be committed to individuals who have not the slightest knowledge of the subject upon which they have to exercise their critical facilities. I would like to give an example of what occurred in my own district. A newspaper, which is celebrated for the extent and exactness of its maritime intelligence, and its news of certain things which affect the shipping community, learned that trawlers had gone out to sea and had come back. Meanwhile the sea was sown with mines by Germans, and some ships were blown up, and the fact that these ships were blown up was reported in the newspapers. The newspaper to which I allude not only published the fact that the ships were blown up, but published the exact position of these mines, and the places where the ships had been blown up. It subsequently received the thanks of the local authorities of the district, and was asked by the local Custom House people to continue giving
  474
  information of this kind. The Custom House people even supplied it with information, and it gave next day further information of the same kind. Then the Press Bureau interposed and sent a message saying that when a newspaper is publishing the sinking of trading vessels or trawlers by the enemy's mines, not a word as to areas or distances should be given. Was anything more absurd ever imagined? What benefit could it be to the enemy to be told where they had laid their own mines, and what benefit would it be to German ships in their own ports to know where English ships would run the risk of going on a mine? But the information was of value to English ships, and it seems to me that it was not only contrary to public interests, but it was contrary to the desire and instructions of another Government Department to keep it back; and when this newspaper went on to describe certain routes and sections of the North Sea which might be crossed in safety, the editor was called up by telephone, and threatened by a man who called himself the "local Admiralty Censor."
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: There is no such official.
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: I am glad to be told so, because it may help me to reassure the people who are concerned.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: There is no such official, and the editor of the "South Shields Gazette," who made the complaint in person, was assured by letter that there was no such official, and that any person who represented himself as such was not in any sense representing the Admiralty.
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: As far as I see, that explanation, which I did not expect, is entirely satisfactory, but that does not dispose of the other criticism of the Department to which I have referred. The interposition of the Department at the time was vexatious and arbitrary, and in this case it was actually contrary to public policy, and mischievous. I give this case to the right hon. Gentleman for his own information, so that he may correct the mistakes which are inevitable in a Department which is already extensive, and which is very new and very inexperienced.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think there has been a great deal of criticism to-night which is a little bit out of proportion. We are fighting for our lives, and the question—and I say it in the presence of a very well known newspaper proprietor—whether a particular statement is or is not published in the Press, is really infinitely small in proportion. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) gave an illustration of the kind of thing that he thinks ought to be published. If two regiments are cut up he thinks that the names of the regiments ought to be given. Until there is some possibility of publishing a casualty list, I can conceive of nothing more cruel. It may be that a casualty list is inevitably delayed, not owing to the fault of my right hon. Friend, but owing to the very exceptional circumstances prevailing at the front. But it is quite clear that information of the kind is exactly the kind of thing whose publication the Press Bureau exists to prevent. In the same way the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that nothing could be more useful than to publish the exact situation of the mines which blew up a particular ship. I am not going to expatiate on the reasons for not publishing it.
  Even I, who have no knowledge of military or naval matters whatever, can conceive many reasons why it is very undesirable indeed to publish the exact locality in which a particular mine has been discovered. I should think that that is a matter which emphatically must be left to the discretion of great experts at the Admiralty. And if they have decided that information ought not to be given to the public it does seem ludicrous for us, sitting comfortably here, if we have any imagination, to make any comparison between our situation and that of the soldiers and sailors who are actually fighting our battle. It is ridiculous for us to make complaints of this description. I regret, with my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto), the publication in the "Times" yesterday of that alarmist article, but I absolutely dissociate myself from all the criticisms which were made on my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). My right hon. Friend has taken this extremely onerous and disagreeable
  476
  position from pure patriotism, and it is very unfortunate that any suggestions should be made. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend discharges this duty, as indeed we have been told by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) with his usual ability and tact, and I for one have absolute confidence that he will continue to do so.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I never said that he had not done so.
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he replies, whether he will explain one paragraph which appears in the "Times" account that there is a distinction in regard to the men at the front who are sending information? There is this sentence:—
  "The car has been challenged and stopped perhaps above a hundred times. But the papers that we carried have passed us everywhere."
  I want to know how many of our Press people attached to well-known papers are in possession of equal facilities. May I say that of all the correspondents I know, none has more accurately described our forces than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith), who has always referred to them as British troops, and Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen can only be accurately described as British.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I want to ask, Sir, whether it is your intention to wind up the discussion on this particular question, because there are several hon. Members who wish to offer observations on the subject before the right hon. Gentleman replies?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not winding up the Debate, but it is in the discretion of the Chairman, when a number of hon. Members rise, to call upon one, and I thought that the time had arrived when the right hon. Gentleman should make some reply.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Nothing could be further from my wish than that any Members of the House who have still observations to make should be precluded from the opportunity of doing so.
  Mr. SHERWELL: We propose to go straight on.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: My rising at this stage of the Debate is simply occasioned by the information conveyed to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a statement to make on another subject, which must take some considerable time. Under those circumstances I have risen to deal, so far as I can, with the general criticisms that have been made, and also with the different points brought forward by various speakers. I hope the House will think it reasonable if I explain at the outset, in reference to some criticism which has been made on the constitution of the Bureau, that certainly I never sought the office which I hold, and which I was not so foolish as not to be well aware would mean many antagonisms, much invidiousness, and much that would involve every day the expenditure of almost more hours than I have ever worked in the course of a somewhat busy life. I can only address myself to the duties of the office, and they have been very arduous, in the attempt to do the best I can to administer and carry out those duties which have been thrown upon me by those who asked me to perform them. Let me, in the first place, give the House, if I may, an indication of what the general character of those difficulties has been. There was not in existence at the time the War broke out any coercive machinery of any kind by which the publication in the Press of matter injurious to the public service could be prevented. When it was anticipated that it might be desirable that some greater discretion should be shown in the Press in dealing with certain public matters than was likely to follow from the absence of control, a Committee was created, and on that Committee there sat the representatives of the great newspapers of the country, and also representatives of the War Office and Admiralty. Discussions took place from time to time, and indications were given by the representatives of the War Office or the Admiralty respectively, of the matters winch, having regard to considerations of public convenience and interest, it was not thought desirable that the Press should deal with. That system continued until the outbreak of the War.
  With the outbreak of War it was realised—I think rightly realised—that at any rate the system was loose, and could not be a system which would control the Press in
  478
  time of War. Whether a more satisfactory system could have been evolved—and this is the point of my observations, and I shall have a word or two to say later about specific suggestions made in this respect—I will not discuss at this moment, but I think everybody will agree that it became clear on the outbreak of War that some new method of control of the Press must be devised, and that those having the control must meet regularly and must have a trained staff. Let me clear away one initial cause of confusion. Up to the present time the censorship in this country has been dual, and the duality of the system has been responsible for a great deal of the criticism which has been made, and a great deal of the undoubted inequality of treatment. I will, if I may, give the House an explanation and illustration. All the cable censorship in this country, and both in this country and out of this country, has not up to the present been done by the Press Bureau. The Press Bureau has had no responsibility for what has been done up to the present. The House will be aware that ail the Press cables go out of the country from different offices. I daresay there are some ten or twelve offices from which outgoing Press cables are delivered. It is, of course, necessary that at every one of those offices there should be a trained band of censors, ready at every moment of the day and night to examine the Press cables which are sent abroad and to form a judgment on their propriety or impropriety. That means an enormous staff, of coarse; it means a staff of some eighty or ninety censors. These censors, in the main, I believe up to the present day, have consisted of military men. It is obvious that that staff, numerically, is a very considerable one.
  The work they are doing is difficult and novel. It is impossible to suppose that eighty or ninety men working on standards which are not always the same, should invariably reach the same conclusion, and this is the explanation of a great many of the inequalities of which undoubtedly complaints have been made in the course of the last few days. I ought to make it quite clear in regard to the complaints about the decisions of the Press Censors that while I have investigated those complaints and sent them

  479
  to the proper quarters, I have had no opportunity in any way of supervising or guiding the conduct of those who discharge those duties. The Press have been subjected to the difficulties and annoyance that they were subjected to a double censorship. In other words, they were not even safe if a message had been passed by the Military Censor. Supposing, as an illustration, a news association had a message which was censored, and was then passed on to the Press, it had to be censored. Obviously, that is an inconvenient system. I cannot say at the present time that inconvenience has been expelled from the system adopted, but I hope that this week a very great advance has been taken in that direction. An attempt has been made to co-ordinate the censorship in two ways.
  In the first place, the Press cables are henceforward to be distinguished in their treatment from all other cables. In other words, a central bureau is established in London from which all Press cables go. That makes it possible to require a much smaller staff, some twenty censors, who, by means of a system of shifts, will always be present at the Central Telegraph Office to deal with those outgoing cables. It is proposed that the direction and control and responsibility for those twenty censors, who are engaged doing this work under conditions which are so much more centralised, shall be jointly distributed between Colonel Caldwell, of the War Office, and myself, and that we shall be jointly responsible, as far as anyone can be responsible, for decisions taken by different men. It is hoped by this means, in the course of the next few days, a plan may be evolved, and although it is idle to say that it will altogether do away with the necessity of having anything censored twice, once by cable censors and once by Press censors, and although I cannot say such a solution has been completely attained up to the present, I believe it may be possible to devise such a scheme. I know from the experience I have had and from various responsible members of the Press that if such a scheme could be evolved it would be received with the greatest possible satisfaction by those sending cables and by those receiving them. So much for that part of the general observations I have to make.
  480
  I come to another point which has been dealt with by various speakers, and which is of some considerable importance. I said that the machinery had not existed in this country for a considerable period by which a censorship of this kind in time of war could be carried out. It follows from that that the legal powers under which my duties were discharged were not perhaps either as clear or as complete as would have been necessary if it had not been for the admirable disposition of the whole Press to co-operate. I am bound to say here at the outset, and to pay this tribute to the Press as a whole, that they have done their utmost—I say it without any exceptions about the Press of all kinds and of all parties—to co-operate with the Bureau in every matter which has been in their power since I myself began this work. That, of course, in one sense greatly simplified the duties which I had to discharge, because if it had not been for this evident desire on the part of the Press to co-operate by every means in their power it would certainly have been necessary for the Home Secretary to have come to the House of Commons and get new powers for myself or some other person to exercise, because the powers in existence at the time my office was commenced were, as I have indicated, of the most shadowy description
  I do not deal with such offences as might be committed by the Press and which came under the ordinary common law, or with those which only apply to a very limited class of cases which come under the Official Secrets Act, or under the Statute which this House passed in the emergency of the War a few days ago, and which was known as the Defence of the Realm Act. But the Regulations framed under that only meet certain limited cases, and added little further to the powers which I possess. They dealt with the giving of information relating to the movements of the Navy or the Army which might be an advantage directly or indirectly to the enemy. My hon. Friend who spoke from below the Gangway, and who suggested that the publication of certain articles, as to which I shall have more to say presently, was a breach of a further Regulation to the effect that nothing must be published which caused alarm or disaffection among His Majesty's subjects, failed to observe

  481
  that the Regulation, so far as I am aware, says that any such provision is confined to information which is given in or near a defended harbour, and was evidently intended and only meant to deal with a very limited class of cases.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Regulation to which he refers would be made under the Defence of the Realm Act, but the Order in Council will not be passed till to-morrow, and therefore the law will not be in existence until then.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I am much obliged. I knew that no such power was in existence, and that the right hon. Gentleman has in contemplation the formulation of Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. Such were the legal powers with which I had to work. It is quite obvious I could not have had exercised any-real control over all the Press had they hosen to make my actual power precisely correspond with my legal power. It is right that I should say that the Press has never adopted that attitude. If I may, let me deal with certain observations and criticisms which have been made, and I think I can perhaps answer some of them most conveniently in a general way. They betray, I think, some of them, although the tone of them is nearly all friendly, some misconception of the duties which the Bureau ever did undertake or ever could undertake. Let me describe to the House the misconceptions which I think underlie some of the criticisms.
  The constitution of the Bureau is as follows: It consists of myself as the director, assisted by three secretaries, who are all civilians. I asked my hon. Relative, who sits in this House as the representative of Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith), to assist me in the first place in the capacity of my private secretary in attending to the work of the Bureau. The fact that the hon. Gentleman is related to me shall not prevent me from saying to the House what I believe to be confirmed by nearly every Pressman who has come in contact with him, and certainly by all those naval and military men who have worked with him. His many years' experience of business and of the methods of business places have
  482
  enabled him to systematise the work of the Bureau in a way in which no one else, at any rate who would have been at my disposal, would have been able to do. I think it right to add that, like myself, he has worked there for fourteen or fifteen hours per day as a volunteer ever since a fortnight ago. Besides the assistance which has been given by my hon. Relative, I have helping me there, and to some extent advising me on technical matters, a staff of some six Admiralty officers sitting in one room, working on shifts, of course. There are never all six there at once, but the shift is so arranged that there shall always be one representative of the Admiralty present in the Admiralty Room at any hour of the day or night, so that he can act as adviser when any Admiralty point presents itself. The same is true of the soldiers. Every minute of the day and night there is always a soldier or sailor present at the Bureau. I think therefore this ought to be remembered—and I will say something-later as to the value of the assistance given—we have provided the Press at every period of the twenty-four hours with a person of experience and training who can answer any reasonable question that is put to him by the Press as to anything which may be happening on the scene of naval or military operations, and as to whether rumours reaching them are well founded or not. It is said sometimes that one of the duties of the Press Bureau was to issue information. A sentence used by the First Lord of the Admiralty in, I think, the first speech in which he announced to the House the formation of the Bureau, contained the promise that the Bureau would afford to the public a steady stream of reliable facts. The criticism has been made to-night, in more than one quarter, that we have failed to discharge the duty of keeping the public more closely informed of what has taken place.
  I desire to deal in the most candid manner possible with that charge, because I think it rests to a considerable extent upon misunderstanding. How is it put? It was put by the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) by a series of illustrations. I cannot help thinking that he will see the unreasonableness of most of the illustrations if he will listen to the few suggestions that I will venture to make

  483
  to him. He said, in the first place, that Lord Kitchener was at the War Office, and he stated with the most absolute truth that the country had complete confidence in Lord Kitchener as Secretary of State for War. He then made this further observation that Lord Kitchener was not in touch with—I forget his exact expression—but I think that what he meant to convey was that Lord Kitchener was not in touch with public opinion and what he called the "human interest" of the campaign. Let me make plain what is the relationship of the Bureau, and of myself as representing the Bureau, to the War Office as represented in another place by Lord Kitchener and in this House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tennant). Whenever I have to deal with questions of high military policy—which have arisen on many occasions in the course of the last few weeks—in the first place I obtain advice from the soldiers who are in my office. They are in telephonic communication with a room of high authority at the War Office, where very distinguished officers of high position conduct cognate work. Therefore, in the first place, inquiry is conveniently made from the soldiers' room to the room of high authority, as I have said, at the War Office. On many occasions, when answers have been given first of all from the soldiers in my office, and then from the room which they consult in the War Office, and I have thought that still further information was desirable, I have gone—availing myself of the access which he has been good enough to give me whenever I thought it necessary—directly to Lord Kitchener to obtain from him his personal opinion, and invariably, when I have asked for it, in order that I might support my decision by reference, not only to his view but to his reason for that view, I have been given that reason in the fullest manner.
  9.0 P.M.
  The first complaint of the hon. Baronet—and it is a complaint which has been generally made in the country—was that we had suppressed for an unreasonable period the fact that the Expeditionary Force was intending to embark, had embarked, and had disembarked. May I tell the House exactly what was the part played by the Bureau in the concealment or suppression, or, as I should prefer to
  484
  say, the silence of the Press in reference to the departure of the Expeditionary Force. We were most expressly told, not only by the War Office, but by those who are responsible for the Fleet, the presence and protection of which alone rendered possible the prodigious transport undertaking, the conveying of that great Army to the coast of France, that Lord Kitchener would contemplate with great anxiety the sending of so large a force, and the First Lord of the Admiralty would not be prepared to guarantee its protection by the Fleet unless every step that could be taken in this country was taken to secure secrecy in the matter. For anyone to suggest that I, a civilian, was to take upon myself the responsibility, whatever was taking place abroad—and I assure the House that nothing was taking place of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman—of deviating in the slightest degree from the instructions I had received, is simply foolish. But I am entitled to say that two days before the final landing of that part of the Expeditionary Force which was sent at once I saw Lord Kitchener himself—I think I saw him on each of those days, but I saw him or his secretary—and asked whether the time had come when the embargo upon publication might be removed, and on each occasion he gave me a perfectly adequate reason, which it was not necessary to state to the House, for postponing the date on which publication might be made.
  May I make an observation on something the hon. Baronet said, which at first sight might appear to be the basis of some of his views, The hon. Baronet stated that these movements of our Expeditionary Force were widely stated in the "New York Herald." in the French Press, and in the Paris "Daily Mail "—and I think another hon. Member, with a knowledge which certainly we do not possess, added the German Press. I ought to tell the House exactly what was done in this case. I am able to assure the House that in every case which came to my knowledge—and I looked at a considerable number of papers—the information, both as to dates and as to places, was erroneous. I may say, in the second place, that the moment our attention and the attention of Lord Kitchener was called

  485
  to the fact that this information was being given in the foreign papers, Lord Kitchener at once communicated with the French War Office and the authorities in Paris, and did his best—ultimately, I believe, with complete success—to stop further publication. As far as the Paris editions of the "New York Herald" and the "Daily Mail" are concerned, I can speak from my own personal knowledge, because I saw at once the representatives of those papers in London, and pointed out that this silence had been assented to by the whole Press in London. The moment their attention was called to it, they undertook to abide by the same restrictions, and, as far as I am aware, after the one issue to which reference has been made, they did with complete loyalty observe the same silence. I dismiss this by saying that our War Office and our Admiralty could not be absolved from the duty under which they lay, of seeing as far as they could that no disclosure which came from close at home where these things would be known, and whence the information could be relied upon, was made by the fact that they were physically unable to extend their censorship into foreign countries where the information could hardly be relied upon as having the same degree of authority. I need not say any more about that Army and the extent to which silence upon that point was maintained in the English Press.
  I think I might possibly deal now, and deal very shortly indeed, with two similar objections which were made, the one by the hon. Baronet, and the other one, with great moderation, by the hon. Member for South Shields. The hon. Member complained—and suggested it was extremely unintelligent that we objected—I need not weary the House with the extent of these provisions where they deal with matters of naval and military authority—and that these prohibitions were only suggested by the Office over which I preside. It was thought by the Admiralty—for reasons which, without describing, I will give a general indication of in a moment—that it was extremely undesirable that it should be stated where any English ship was struck, and, secondly, that any German mines had been located. I am not going to argue whether that prohibition is as unreasonable as the hon. Member who
  486
  addressed the House seemed to imagine. Like the Noble Lord who spoke, I can give immediately very obvious and strong reasons why it might not be desirable that the enemy should know when these have been located, or that they are no longer there; but I will say, first, that I was requested in the communication—received from a source at the Admiralty of the highest authority—to see that this prohibition was issued, and to see that it was observed by the Press.
  Inasmuch as the hon. Baronet spoke to the editor of a South Shields paper—and I think, also, that very probably that was the source of the information which has possessed the hon. Member who spoke from behind the Front Bench—I hope to deal very shortly with it. The hon. Baronet said that the gentleman referred to was treated by my hon. relative at the Bureau, as if my relative had been—I think he said a Prussian Uhlan, or something of the sort. That, of course, is a suggestion which, unless the hon. Baronet had something in his mind upon which to base his charge, he hardly should have made; and also if he had intended to bring it up in Debate in this House, it would only have been courteous if he had acquainted me with the fact in order that I could have inquired into it. I am informed by my hon. relative that he has never spoken to the gentleman in his life; that his communications with him have been written.
  Sir A MARKHAM: "I enclose a copy of the letter I yesterday sent to Mr. Harold Smith. I must state for your information that that is the offence which drew upon my head two letters couched in terms the Kaiser might use towards a blundering subordinate. It was simply complaining that we had received the official announcement that our troops were in the fighting line long after the full knowledge and information had appeared in the French, Belgian, and American papers …."
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: If I understand the hon. Baronet, he has founded himself for the purpose of making a general charge against my hon. relative—there were some seventy or eighty Pressmen about—to a statement made by one of these gentlemen who evidently came into collision with some rule that has been passed, not by

  487
  us, but by some higher authority for whom we are the responsible mouthpiece. I only suggest to the hon. Baronet that it would be fairer in a case of this kind, unless he has better evidence, not to make a general charge against those who are doing their best to discharge the duties placed upon them. I can assure the hon. Baronet—and I will give him a temporary pass for the purpose that if he will come to the Press Bureau, where the representatives of the Press are working by day and by night, and where they are constantly in contact with my brother, that he will not find that opinion confirmed by one single member of the Press.
  I have only to say that having received instructions on a matter on which I am assured the safety of either the Army or the Navy depends, as to such and such restrictions, I exercise no discretion of any kind. I take it as an order. Whether it is right or not, I exercise no discretion. That statement is subject to one qualification, and one qualification only, and that is where it has dealt with a matter in respect of which I am constantly asked by persons of importance in the newspaper world for a reason or justification of the ordinance given. I have then gone over to Lord Kitchener or to Mr. Churchill, or one of their representatives, and I have said, "While there is great readiness to obey this, may I, seeing that those asking may not have the necessary technical knowledge on the matter, give them a reason to satisfy them that the course suggested of keeping out the news is not an unreasonable one?" I have almost always been given a reason, and I have passed it on.
  As to the other matter, as soon as ever I received instructions from the Admiralty I issued them. I got the first question from the gentleman at South Shields. I immediately, in order to make quite sure, went into the Admiralty room myself, as I always do when I receive a question from the editor of position, and said, "Just ring up, please, and make quite sure that this prohibition is to be observed, and that it is the desire of the Admiralty that, no mention of the matter should be made." I received from the Admiralty a communication couched in the strongest possible language—an expression of their
  488
  desire that on no account was anything of this kind to be made public.
  The next comment that was made was in regard to the overhauling of the "Galician." That vessel, it is well-known, was overhauled at sea. The instructions of the Admiralty, for obvious reasons, have always been that if any English ship was seized or challenged by any German vessel, under circumstances which might enable the exact position of the German vessel to be located, that that knowledge must never be published in the English papers, because, of course, at once the enemy knows that its whereabouts are known to our Fleet. I agree that there comes a time two or three or four days afterwards when that prohibition may reasonably be withdrawn, because the positions are so far altered. But I asked, just as I asked in the other case at the Admiralty: "Is it your wish that no reference of any kind by way of letters in the paper, or anything else, should be given in respect of the, "Galician"? The answer was the same as before—that under no circumstances must there be any reference to it in the Press. I stopped the message. I stopped it for several days. The hon. Baronet says that the "Times" published this information before the other papers. That is perfectly true. They assumed, and I cannot say it was unjustifiable, though it was unfortunate. I pointed it out to the editor that inasmuch as four or five days had passed, the reason for non-publication must have ceased to operate. On that assumption they published it. They were perfectly right in assuming that on that date, it was unimportant that reference should be made, but as I pointed out to them where they were wrong was in having acted without proper communication with me until, so to speak. I had let the flag fall. I think it was eight days' afterwards that they published it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: No, four days.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I think the hon. Baronet is quite wrong.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: August 19th to 23rd.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: No, no, it was in the official papers, and under the same circumstances. But in these cases we have a

  489
  great deal to do, and if it had occurred to me or to anyone that this was a case in which the time had fully expired, it would have been mentioned so that all the papers alike could give the information. Let me say there is one charge which, I am glad to say, has not been made in this Debate, and which never could have been made by anybody—that there has been the slightest discrimination as between any papers. I have been on the most cordial relationship with the editors of papers who, I do not know what they would say of me now, but never in the whole course of my life said anything good of me in the past, and certainly I do not exaggerate when I say that my relationship with them has been as cordial and friendly as with any other papers, and from the first day I went to this Office, it is really superfluous to say, that in no way in giving information was the slightest discrimination made. I must now take one or two specific complaints. It is stated that the declaration of war was withheld from one important American agency. If I am right—and I am sure my recollection is right, when the declaration of war was made, the Bureau was not in existence, so that responsibility does not rest with us. Then it was stated also—I think by the hon. Baronet, or one of the later speakers—that the fall of Namur was only given to two papers. As far as the Bureau is concerned, that statement is simply meaningless. The fall of Namur, which was fully authenticated at the time the announcement was made, was announced through the Press Association to every newspaper and Press Association ten minutes after the announcement to us by the War Office. I think these are the specific grounds of complaint made. I now tome to the more general criticism which have proceeded from different parts of the House.
  Mr. LOUGH: And what about the "Times" publication of yesterday?
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I will take things in order. I was going to deal in the first place with the general statements, and to make an explanation that we have not given to the Press sufficient information in the three weeks or more during which we have been in existence. My answer to that is to invite the House to consider what are the circumstances under which the
  490
  functions of our Army and of the Allies are carried on. No one will suppose, for instance, that we are to manufacture incidents. It is suggested we should have the assistance of journalists, but it is no part of our functions to manufacture news. We are not in competition with the news agencies. The real basis of the charge—and it is with the real basis I want to deal, and not the particular words in which it is expressed—the real basis of the charge I am sure is this: Not that the Press Bureau has failed to be sufficiently communicative, but that the Government has not published a sufficient number of authoritative statements as to the fortunes of the British Army in the field. I think that must obviously be the meaning of it. No one is foolish enough to suppose that I, or the Bureau, who spend a great deal of time in trying to get information, would withhold it from the public when we get it. I can only say that I received nothing either from the War Office or the Admiralty from the first moment that I went to the Bureau of the slightest importance or of the slightest public interest which has not been instantly published, and I think I ought to add that many times the whole staff and my brother received announcements from twelve to one in the morning and have sat there from half an hour to an hour later for the sole purpose of seeing that the public Press got the information.
  I do not deal with the suggestion that the Bureau has suppressed information. I have no claim to speak on behalf of the Government, but I have been in constant touch both with the War Office and the Admiralty. It is said or suggested that more information could have been given to the country as soon as War broke out. I do not think the statement is made at all about the Admiralty. I think it will be generally recognised that the Admiralty-news, when it can be given, has been given very promptly and fully. If any criticisms of that kind have been made they escaped my notice. But the charge has been made, and made freely, in relation to the position and fortunes of the Army. I can only make this observation: I should doubt whether any Army in the recent history of fighting, from the first moment that it became associated with the allied troops, has had a time more trying than the Expeditionary Force. For four days and

  491
  nights it was constantly either marching or fighting, or both, and we should indeed be an impatient and an unreasonable people if we expected the General, in these circumstances, to spend his time in writing dispatches. It would obviously be impossible, and unreasonable to expect him to do so.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: No one ever suggested it.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: The hon. Baronet says he never suggested it, but his main complaint was that, in the first place, we were not touched with the human interest that ought to animate such a bureau, and, in the second place, he said we did not give out a constant stream of information.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: No.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I understood the hon. Baronet to say so. If he tells me he is not one of those who complains of the paucity of the information, if he is not one of those critics, of course I accept his disclaimer at once. It is sufficient for me to say that many have complained that we were not giving sufficient information with regard to military operations. Every day, and sometimes twice a day, I have gone to the War Office, unless someone from the War Office first came to me, and I have not done this over the telephone. I have gone once or twice a day to the War Office and asked persons of the highest consequence and position whether any news had been received which we could publish. I have done that every day. And it is not true to say that no news has been given. News has been given, I agree, vague and often sketchy, until the information we issued on Sunday, but here again I have only one defence, and it seems to me to be a completely adequate one. The information which was drawn up as to the position of the Army was drawn up in every case by soldiers of highest experience and authority. They drew it up with the knowledge, which they certainly had very clearly, that the public were deeply concerned to have all the information that could safely be given at the' earliest possible moment. And when I am told, in answer to these representations, that in their judgment—and one may put it perfectly plainly, in
  492
  the judgment of Lord Kitchener himself—that what was being published was all that could be published without risk or injury to the public service, I say, as long as I discharge my present office, that is a sufficient answer for me.
  I come now to the other side of our Committee, and that is the work done under the head of censoring. I have indicated the great legal difficulties under which the work has been done. I have said that up to the present all that we were entitled to censor in law was information to the enemy directly or indirectly of the movement of His Majesty's armed or maritime forces, so that the powers which we have been exercising have been the legal powers which could only have been put in force when the offence was so great that it could be submitted to a court martial. The House will observe that that gives us the most limited licence to deal with any articles which we receive. We receive a mass of articles which may be objectionable from many points of view, but we have no legal right to deal with them. I want to make it clear that I have never asked for further powers with the exception of the revision of the Regulations referred to by the Home Secretary simply because the Press has behaved so well, and have shown that it was not necessary to apply legal powers because they were willing, loyally, to acquiesce in the decisions of our office. Now I come to the general principle upon which the censorship has been carried out. I do not claim that the censorship has always been the same, but I do make the claim that a great attempt, and a sincere attempt, has been made on the part of everybody concerned to give the same treatment, but when you have different shifts of day censors and night censors, every censor will not always take the same view of the same facts or of facts closely analogous. A careful record is kept of every decision. A log is kept in the soldiers' room and in the sailors' room which enables them to see what previous decisions have been given if the facts are identical, but if the facts are not identical but analogous, difficulties must arise, and they always must arise unless one person does the whole of the censoring, which is quite impossible. I may say, however, that these difficulties are growing less as the censors get more experience.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Some of them are quicker, and they are not all men of equal intelligence.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: That is so. I can only add that the principle on which we have gone in asking the Press to be silent has been to ask them to exclude material which was excluded by the decisions of Lord Kitchener and the War Office upon lines of general policy. If Lord Kitchener has expressed a wish that certain news should not be given I have endeavoured as far as I could see that it was not published, but in exercising the censorship it has always been exercised with the assent of Lord Kitchener. I think I should make it perfectly clear that although the question considered is a purely military one, Lord Kitchener has never once refused to consider carefully, attentively, and patiently, every consideration which the mind of a layman might suggest against the necessity of a particular prohibition. When the hon. Baronet opposite makes an observation that Lord Kitchener is not familiar with the circumstances of English political life, I can only say that nobody could have shown himself more patience to any representation which I made to him either on behalf of the Press or the Bureau. Now I pass to the circumstances which has been much commented upon connected with the articles that appeared in the "Times" and the "Weekly Dispatch" of Sunday. Let me point out that up to Sunday morning many complaints and criticisms had been made against the Bureau on its censoring side. It had been stated that we were suppressing intentionally and broadcast information in the publication of which there was no harm. Our answer is that we on our own authority have never suppressed anything from first to last except when we were acting upon the instructions of persons in high authority. As an office we do not suppress anything. Although I have soldiers and sailors with me who are very capable persons they do not belong to the highest ranks of the Service from whom alone I get information on special points. Up to last Sunday there bad only been one criticism of us in the Press. To-day the criticism is of quite a different character. The criticism to which I refer is that we are keeping things
  494
  back, that we are over-censoring, and that newspapers are not allowed to publish information from their correspondents.
  I think I ought to make it clear that the work is done at certain hours of the night under very high pressure. It has been stated by the hon. Baronet opposite, and it may be true, that the articles in question were in the Bureau Office for some hours before they were dealt with. Those hours are just the hours when there is the greatest pressure, because all the articles being submitted by the Press for the morning papers are sent about the same time, and it is necessary to deal with them at once. The number is large, and it takes a long time to get through them. The papers in question were the "Times," the "Daily Mail," and the "Weekly Dispatch," and I think that they have been very hardly dealt with. It was a "Daily Mail" message and the "Times" message, and the "Daily Mail" message was published in the "Weekly Dispatch" because that appears on Sunday. I have said that the papers in question were hardly dealt with, and I am going to tell the House my view perfectly candidly. Let me say at the outset that no two papers have, from the first moment the Bureau came into existence behaved better or more loyally to the wishes of the War Office and the Admiralty than the "Times" and the "Daily Mail." I should not have singled them out in this way but for the fact that they have been made the subject of so much criticism during the last two days. I can only say that I have been dealing constantly with the editor of the "Daily Mail" and the editor of the "Times." They are very important papers whether one agrees with them or not, and I have never expressed any guidance of any kind on which they have not shown their willingness to act. The circumstances must be remembered under which these articles were sent in by these papers for censorship. No information of a substantial character had been published officially for some time, indeed this is the gravamen of one of the charges which was being made at that time. I think the day before some of the leading articles in very important organs of the Press were proclaiming that no information was coming through from Government

  495
  sources, and that no information was coming through newspaper sources, and the whole burden of the complaint was that we were suppressing news. It will also be remembered, as has been said with great justice by more than one speaker, that no war correspondents were being allowed at the front, and that there was the greatest anxiety, and legitimate anxiety, to obtain any information as to the fortunes of the campaign.
  Supposing the statements made by a correspondent, for whose ability the "Times" vouched had contained an accurate picture of what was taking place and had been been correct, it would be difficult, I think, to contend, apart from its form, which is a matter of taste, that it would have been right under any circumstances to stop such an article. I am assuming now that the facts were all truly stated. Supposing all the statements contained in the article had been true. [An HON MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I am going to deal with that, but I must make the hypothesis. I had no means, and no one had any means of testing the facts, except that we knew they came from a correspondent who was vouched for as a man of constancy, ability, and experience. Such being the circumstances, I would invite the House most carefully to consider—it may be, necessary, and, at any rate, the decision is a formidable one—whether on the assumption that the facts were true, they would have desired, had I been able to consult them, to authorise me to suppress their publication. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] I think there would be great differences of opinion. If it becomes necessary on high grounds of public service, and of course newspapers are constantly giving away knowledge on these points, I am certain Parliament would not hesitate to say that it must be stopped, but a tremendous question of policy lies behind. Supposing information came in that was true, and was not injurious to the public service, except in the sense that it might occasion alarm, would it be the desire of the House of Commons that the Press Bureau, which at present has no legal power to interfere, should operate to prevent its publication?
  I want the House clearly to understand how this particular matter was dealt with.
  496
  It came to me, as I have said, vouched for in this form. Some persons have supposed that it was in some shape vouched for by the Bureau in the same sense that an announcement that is made is vouched for, but on the very face of it the message, which of course was received in the most absolute good faith by the "Times," was a message, admittedly, of a man who was speaking from hearsay and without direct contact with the front. He talks about his motor-car journeys and so forth. When: it came, I myself examined the article. It came at the period of greatest pressure—at least, my opportunity of examining it came at a period of very great pressure. The article, besides the parts which were published, contained a number of references to naval and military movements which were excised, and, as altered, it was returned to the papers concerned. I am glad to say that no other officer of the Bureau is responsible but myself. I take the responsibility, under circumstances of which I shall have a word more, to say, of having returned it, initialed by me, in the shape in which it was returned to the paper. Dealing with a censorship which is quite, new, and the precise legal range of which is imperfectly understood, it is easy to see how the editor drew the inference that the article was not only no longer in violation of the positive rules of the censorship, which was clear, and as far as he was concerned he was absolutely protected, but was also generally sanctioned by the Bureau.
  I treated the articles as articles which did not come into conflict with the positive rules we have laid down as to giving information in relation to the movements of the armed forces of the Crown, and which on the very face of them depended upon the evidence of persons who were not at the front; and it seemed to me to be quite impossible for those reasons that the articles should be mistaken for official articles. I tell the House perfectly frankly that I think now, if one had known everything that was going to happen, if one had been working with perhaps a little more time to give to every important article which was clamouring for attention at the time, it would have been better if I had written a note to the editor asking him whether, quite apart from the legal powers we possessed, he considered

  497
  it was a wise article to publish. I think it would have been better if I had done so. I had done it on some previous occasions. Dealing with one point which I cannot help thinking some hon. Gentlemen have in mind, I may say that these are the only two articles of the particular kind so far as I know that have been presented to us. I should be very sorry if it were thought that these papers were allowed to publish articles of this kind, and that other papers having similar articles were not allowed to deal with them. The House, I am sure, will accept that from me. If I had written a note asking the editor whether, apart from the legal powers, and apart from the question, which to me was clear, whether it did not come into conflict with the positive rules which we were in a position to exercise, and which we were exercising, it was a wise article to publish, I have no doubt whatever that he would have suppressed the article altogether; and the only comment I would make on the communication from the editor of the "Times" to the "Evening News" to-night is that equally, without myself blaming them, if they had conveyed to me, when they sent the message, the fact that they already had a doubt in their own minds as to whether, apart from the censorship, it was a wise article. I think that perhaps would have been as useful as if I on my part had conveyed to them the suggestion which I have said I think I should have been acting wisely if after reading the article I had conveyed to them.
  The "Times" and the "Daily Mail," as I have said, have been specially active in co-operating with me, and I am anxious that they should be fairly treated in the matter, and that the responsibility, as far as it is my responsibility, should be taken by me. Both these papers immediately suppressed the article from their Monday editions, and from that moment they were no longer published anywhere. I summarise what I have to say on this subject in the following way. At the time the articles were read I treated them for censoring purposes within the full compass of the rules we have laid down for dealing with articles of this kind. All references to military and naval operations were excised. Some amendments, as I have
  498
  said, were inserted in various parts of die-articles. It was, under those circumstances, returned by me to the office.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Were any additions made to it?
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I have said so, but if the hon. Member wishes me to be more explicit, I shall be glad to tell the House exactly what was done. I had been asked by Lord Kitchener, in the course of various discussions I had had with him, to, as far as possible, assist his object, which, was, of course, to obtain recruits for his Army, and under these circumstances, having read this article and excised all parts of it which dealt with the movement of troops, I suggested that reference might be made at the end of the article to the effect that what was wanted was, "Reinforcements, reinforcements, and still more reinforcements." That was in order to carry out what I knew to be the policy of the War Office, and, as far as I am aware, it was the only addition that was made. In this matter I have been perfectly candid with the House. I have told it all the facts, whatever the consequences might be. I had not had an opportunity, although I tried to see the right hon. Gentleman, of explaining them to the Prime Minister before the question was put to-day. I had, however, done so to-some of his colleagues. I am most anxious it should be clearly understood that I myself acquit of all responsibility the editors of the "Times" and the "Daily Mail." and I may tell the House exactly why I do so. They received this news believing it to be true. The hon. Gentleman says it is not true, and I think it was clearly most grossly exaggerated. It was clearly gleaned by the gentlemen who wrote it from persons who had not been at the front, and who had given him a story disproportionate to the facts. Therefore, I say I do not think it was true. But I believed it in the main to be true, and the discretion which I exercised upon it was based on the fact that, on the face-of it, it was a report purporting to come from a gentleman not at the front, and everybody who read it would see that that was so. Furthermore, it dealt with matters which did not come into conflict with the rules we laid down, and on which, alone in law, we were entitled to act.

  499
  I present the reasons to the House. I have not had an earlier opportunity of doing so, although I should have found one, if I had not anticipated that this Debate would have come on much earlier. I have only to say this in conclusion: Since I went to that office we have dealt with thousands upon thousands of articles, letters, and dispatches that have come from the front. It is no exaggeration to say we have dealt with many thousands daily, and I cannot help thinking it a source of some satisfaction that, going to a new office, going there with no system in existence and with no staff in existence, it has been found possible to deal with so large a number of articles by way of censorship with so little criticism and so little complaint. I do not in the least pretend that mistakes have not been made. I will go further. I will take the House completely into my confidence and say I am quite certain mistakes will continue to be made. But all I can say is that we are getting more experienced in the office.
  Every day we are becoming more familiar with the difficulties we have to cope with, and more familiar with the routine of the methods by which those difficulties must be dealt with, and I can only assure the House, as representing the public, who are entitled to look to the Press for close and constant help, that, as long as I am there, I shall grudge no time and no labour which may be necessary in order to consider very carefully every Press interest, every interest that can be put forward as one in which the public are concerned, and I shall use all the influence I possess that information may be given to the public at the earliest possible moment, so that they may be kept closely aware of "all the stage" of the great conflict which is now going on. I have only to say, in conclusion, that whatever errors have been made, and that whatever errors may be made in the future, they will not be made because any effort, industry or good will is spared to avoid them, and I sincerely hope that with the ten days' added experience of the work of the Bureau which we shall have been afforded by the time Parliament meets again, all grounds of complaint, such as they are, will by then almost have disappeared.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am sure I should be using a wrong expression if I were to say that the striking and convincing speech which we have just heard was a defence of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, It is not a defence, for the simple reason that he was not attacked. I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and I am quite sure that the general sense of the House and of every speaker, whatever loose expressions may, in fact, have been used—the general sense of the House by no manner of means makes any attack on the right hon. Gentleman, whose exertions and great ability, whose knowledge and experience have been given to the service of the Government with the greatest personal generosity and at very considerable sacrifice to himself. Undoubtedly one or two expressions were used in the course of the Debate which seemed to me as if they conveyed a kind of censure on the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that that was not intended, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the whole feeling of the House-has been, throughout, in complete support of his general action at the Press Bureau. I am bound to say not one of us envies him his work. It is at the best a thankless task, bound to bring him into opposition, first with the Press, and then with the public, and we owe him a great debt of gratitude for the admirable manner in which the work has been clone. Earlier in the day the Prime Minister, in reply to a question, spoke of the legitimate impatience which the public feel at the paucity of information which they have received as to the great events taking place on the Continent of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman in a very eloquent passage defended the Army from the charge of not having supplied us with more information, but I can certainly say this, that all the information which we have received from the front, subject to such suppression as was necessary not to give away the names of places, and the situation of the Army at the moment—in fact, such suppression as everybody recognises is necessary—with that qualification all the information which has been received has been published.
  We have seen it stated, again and again, that the Government have tried to suppress information which ought to have

  501
  been given, and one hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Debate, referred to two regiments which had been cut up, and suggested that the Government had suppressed all information with regard to those two regiments. Well, Sir, I do not know the names of the regiments. I have seen all the telegrams. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War, who has also seen all the telegrams, did he know the names of the regiments? He did not know them either. So that what is supposed to be public property and is known to everybody is not known to the Government. With that assurance, which relates to the past, I hope the House will rest satisfied that there has been no suppression of information known to us. It is recognised that there is a legitimate anxiety and even impatience that there is no more information obtained. The right hon. Gentleman has said it would be grossly unfair to blame those who had been fighting a great action day after day under the most exhausting circumstances for not having sent us longer, interesting, and detailed accounts which could be published. The Government have themselves now taken steps to provide that prompt, full, and trustworthy information of the operations should be furnished from day to day. I hope when that information is received that the task of the right hon. Gentleman will be rendered a great deal easier. As he has said, the Admiralty are in a quite different position. They are able to get information by wireless at every moment of every event that takes place at sea. The military cannot give information in the same way. All the information that the Admiralty has furnished has been published at once, and all the information which the War Office has received has been published at once. As I have said, we trust that in future fuller and more complete accounts will be able to be given, to the satisfaction alike of the right hon. Gentleman, the Press, and the public.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question. Will he tell the House whether authorised correspondents under the conditions laid down are to be allowed to go to the front? I only ask the question.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, there is no change in the policy as regards authorised correspondents being allowed at the front. We must bear one very important fact in mind in this War. We are acting as the Ally of other nations, and we must conform in large measure to their policy.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I only ask for public information.
  Mr. McKENNA: I would remind the House that in this matter we have to bear in mind that the French have primary responsibility.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: May I ask the indulgence of the House in these circumstances? I will gladly stay a little longer if it is desired that the Debate should proceed, but I would point out that I have had no dinner and have not been to the Bureau.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. TENNANT: I only rise to say one sentence in case a very unfortunate state of things should occur with regard to the story told by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) earlier this evening. I do not want it to go abroad that there is likely to be a number of cases similar to the one he detailed to the House. I did not know then whether it was true, and I do not know now whether it is true. I do not think he knows. I think he said the information had reached him. He told the House that wounded men had come back from the front having been in trains for three days without food or their wounds being dressed; that they arrived at Boulogne where there was no arrangement to feed them or to dress their wounds; and that they had gone on to Folkestone and equally found there no preparations for dealing with wounded soldiers. I wish to inform the House that the organised line of evacuation of wounded was not tia Boulogne and Folkestone—I do not think it is necessary to give the line to anybody—and that if any wounded men were so unfortunate as to get into trains going to Boulogne and then crossed the Channel to Folkestone, they must have done so in the confusion and hurry of the moment. There were ample resources to deal with all the wounded upon the proper lines of evacuation. When the military authorities became aware that some casualties were

  503
  arriving at Folkestone, emergency measures were immediately taken for their reception at that port. I ought to say that those wounded who did come via Boulogne and Folkestone were probably not very seriously wounded, or they would not have been able to get into the trains in question, as none of the authorities put them in those trains. I would like to add that several Red Cross men who have come over here have expressed admiration at the completeness of the arrangements on the proper line, so that when we are told that a similar state of things existed in the Crimean War, when we know how inefficient were the arrangements made for attending to the wounded, it is really a considerable libel upon the arrangements that have been made in this War.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: There are two persons who have a very real grievance with regard to this episode and the discussion which has arisen out of it. In the first place, there is the "Times," and, in the second place, there is the right hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith). The article to which so much exception has been taken was deplorable [An HON. MEMBER: "It was worse than that."]—in the circumstances in which it was published, but it would be a mistake and an injustice to the newspaper which published it to characterise that article as false in the sense of being an invention invented in Fleet Street, or in the sense of being a lie. It was deplorable because it was an incomplete and partial statement of facts as they were observed or gathered by a correspondent on the fringe of the great events which were happening. It is said to be that kind of half-truth which is worse than a lie, and it had something of that effect, but it was the whole truth so far as it was known by the newspaper which published it. The other half of the truth was suppressed, not by the newspaper, but by those who were responsible for the decision not to allow any accredited correspondent at the front or in the centre. If reports had been published not only from the fringe but from the centre, we should have been able to correct the one by the other, and might have had the whole truth. I have looked at the comment which has been published
  504
  by the "Times" to-day in some news paper, and from that we gather that this article was not only sanctioned and was not only passed, but that it was actually approved for publication. Not only that, but there was added to it an appeal based on the article itself, for additional recruits. In these circumstances, when a newspaper has received an article from a correspondent whom it believes to be a reliable correspondent dealing with facts which he has observed, and with tales with which he has heard from those who have come from the operations, when it is not only sanctioned, but when he is encouraged to publish it, the editor who refused to let the public know the truth, as he believed it to be the truth, would be incurring a very great responsibility indeed. I think that when severe censure has been expressed on the newspaper for publishing that article, those who pass that censure must not be fully seized of the fact that it was not only sanctioned, but that publication was encouraged by the Press Bureau.
  In the second place, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult, and to some extent, a very unfair position. He did not thrust himself forward. He responded to an invitation to accept these onerous duties. He responded to an invitation to accept a position of very great difficulty, and of the very highest public utility. He knew, and everyone must have known, that he was accepting a thankless and ungrateful task, and that he was not lying down upon a bed of roses in accepting that position. I think he has performed a public duty. He has placed all of us under a debt of gratitude to him, and the fact that a man of his high position in public affairs undertook these duties, in my opinion, secured a more willing co-operation on the part of all friends of co-operation which extended infinitely beyond the legal powers which he was able to enforce. But the peculiar difficulty of his position comes from the fact that he is not a responsible Minister. He has no direct responsibility for these measures. He is somewhat in the position of a permanent official—he is responsible for the control of executive work. He is not responsible for any decisions, on broad lines of policy as to what must be published and what must

  505
  not be published. There, the two great Departments which are conducting the War, the Admiralty and the War Office, are alone responsible. They have the fullest responsibility, and in the capacity in which he has been working he is responsible, as a permanent Civil Servant is responsible, merely for the carrying out of the executive details. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been placed in a somewhat unfair position here tonight. He had no power of control over the policy of his Department. I dare say if he had been speaking as a responsible Minister he could have spoken with very much greater freedom, and I think in this case there ought to have been a reply from a representative either of the War Office or of the Admiralty. I think that was a duty of grace which one or other of these Departments owed to the right hon. Gentleman for his public spirit in responding to the invitation, that one or other of them should have accepted the burden of replying more fully than he, owing to his position, was able to do.
  There is one other remark I want to make. Many of the difficulties and embarrassments which have arisen with regard to the position of the Press Bureau have arisen owing to misunderstanding with regard to the function and duty of the Bureau. It is a remarkable fact, so far as I can recollect, that there has been no full and precise definition of the objects and functions and powers of the Bureau. That is certainly a very anomalous position. I think we ought to have from some responsible Minister a full and precise definition of the functions and duties of the Bureau, so that it can be seen in future by every one concerned whether it is or is not keeping within the lines which it was intended to keep within.
  Mr. SHERWELL: We have been discussing for some hours, under conditions of great disadvantage, a matter of momentous importance to the whole nation, and while I sympathise entirely with the plea entered by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) that in the discussion of a question of this kind we ought to preserve as far as possible a sense of perspective and proportion, I would say that there is probably no point at which national interests could be more vitally touched than
  506
  they are touched in reference to the publicity or non-publicity of important news. It must not be forgotten that in reference to this scheme, while the issues are great the nation itself, because of the unparalleled sacrifice it is attempting to make, has reason to expect great consideration to be paid to it. But I quite understand the conditions under which this Debate must be further continued, and therefore I do not propose to make some observations which I should be glad to have an opportunity of making had the Debate been conducted under more favourable conditions. I will, however, say that so far as I myself am concerned, and as far as the impression created upon my mind by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) is concerned, I think that what he has shown very convincingly to the House is that while he himself, personally, is not to blame for what has or what has not taken place recently, he has said enough to show that he has been placed in a perfectly false and altogether impossible position. I should like to feel assured, as I am not assured at this moment, that the public at large, and very important interests in the public, have reason to hope for better conditions in the future owing to the new arrangements which have been made.
  I must be allowed to say one word in passing on a very grave matter, the importance of which cannot be exaggerated, namely, the publication of certain articles in a paper yesterday. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really missed the vital point in connection with the publication of those articles. He said, "If they were true, had we any right to suppress them?" Are we to understand that the statement published yesterday afternoon on the authority of Lord Kitchener was a statement drawn up for the Press Bureau owing entirely to the publication of articles in the "Times," the "Observer," and the "Weekly Dispatch"? I assume that the information given by Lord Kitchener and by the Press Bureau was in the knowledge of the Government prior to the publication of those articles in the "Times," the "Weekly Dispatch," the "Observer," and the "Daily Mail." Surely the head of the Bureau had not been placed in such a position that he

  507
  could not check the accuracy, and ascertain the reliableness of those articles in the light of information in the knowledge of the Government! It seems to me perfectly preposterous to state that the great Departments of State should not be in possession of information showing conclusively that the articles were inaccurate and misleading, and that the articles should be allowed to go out and to receive circulation by permission of the Press Bureau.
  I confess that I heard with great misgiving the admission made to-day that certain additions were made to those articles by the Press Bureau itself. As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation those additions were made, to put it quite bluntly, for recruiting purposes—that is to say, in Lord Kitchener's view, it was desirable that the public should be called upon to respond in larger numbers to the call to arms. But surely we are violating every principle of the censorship if we are to turn articles submitted to the Press Bureau to recruiting purposes by the State authorities in this country. I want to enter a protest too—I would much rather have made it in the presence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is suffering, like some of us on this side, from the fact that we have not had our dinners—I must say that I object to the past methods of the Press Bureau, partly because of their apparent discrimination in the exercise of the censorship, and, secondly, because of the apparently unequal treatment which they have rendered to various journals in this country. At the outset of the War the Board of Admiralty issued a request, or a demand, to the newspapers of this country that they should not publish mail and shipping news. I am glad to know that the majority of the newspapers in the country loyally responded to that request, and have not published mail and shipping news. But the "Times" and the "Daily Mail," and two or three other papers have persisted in publishing mail and shipping news, and they are publishing it to-day. One paper, of considerable influence in the North of England, which loyally responded to the appeal of the Board of Admiralty, has
  508
  twice written to that Board and to the Press Bureau asking whether the continued publication in other papers is a defiance of the Admiralty's wish; but it has not received from the Board of Admiralty or the Press Bureau any answer to the inquiry. It is facts of this kind which do create a strong suspicion in the minds of the average person that there is an absence of equal treatment in the exercise of this censorship. I sincerely hope that the prominence given to the subject by this Debate will have a very radical effect in improving the conditions in future.
  Mr. DILLON: The great scandal of the publication of those two articles in the "Times" and the "Daily Mail" yesterday has been vastly intensified by the amazing statement which we have heard from that bench to-night. As the hon. Member who has just spoken truly pointed out, the Press Censor, when he had those articles before him, must have known that they were false, and were calculated, as any person of ordinary intelligence must have known, to create alarm and panic in this country. To my amazement the Press Censor stood up and admitted to the House that he sanctioned the publication of those articles, and made additions to them, and he admitted that they were to be taken by the country as an incitement to recruiting. In other words, we have it stated, by the Press Censor himself, that he considers the publication of false news a justifiable method of recruiting in this country. Can any hon. Member pretend, after what has taken place in this Debate, that the Censor, unless disgracefully treated by the War Office, did not know yesterday that the news was grossly misrepresenting all the facts? Either the article was untrue or Lord Kitchener's reply, published the same afternoon, which was manifestly a reply to that article, is untrue. They cannot both be true; they are absolutely contradictory. We have heard the Press Censor state to-day that that article was sanctioned, that he made an addition that was to be published by the newspapers, and that he made that addition in order that it might provide a ground for recruiting in this country and sending out reinforcements. That is to me the most amazing admission that I have ever heard

  509
  made in this House. I agree with the Home Secretary that it was a defence, and it was a very ineffective defence, of the whole system.
  One of the greatest evils of the whole system of censorship in this country is that the existence of the Press censorship has induced the public to believe that every statement circulated with the authority of the Press censorship was reliable. What made these two articles so particularly mischievous was that the newspapers in question stated that they had submitted them to the Press censor before publishing them, and that the public would look upon them as official or semi-official. The public in this as in all other countries is far too well accustomed to the unreliability of Press messages to accept them as gospel truth. But the present message which was submitted to the Official Press Bureau, which is in close touch with the War Office, was in a wholly different position with the public, and of course has far greater influence with the public. We have heard in this Debate statements about the indifference of the country, and the fact that the public were not rising to the gravity of the situation. How could the public rise to the gravity of the situation? For a fortnight or three weeks the public were fed under the patronage of the censorship with a series of preposterous reports, representing practically half of the Germans as being killed and the others as being in flight. Every day we had reports that the German soldiers were cowards, and that at the sight of the bayonet they ran away, or surrendered and were made prisoners. If that had been in ordinary times, without a censorship, the public would not have been affected so much as they were, after having been solemnly informed that they were not going to get anything in the way of news except gospel truth through the censorship; and the accounts which have been sent about the German soldiers almost suggested that the War was mere child's play.
  There is one matter which is very serious indeed, and about which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) was extremely emphatic, and to which I wish to draw attention. I do say that, according to my experience, discrimination is made in
  510
  favour of the "Times" newspaper. I do not know whether that is true as regards the Press Bureau, but it is true as regards some other high Departments of the State. I have read carefully the extremely able and interesting articles published from time to time by the "Times" on the War by war correspondents, and I saw this week articles on the war containing information which' had not been given to the public. That is a monstrous thing, and most unjust and unfair to other newspapers of the country, whose editors, with admirable self restraint, have continually met the views of the Government as to keeping military secrets. It is monstrous that there should be any ground for even a suspicion of favouritism towards one journal as compared with others, particularly when this strict censorship is exercised. I will give an instance of the absurd way in which the Press censorship is exercised.
  In Dublin the other day the newspapers were warned not to publish any facts connected with the movement of troops, and the newspapers, with one exception, obeyed the warning implicitly. The one newspaper which did not was told that steps would be taken if it published a paragraph of that kind again. There arrived in Dublin about a fortnight ago French and Belgian newspapers with full descriptions and photographs of the landing of British troops at Boulogne which would have been a subject of very great interest to this country. Why, in the name of common sense, could these descriptions and photographs be published in Belgium and not in the Irish and' English newspapers? Could it have been said that their publication here would have involved the betrayal of military secrets? Again it is our daily experience on taking up newspapers to come across certain omissions. You find it described that there was "a battle at — followed by a movement at —," and so on. Those are all places where encounters took place with-German troops. And it makes the newspapers ridiculous to censor the names of the places where those engagements took place, as if it was not known to the Germans where their own soldiers were fighting. That theory is really calculated to turn the Censor into absolute ridicule.

  511
  One thing I should say to the Govern ment and it is this. If they want to secure the co-operation of the Press and the public in carrying out the really necessary censorship they ought to be very careful to treat the Press and the public with fair play, common sense and indulgence. At the beginning of a war like this in the first few weeks it is very easy for the Govornment to obtain such amazing self-restraint and secrecy as has been secured in this country during the last three weeks, but as the War goes on it will be impossible to maintain such secrecy. We have had some striking examples in the Press during the last week of the results of the attempt to draw the lines too tight. Those articles in the "Times" are only one example—they are the worst—but there have been other articles of various kinds which are evidently more irresponsible and more misleading to the public than if the old system had been adhered to by allowing correspondents to go to the front, giving to the general officers absolute powers as regards censorship so as to allow no military secrets to escape. I agree that is absolutely necessary, and that the license given in previous wars is impossible and ought not to be repeated. I warn the Government, if they do not considerably modify the system of Press censorship now being carried on, the Press will break away, and the public will kick against it, and you will have a violent reaction set in before many weeks are over.

GOVERNMENT MORATORIUM (EXTENSION).

  ANNOUNCEMENT BY MR. LLOYD GEORGE.
  Mr. LOUGH: The only allusion I desire to make to the question which has been so much discussed to-night is to ask when it was discovered as to the reports in the "Times" that the statements were untrue, whether a direction was issued in the War Office with regard to those statements, and whether the Censor still allowed the articles which were proved to be false to be telegraphed
  512
  all over the world, or whether he exercised his influence to prevent them getting into German or American newspapers? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, with whom we must all have the greatest sympathy, has entirely failed to explain that incident.' I cannot make even that allusion to this matter without saying that the long speech which we have had from the right hon. Gentleman illustrates one feature with regard to this situation which the House and the country will look upon with the greatest sympathy. I do not think we on this side of the House can sufficiently acknowledge the great help which my right hon. Friends on the Government Bench are getting from the Front Bench opposite in this crisis of the nation's fate and history. The right hon. Gentleman explained to us that he is working night and day, and he is trying to do everything he possibly can. He is only one of the many Gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench and who are giving most loyal support to the Government in this crisis. I do not think we ought to allow this further to pass without acknowledging the unrequited services which many right hon. Gentlemen and others who sit behind them are giving to the Government of the country.
  I desire to turn the attention of the House to another matter. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come in, because we have all been looking with some interest for his appearance in the Debate. We want to hear something about the moratorium before we separate. It is all very well to talk about the moratorium and ask questions, but if we cannot get my right hon. Friend to give as some information all our talk will come to nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) tried to turn the attention of the House to the matter under unfavourable circumstances, and we all looked on his effort with the greatest sympathy, although none of us was able to do anything to assist. He was swept away in the stream of greater interest with regard to another matter which was then surging through the House. We have now got to a quiet moment, and, the right hon. Gentleman having come back, I want to ask what is

  513
  to be done with regard to the moratorium on the 4th September? I believe the 4th September is the fatal day. Everybody's obligations, fortunately, have been postponed until that day. What is to happen on Friday next and afterwards? I have read very carefully the White Paper published this morning, but I cannot get any information from it. It appears to be rather a statement of what has taken place during the last month than any definite explanation of what we are to have after next Friday, and that is what we want to know about.
  The White Paper gives us the result of the inquiries which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made of bankers and business houses with regard to what they would like. I think we all agree from those replies, and from what we have heard in Debates in this House, that in some form or other the moratorium must be continued; but it is a question whether it need be continued in such a wide form as during the last month. There is a considerable body of opinion in favour of its being somewhat restricted if continued. I myself ventured to suggest to my right hon. Friend that the chief necessity for the moratorium existed with regard to foreign transactions and foreign business. Although our own banks want protection also, I think they have had a great deal of assistance through the issue of notes, and in other ways, and it may not be necessary to continue the moratorium in the wide sense in which it has been interpreted during the last month This is all the more the case because of another Bill which my right hon. Friend has passed, giving protection to creditors, especially small people in various ways, against being hardly pressed for their debts. Having regard to that Bill some more restricted form of moratorium will meet business necessities, but in some form I think it will have to be continued, and I should be glad if my right hon. Friend will tell us what is to take place.
  I wish to mention one other matter which I think is of importance to the business community. The idea—which I believe was very largely the conception of my right hon. Friend, although he has included his colleagues in it—that by means of this moratorium in regard to
  514
  debts incurred before the War, and by the help of assistance of national insurance, the trade of this country, owing to the powerful Navy which we have, might be kept going during the War, was a most splendid conception; and if that idea can be realised I believe that this country will have in its hands a more powerful weapon than the great armies of the Continental Powers who are engaged in this struggle. Let our trade be kept on, let prices be kept down, let an abundant flow of provisions and other commodities continue to come into this country, and we will be strong enough to fight the War in spite of any weapons that our enemies on the Continent may have If this great end is to be secured it will not be done by rhetoric in this House, nor by good wishes on the part even of the Government. It will be done by wise measures, carefully conceived, and carried out with the view of securing the object desired. So I want to draw attention to the working of the system of national insurance, and I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will say a word on that subject when he addresses the House. The premiums charged by the Government have been far too high, and during the four weeks they have been steadily going down.
  The Government commenced a system at 5 per cent. That was no use. That would not bring cheap provisions into this country at all. A premium even of 5 per cent. or 2½ per cent. allowed shipowners to raise their freights 50 per cent. for bringing in the ordinary supplies into the country. The Government started their system of insurance first at 5 per cent. They found it was ridiculous and they came to 1 per cent., then to 3 per cent., and now to-day, perhaps in view of this discussion, they have fixed the maximum rate at 2 per cent. It is still too high. One per cent. would be an ample payment, and there would be a vast business done now that the Navy has maintained its control of the sea, and if the facilities were understood, I believe that at 1 per cent. a high profit would be made. Even if it did not pay, say, for a month, then the premium could be raised to one and an eighth, or to one and a quarter. This dealing in 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. and 5 per cent., as if it were a mere trifle, shows

  515
  the absence of exact knowledge in regard to the burdens which commerce will stand which have really made me almost ashamed of our representatives at the Board of Trade. If the great ends of the Government have in view, namely, to keep a stream of commerce coming and going to this country is to be secured, then there must be reasonable rates.
  I could mention one country, and that is Morocco, to which there has been a regular weekly service, but no ship has gone to Morocco since the last week in July, and none will go for ten days more. They tell me that the reason is that they have to put down in cash nearly £1,000 in insurance before the ship could sail. This is almost the value of a small cargo, and that is insurance of the hull alone. If they had to put down insurance on the cargo, one could easily see that it would not pay anybody to speculate in the voyage to Morocco. So that I would want to suggest to the Government that if the fine object which the Government have in view, and upon which my right hon. Friend made such a splendid speech the other night is to be achieved, they will have to act somewhat differently. My right hon. Friend said that the facilities given to the banks and to the bill discounters were not given to help to raise their dividends or to pour wealth into their shareholders' pockets. Not at all. They have been given by the House and by the right hon. Gentleman to enable the trade of the country to be carried on, and to enable us to make a good show during the serious time before us. If that object is to be secured the Board of Trade must take a business view of the situation, and if there is a national system of insurance, reasonable premiums must be accepted. Afterwards, if you get experience that the premiums are a little low, you can raise them one-eighth or more to keep the thing right. I hope my right hon. Friend will explain to us in what form the moratorium is to be continued after Friday. I shall be very glad to see him sympathetic in regard to this system of national insurance.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I promised I would make a statement on the Motion for Adjournment as to the financial position. But there have been other
  516
  topics, I would not say more important, but of a more exciting character, which have occupied the attention of the House, and I think that at this very late hour it would not be desirable or very useful to give an elaborate explanation of the steps taken by the Government. I shall therefore confine myself to answering the questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley. My right hon. Friend has asked me what is our intention in regard to the Government moratorium. In the discussion which took place in this House some time last week, I said that the traders and financial interests of this country were very divided as to the desirability of extending the moratorium, and those who were in favour of extending it were just as divided as to the limits of time for which that extension ought to operate. We have come to the conclusion after a survey of the whole position that, although the majority of the traders are rather in favour of bringing it to an end, it would be much too risky a proceeding to bring it abruptly to an end on the 4th September, because, although some interests might conceivably benefit, there were other interests just as important to the trade and commerce of this country which might be disastrously affected. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that we must extend the moratorium at least for another month in its present form. I will just explain shortly why we have come to that conclusion. There were several suggestions made with a view to limiting the moratorium, and extending it in that limited form rather in the general way in which it operated during the last month. For instance, there were suggestions made that there should be a limit of the amount; that there should be a percentage of the debts covered by the moratorium recovered; that there should be a premium or interest charged on the loans. And there was another suggestion that there should be a limit in the class of business which would be protected by our moratorium. I will just state very briefly to the House why we could not see our way up to the present moment to adopt any of these courses.
  With regard to the suggestion made that we should limit the amount protected by

  517
  the moratorium—that we should raise the amount: some said from £5 to £50, some said to £250 to £500—there was this particular objection, that it would be open to the criticism that you were protecting the big debtor and not protecting the small man, who might be just as hardly hit by the circumstances of the War as the man whose indebtedness ran into thousands or a million. That seemed to be rather an invidious division. I come now to the other suggestion, that we should fix the percentage of the debts which would be payable during the course of the extended moratorium. For instance, there was the suggestion that we should make 10 per cent. of the debts payable; others said 20 per cent.—there were various suggestions as to the amount—but we have two objections as to that. Sums of 10, 20, or 30 per cent. would be more than some could pay and less than others ought to pay, and there is always the danger that when you fix a minimum it becomes a maximum If there was a suggestion in a Royal proclamation that people were expected to pay 10, 15, or 20 per cent. as long as they comply with the terms of the proclamation, they feel satisfied that they have done their duty. On the contrary, we feel it very important that we should impress upon those who can pay that it was their patriotic duty, that it was something they owed to the trade and commerce of the country, and to their country, that if they were in a position to pay they should not take advantage of the moratorium not to pay, and I am very glad to say that during the last few days, more especially, there has been a clear indication that people are taking in increasing numbers that view of their duty.
  We therefore thought it was very much better that we should make people feel that the moratorium was only for people who could not pay, and whose inability to pay was due to the circumstances of the War, and that it was incumbent upon those who could pay to do so. That is one reason why we thought it was so undesirable to put in a fixed percentage, lest it might be regarded as a hint from the Government that they were expected to pay 10, 20, or 30 per cent., whereas, as a matter of fact, it is their duty to pay the whole of their debt if they could afford to do so. It has been suggested that you
  518
  should impose a penal rate of interest which would drive people who could afford to pay to pay in their own interest. It has been said that some withheld payment because they found it more profitable to keep the money for their own purposes, and their own trade or business, but the danger of a penal rate of interest is this: If you could say that where people could pay and withhold payment, you would then impose a penal rate; that might be one way of doing it, but if we impose a heavy rate of interest upon all those who withheld payment, whether they could afford it or not, the result would be that unless you put on a very heavy rate it would still be worth those people's while to withhold payment under present conditions. That is what I am advised will be the result unless it was a heavy rate of interest. If it were a heavy rate it would be oppressive to people who could not afford to pay. Therefore we were in a dilemma, and very reluctantly we came to the conclusion that that was not desirable during the month of which we now propose to extend the general moratorium, and that it was undesirable that we should impose that great burden.
  I come to the last suggestion. We shall have to consider at the end of the period the limiting of the classes of debts to which the moratorium should extend. It is quite clear to anyone who has followed our financial conditions during the last few weeks that it would be quite impossible, even at the end of the month, to bring the moratorium entirely and absolutely to an end. There is a certain class of debt to which the period will probably have to be extended, possibly to the end of the War. For instance, take bills. It is quite clear that at the end of the month we shall have to extend the moratorium to them because it will be quite impossible to make the necessary arrangements, because you will not have received remittances from the belligerent countries. On the Stock Exchange these remittances had practically ceased in respect of foreign bills, and there was no immediate prospect of them being collected before the maturity of the bills. There are some of them which you cannot collect until the War is over and probably for a considerable time after that. Take the belligerent countries.

  519
  There has been a suggestion that you should have a sort of clearance by which you can set the bills due from those countries against the bills due from this country, but that will take a very long time, and there would still be a very considerable balance. You could not get those bills collected for a considerable time after the War. I am told it will take twice the length of the War to get the money in. If the War lasts six months, you probably will not get the money for another six months. If it lasts a year it will probably take another year before you get remittances from those countries. It depends very largely, of course, upon how the War turns out, their exhaustion, and the position they will be in at the end of the War. At any rate, you are not going to get business flowing with belligerent countries until after that date—and even with countries not engaged in the War there is going to be difficulty—because trade with Europe has to a very large extent come to an end, not merely with belligerent countries but with Russia and France.
  Mr BRYCE: You mean friendly belligerent countries, those who are our friends.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not merely taking in belligerent countries, but also friends.
  Mr. BRYCE: Friendly countries.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is right. They are all belligerents, but I am taking countries not belligerents. Take the Baltic for instance. [HON MEMBERS: "Italy."] Even in Italy the Exchanges are closed. I was told to-day it was very difficult to open up with Genoa and Naples. The arches of the aqueduct have somehow or other been blown up for the time being, and it is therefore very difficult, as far as Europe is concerned, for us to feel confident that you can receive remittances in respect of an enormous sum of money which is due to this country. That is why I say, so far as bills are concerned, I cannot see any prospect that at the end of this term of a month you will be able to bring the moratorium to an end. I am not going now to indicate the lines
  520
  upon which the Government are proceeding in their inquiries to find out whether it is possible to limit your moratorium in respect of the classes. If you can it is certainly desirable. For instance, the retail traders are in the main in favour of bringing the moratorium to an end. The foreign merchants are against bringing it to an end for the reasons which I have indicated. It may be possible at the end of the month to be able to discriminate between these various classes of business, although it is very difficult. It is so difficult because the moment you declare a moratorium in respect of one debt you find that it affects the receipts of the next class. Therefore, I do not feel the same confidence as I otherwise might feel in respect of that matter. Those are the lines on which we are examining the position.
  11.0 P.M.
  But we shall be able to bring it to an end all the sooner if we get the assistance of those engaged in the various branches of trade, and notably of the banks. If the bankers will assist us, we can bring the moratorium to a close earlier than is otherwise possible. I am not going to criticise the action of the banks. No doubt at the beginning some of them got very frightened, and many of them helped the notion that men who were in a position to pay need not do so. I was told by a leading banker that this was going on in some banks. There were men who ordinarily accumulate large credit balances in order to pay their monthly bills, and some of the bankers said to them: "I would not pay my monthly bills. I would keep that credit balance. You do not know what is going to happen, and therefore it is desirable you should have it in your favour." That is as bad a thing as could possibly occur, because on the authority of these priests of the financial world business men were having inculcated into their minds the idea that although they were in a position to pay it was their duty to take advantage of the moratorium and not to pay.
  So long as that idea obtains in the minds of business men you will never bring the moratorium to an end, and everybody knows that the sooner it is brought to an end the sooner you will get the real flow which is necessary to keep business going.

  521
  I am very glad indeed that that attitude on the part of bankers is disappearing, and that in the last week there has been a considerable change for the better. This is affecting the business community. People are paying much more freely, especially those who are desirous of behaving decently towards their neighbours, and I am sure that in the course of the coming month there will be a very considerable change in the general attitude of the business community towards each other. They will pay out much more freely, and then we shall be in a better position to deal with the moratorium than we are at the present moment. Confidence is gradually beginning to be reconstituted, and really I hope in a few weeks we shall be in a position to take a substantial step towards getting rid of the moratorium.
  I do not think it desirable for me at this moment to enter into any further explanation of the steps we have taken, and I will therefore confine myself to answering the question put by my right hon. Friend on the question of the insurance of ships. Although I had the honour of initiating that proposal in this House, it is now being administered by the President of the Board of Trade. But I will venture to answer the criticisms of my right hon. Friend. No one could tell at the start what would occur. We had never been engaged in a war under such conditions, and certainly not in a naval war approaching these conditions. No one could tell the extent to which commerce would be distributed by the cruisers of the enemy which had escaped before war was declared. That was quite impossible. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Report of the Committee, he will find that men with every confidence in the efficiency of the British Fleet came to the conclusion that the depredations that were possible were of a very substantial character. I am very glad to be able to state they have not approached the anticipations of the Committee, and the main mischief which they have effected up to the present has been almost negative. No one could have anticipated that at the time. I do not believe that anyone in this House who had devoted his time to the naval problem would have confidently predicted that as little damage would be inflicted in the first month of the War as
  522
  has been achieved by the enemies' cruisers. That is a matter of very pleasant surprise to everyone, because, although we based the whole of our insurance plan upon the assumption that we had secured the mastery of the sea, we thought it would necessarily take time.
  We proceeded on the assumption that the worst would come in the first month, that gradually the problem would diminish in intensity, and that at length the mastery of the seas would be established. But it has been established practically in the first month, and that has surprised the most sanguine expectations of those who have believed in the British Navy's mastery of the sea. That is why the State Insurance Committee have been in a position to reduce their premiums rapidly almost from week to week. Let me remind my right hon. Friend of this: What has happened is just what you would have expected. At first the underwriters never thought they could take the risks. They thought possibly they would be too high, but gradually they began to realise that they were not so great as they anticipated, and they were able to quote rates which were considerably lower than the State rates. Those rates were for the safest routes. Our insurance premium was based on an all-round premium for all the routes covered. The moment you had private competition, Lloyd's naturally took the safest routes and were able to quote for the safest routes on much lower rates than we could quote for the routes all round.
  My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General points out that they are not compelled to take any risks, so that they can pick and choose. The Government cannot. We have to take all the risks over all the routes. There are some routes which are acknowledged to be the worst risks. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not take the worst risks!"] We take all risks for all routes. There are some routes in which the Admiralty did its best to forbid trading, not because we are afraid of the route but because we do not want them used until the Navy had established mastery over those routes'. Some routes are more risky than others. Lloyd's naturally left the worst risks to the Government, and therefore the premiums which my right hon. Friend quotes

  523
  are the premiums which are established not by the Government but by the independent Committee we set up to fix them for the very worst routes. It is a matter of very great gratification that for the very worst routes that are left we are able to quote an all-round rate of 2 per cent. after a month of War. It is very satisfactory, and it is not so much a matter of complaint as a matter of gratification and congratulation on the whole.
  Mr. LOUGHmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend hopes they will quote 1 per cent. So do I. I can assure my right hon. Friend that these risks are considered by a very able Committee, and a perfectly impartial Committee. They compute them on the basis of captures already made. Since War was declared the number of British merchant vessels sunk or captured has been five, representing a total tonnage of 20,000 tons. I think our total tonnage is something like 20,000,000 tons.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is that all?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is all. I think that is one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of any Navy. It is very difficult for us to protect such an enormous expanse, but there it is. We have done it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can my right hon. Friend give the figures of our captures?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is this difference, our ships keep the seas. The German ships do not, and if there are no ships on the seas you cannot capture them. Our ships go freely through every part of the globe. There they are to be captured, if anyone can, and they are half the mercantile marine of the world. They go freely everywhere as long as they are satisfied about their freights. They may be held up for that. They are not held up because they are afraid of the enemy. The German ships are lurking in neutral harbours. They are not taking the sea. My hon. Friend must not look at the figures of captures, because we cannot capture them in neutral ports. Our captures are very considerable. That is the reason why I am confident that with patience and
  524
  with the steps we have taken British trade will not merely go on freely, but will be booming in a very short time, because we are the only manufacturing country now in Europe. We have only America to deal with as a great manufacturing country. Other manufacturing countries are occupied with this great War. The Germans as competitors have practically disappeared from the markets of the world. There is no reason why our manufactures should not go to every part of the world. The routes are free to them, and once they establish exchanges and are able to adapt themselves to the changed conditions trade will go on. There is nothing the matter with our trade. It is the most extraordinary position in the world. Here are £350,000,000 of bills of exchange. They are not money which we owe to other countries, but money which other countries owe to us. Practically they have been paid already by British banks and financiers. We have financed in these bills goods which we have not received yet—which are on their way. We have financed goods which we have sold to other countries. These are not debts which are due from us to anyone else. They may be debts which are due from one British subject to another. We owe nothing. Our assets, which, I suppose, are about £15,000,000,000 to £20,000,000,000, are absolutely sound. There has been a provisional breakdown of credit but that will be re-established, and the moment the machine is set going there is no reason why, in spite of this terrible war, we should not be able to conduct our business very much as we have ever done.
  Sir J. WALTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the issue of currency notes to manufacturers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We thought we had arranged that with the banks. I think it would be a very serious departure if we were to start banking business with traders ourselves. We have not got the machinery. After all, as my hon. Friend knows very well, a banker makes advances very largely from his knowledge and experience of the man he deals with. Of course he likes to see securities, but he deals with the man.
  Sir J. WALTON: He ought to do it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that the State ought to deal directly with traders unless it is compelled to do it—unless the bankers fail us. It is their interest to carry on the business of the country, but if it were conceivable that the banks of this country were to refuse, I do not say in the first fortnight of panic, but were to refuse permanently to carry on the business of the country, then we should be driven to do something of this sort. Rut it would be the very worst thing that could happen. We have no machinery for the purpose. The Bank of England has very few branches, whereas the great joint stock banks have branches in every town. They have managers who know every trader. They know not merely what every trader is worth in cash, but they know his character, and that counts with a banker who advances money to a man. All that is the accumulated experience of these managers and their predecessors which has been going on, perhaps, for generations. We have not got that great organisation which in the case of the banks has taken so long to perfect, and it would be a great calamity if the action of the joint stock banks drove us to improvise some sort of machinery ultimately as a last resort and as a consequence of despair. I do not think it is desirable or necessary. I have heard tales of rather stupid panic on the part of some banks and managers, but it was panic. I am sure it was. I believe it has passed away. It is the worst thing that could happen in the interest of the banks them selves that they should take up that sort of attitude with the traders of the country. They have realised all these Bills. I have not the actual figures at the present moment. They know that they can go to the Bank of England and receive this credit, and it is better for them to go on trading as banks. If that happens, I nope we shall be able to declare an end to the moratorium.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: I do not think it is desirable that we should allow this discussion to close without a reference to the entirely successful manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury officials have dealt with a financial crisis altogether unprecedented in its character. The formation by the
  526
  Chancellor of the Exchequer of a Committee consisting of bankers and professional men of standing to advise him was the right step at the moment. The result has been that the Treasury and the banking and commercial community have acted in entire unison. I venture to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, until quite recently, by no means a popular figure in the City of London. I think that he will appreciate that. I venture now to say that there is no more popular figure in the City of London than the right hon. Gentleman himself, because the steps which he has taken have been recognised not only as producing successful results, but as having been wise in themselves. I gather that one hon. Gentleman opposite indicated some doubt as to the wisdom of the manner in which banker" have dealt with this matter. To-day is the last day of the month. To-morrow will be issued the statement of balances and of advances made by bankers, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that, notwithstanding the condition of stress, a larger amount of advances by bankers to their customers than in the previous month has been recorded, and that there will be bigger balances than existed a month ago. In other words, notwithstanding the financial crisis through which the country has passed, the bankers, taken as a whole—there may be exceptions—have given accommodation to their customers, which in the aggregate will prove to be increased accommodation as compared with a month ago, and that notwithstanding the fact that the high rate of interest which existed for a short time induced a large number of customers to pay back money which they had borrowed from the banks so as to avoid the high rate of interest.
  The object of the banks has been to avoid hoarding. At first, many individuals came to the banks with cheques which were to be paid in gold, with the obvious intention of taking the gold away and hoarding it against a crisis which they thought might occur. Such customers have been discouraged. But where a customer comes to the bank with a demand for legitimate accommodation, for a legitimate advance out of any balance belonging to him for the ordinary

  527
  customary purposes of wages or of discharging trade debts, bankers have invariably met such requirements. They never shelter themselves behind the moratorium. The moratorium has only been used by bankers to kill the hoarder, to prevent him doing to trade the injury which is done by the man who attempts to hoard. I wish to say how very thoroughly I agree with the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman as to the manner in which the moratorium may ultimately be brought to an end. I quite agree that the expedients which were suggested of a minimum percentage of payments, and of a heavy rate of interest, would have effects of evil far greater than effects of good. I also agree with him that the limits of classes of moratorium that is to say some classes of debts would not get the advantage of the moratorium, while others should—is the way to which ultimately I think he, under the guidance both of his official advisers and his City advisers, will resort. The moratorium must come to an end some day. It will come to an end gradually, but I believe that it will come to an end without any serious injury to trade, and we shall find ourselves tided over the crisis without any serious injury to our trade, and without any serious number of failures arising from the circumstances that have arisen generally. The whole arrangement is full of promise of ultimate success, and the country will be very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. HOLT: The right hon. Gentleman referred to something I said, and rather misquoted me. He spoke of penal interest as having been suggested by me, but I never meant to suggest a penal rate of interest. What I meant to say was that the rate of interest should not be preferential and that it should not be better for a person to take advantage of the moratorium than to borrow from his own bank and pay the person to whom he owes the money. No person can borrow from his bank at the bank rate.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I always borrow at the bank rate.
  Mr. HOLT: Then the hon. Gentleman is in a favourable position, and all I can say
  528
  is that he is a more fortunate person than the ordinary trader. The great mass of persons who borrow from the bank cannot borrow at the bank rate. If a person is under the compulsion of borrowing to pay what he owes a man, I think the rate of interest ought to be 1 per cent. above the bank rate. For myself I would very much rather it was 2 or 3 per cent. above the bank rate. If you allow a person to borrow money on better terms than he could ordinarily borrow I do not think you will see the moratorium come to an end as speedily as you desire. My own opinion is that it would be very much better for the country as a whole to inflict a certain amount of hardship on people in order to get rid of the moratorium and have a fresh start on a clean basis. You would inspire fresh confidence, and you would sooner bring the moratorium to an end if you put on pressure and caused a certain amount of hardship than if you allowed them to drag on. I do protest against people being enabled to borrow money from other people on extremely easy terms.
  In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's observations with regard to foreign trade I should like to refer to the extraordinary difference between the state of trade in this country and the state of trade even among friendly belligerents. In regard to food stuffs the people are taking it away and dealing with it just as usual. That must be very satisfactory to us. As to the capture of merchant ships I was not enamoured of the Government scheme, and was quite prepared to have taken the risk, whatever happened, but I calculated it would have been very much worse. It is a complete surprise to me and to nearly everybody else that only five ships have been taken, and if that result had been anticipated nobody would have asked the Government to undertake a State insurance scheme at all. I understand some hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we had not made a larger capture of foreign vessels. Foreign vessels are mostly lying up in neutral ports. I know a case of a foreign and a British vessel which sailed at the same time with cargoes of tea. The tea on the British vessel has been in London three

  529
  weeks, and some of the tea is probably drunk, while the German ship is now in Lisbon and seems likely to remain there, so that the tea will not be available for quenching the thirsts of Germans or Englishmen till the war is over. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether the rate of interest ought not to be advanced at least to the figure at which people in good business can normally borrow from their bankers without pledging securities.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman lent no currency to the charges so freely made against joint stock banks that they unjustifiably have refused accommodation during the later stages to the crisis. It must be obvious that a bank has an interest in maintaining and possibly increasing its profits, but it does not increase those profits by refusing accommodation to traders and keeping its assets. On the contrary, it is by that operation, shutting off the ordinary stream and the source of the profits which it seeks to maintain or increase. If a bank pursues that policy it is only doing so because it considers its duty to be to prevent panic in the public mind and runs on banks, which would be most likely to ensue in cases where the depositor began to be alarmed at the possible absence of security for his deposits. As an illustration of the irresponsibility with which general charges of that kind are made I say I made inquiries in a quarter in which I had the best right to ask for first-hand information, and I was informed that they had only traced three complaints that had been made. The answer to them was that accommodation had been refused once in a case where the intention was discovered to exist of buying for the purpose of holding up an article of general consumption. There was another case where a subordinate functionary mistook his instructions; this mistake was promptly rectified. There was the third case where the borrower refused security which he was perfectly well able to give, and notwithstanding they accommodated him. The White Paper circulated this morning from the Treasury shows the immense number of inquiries addressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a very wide body of
  530
  traders, bankers, stockbrokers, all kinds of transport providers and general merchants and others; to ask them whether the bank facilities given before the war and now were comparable. Out of the replies received no less than 6,341 said that the bank facilities before and after the War were reasonably comparable, and no more than 969 answered that they were not so reasonably comparable. Under these circumstances I hope we shall hear no more of general, loose, and irresponsible charges that the joint stock banks have failed in their duty or that at least if they are to be made definite, particulars will be forthcoming in such a form as will enable a proper answer to be made.
  Sir STUART SAMUEL: I think the business community will be very glad to hear the announcement that the moratorium is to be extended. I would point out, however, that it will be very difficult to get the foreign exchanges into working order again so long as the business community and the community generally have to keep their funds in hand until the moratorium ceases. At the present moment there is a very largo amount in the banks with a view to providing for the 4th September, and up to to-day—that is within four days of that date—the Government had made no announcement of what its intentions were. The consequence has been that the business community, with a certain amount of sagacity, has kept its resources within its grasp. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the moratorium will be extended for a month the position will be no better, because those who are more wise will not part with their resources for the period covered by the extended moratorium. The announcement with regard to bills of exchange certainly improves the position. If in the Proclamation a certain definite extension of bills of exchange could be announced beyond the extension of the moratorium, bankers and merchants would be encouraged to part with a certain proportion of their resources represented by these bills of exchange. But as long as the moratorium is to be extended for a month the business community is bound to retain its resources in this country, and there will be great difficulty in re-establishing the foreign exchanges. There has been a certain

  531
  attempt to do so, but the difficulty is very great in view of the fact that very few of the countries are willing to part with gold.
  I would also suggest that with the extended moratorium perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide that the goods referred to in the moratorium need not be tendered again. A considerable number of persons and banks have been under the necessity of tendering the goods, and those who were to have received them have declined to take them under the moratorium. Under the extended moratorium are the goods to be left continually with the view of tendering them to the buyers, or would the Government in the Proclamation provide that the goods already tendered should be considered a legal tender for the contract which they represented? It would be against inconvenience and against restraint on trade if it was legally held that a new tender was required under the extended moratorium.
  I hope the Government will come to some international agreement in regard to raising the moratorium at some given date in the future. Each country is afraid to raise the moratorium for fear of what the other countries are doing. If by agreement amongst the friendly countries some portion of the moratorium were affected, it would be a great facility in enabling countries to resume transactions. If this country has to pay its debts and does not receive its payments the business community will be in a position of considerable difficulty. I believe this could be done, so long as the proportion of the moratorium lifted is not too high. Credits in this country are so considerably over what this country owes to other countries, there would be very little difficulty in resuming. An antecedent proceeding, to my mind, must be a resumption of the Stock Exchange. There is not the slightest doubt that the bankers, in view of their securities, would be far more in favour of the moratorium coming to an end. But I do not think it is right for the Stock Exchange to think that the Government should do everything. In France there was a system by which certain stockbrokers guaranteed each other. If some such system of mutual guarantee on the
  532
  part of the Stock Exchange, assisted by the Government, were attempted, it might be well. It would be impossible to resume business on the lines to which the City has been accustomed, but because you cannot commence immediately on a large scale, to suggest that you should refrain from commencing at all seems to me to be a policy of despair. I have not the slightest doubt that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will back up the Stock Exchange, on a basis of a mutual guarantee such as I have mentioned, that the Stock Exchange will be able to reopen in most important business in an effective manner. If facilities are given for a market to first-class securities I believe the first steps will have been taken for raising the moratorium.
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I wish to emphasise what the last speaker has said in reference to the moratorium being extended for one month only. I am afraid the only effect will be quite the contrary to what is expected, as very great uncertainty will exist in the minds of the trading community as to what is to happen at the end of the month. Procrastination is the great fault, and I attribute the misfortunes, as I may call them, that happened to the financial world in this country to the procrastination that took place towards the end of July. If we had had the early wishes of the bankers complied with it would have been well. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he acted upon the advice of men who should have known the opinions of the banking community. Had action been taken on the 30th July, I believe that the business of the country would have gone on quite smoothly, without any great necessity for the measures we have had. As a banker I have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the great assistance he has rendered to the banking community. Bankers have one duty to perform above all others and that is, that as the custodians of public money our first duty is to our depositors. We have to consider that having this money which does not belong to us that we are not free to handle that money for the purposes of any other finance if there is any likelihood of that money being locked up permanently and

  533
  not available for the repayment of depositors if they call upon us to pay. And that has been, I feel confident, the mainspring of the attitude which has been adopted by the bankers. Owing to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we have been put in a magnificent position and we are to-day able, and in fact there was never any doubt, as to the ability of the joint stock banks to meet every liability they have had, and we were prepared to meet any run from the first, and to carry on the usual business of the country.
  I am absolutely convinced that hon. Members do not appreciate the position of this country with the finance of the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the acceptances amount to no less than £350,000,000 sterling, but there are other liabilities owing to the merchants and manufacturers of this country from all parts of the world, and it is utterly impossible for those merchants and manufacturers to obtain the amounts which are owing to them so long as hostilities continue. It is equally impossible for the commercial community to finance fresh transactions which are absolutely necessary to the conduct of the industries of this country unless there is some certainty that they are not going to be called upon to pay enormous sums of money which they have no means of collecting from those who owe it to them. The indebtedness of foreign countries on acceptances and open credit is at least £300,000,000 sterling as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put it, and if war were to come to an end to-morrow the trade of the world is so disorganised that we could not hope under the most favourable circumstances to receive payment either for bills which have been drawn up from different parts of the world against produce or for the accounts which are owing to the industrial community for goods supplied to different parts of the world. We are asked every day to finance fresh transactions for orders which are being received by manufacturers and we are also asked to finance shipments of goods of produce to this country, but we are unable to undertake these transactions. These are transactions which are not generally undertaken by joint stock banks; they are in the hands of private bankers. We have transactions from all parts of the
  534
  world to all parts of the world which are financed from this country, and unless the finance houses are assured that they are not going to be called upon to face sums which they cannot collect it is utterly impossible for them, in the interests of their creditors and themselves, to undertake fresh liabilities, and it is for that reason that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised to state as promptly as he possibly can what the intentions of the Government are in respect to these amounts which have to be met at some time or other by the commercial and financial institutions of the country outside of the great banks. There is one means, I think, that would meet the difficulty if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could undertake it in any way. The suggestion was that the Government should advance on first-class securities a certain percentage for the purpose of enabling the bankers to reduce their liabilities out of their own resources. It is utterly impossible at the present time to realise any security on the Stock Exchange.
  I am not connected with the Stock Exchange, but we advance money from settlement to settlement on stocks and shares and we know perfectly well that those who are compelled to take those advances find themselves unable to pay off the bankers for those advances, and the accepting houses and merchants, if they wish to pay their liabilities, have got securities of their own and they are equally unable to realise those securities. The Committee of the Stock Exchange have very wisely decided to close for a certain period and abolish the fortnightly settlements with a view of preventing any panic which might take place. Seeing the impossibility of the realisation of securities I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests not of past transactions but of the trading and industrial concerns of this country to consider whether it is possible for him to create a certain amount to be advanced, gilt-edged securities of British corporations, the colonies, consols, and others which all the large merchant houses are not in a position to put in as security for loans. The joint stock banks are unable, in view of their duty to their depositors, to make very large advances on such securities knowing perfectly well that there is no market for them. If the Stock

  535
  Exchange was to be opened to-morrow the result would be disastrous to every investor in the country because if they wanted to realise there would be a great depreciation in the value of all securities, and that would be accelerated by the operation of "bear" speculators who would take advantage of those who have to meet their obligations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the joint stock banks were encouraging merchants not to pay their accounts. As a director of one of the largest joint stock banks I am absolutely convinced that there is really no foundation for such an accusation.
  The joint stock banks have loyally done everything they possibly could with a view of assisting the industrials of this country and the merchants in these very hard times, but the banks must always bear in mind that they have to provide for those depositors, many of them very small depositors, who have entrusted their moneys with them and to whom the loss of their deposits would mean absolute ruin. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must bear in mind the class of people who have in the joint stock banks something like one thousand million sterling and who have to be protected. The industrials of this country, owing to the stoppage of their trade by this war, are also deserving of some protection and some assistance from the Government, and I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could assist them by allowing the banks, on examination of their accounts, to advance them money on the accounts owing to them. They have a law in America which is acting exceedingly well, by which large traders are enabled to hypothecate trading accounts for a consideration in money which they take at an advance for the purpose of continuing and expanding then-trade. They take advances from the banks, and they hypothecate specific debts to the banks as security. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to pass a short Bill to enable traders and managers to hypothecate those debts as security, it would enable the joint stock banks to give them greater facilities than they are at present able to do. I know-that it is practicable, but I do not know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
  536
  have time to do it during the present Session. If so, I am absolutely confident that it would bring relief to the commercial community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to the opportunities that we had at present for the extension of trade. I have had over forty years' experience as a merchant trading in different ports of the world, and I know that the system of great credit which has been introduced by Germany during that period in commercial transactions to cut us out of the international trade has succeeded immensely, and in many countries they have obtained a large bulk of the trade entirely owing to the facilities which they have given.
  12.0 M.
  This system is a pernicious one which I would not recommend, but we have the opportunity, if we can give our industrials a certain amount of facilities at the present time, to enable them to manufacture and ship largely against orders, of recovering their position in the markets of the world, and during the time that this war lasts reintroduce the good system which obtained in all places when we used to trade for cash and cash only. I believe that once having recaptured the markets, our competitors will not be in a position in the future to give those insane facilities which caused so much trouble to the commercial community throughout the world. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he cannot see his way to make some definite statement as to the prolongation of the moratorium until at least one month after the cessation of hostilities for such transactions as are connected with those countries engaged in the war, where we know absolutely for a certainty that it will take them at least six months, if not twelve months, to readjust the whole of their financial and commercial conditions after the war has come to an end.

PENSIONS AND SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the friendly millionaires who

537
support him who is really responsible for our unrivalled trade being almost unaffected, as they are boasting to-night: Does the Government fancy that it is responsible or do the millionaires think that they are responsible? The fact is, the great security of our continued trade is due to about 2 per cent. of the manhood of this nation who are prepared, at the rate of 6s. 8d. per week, to risk their lives on the battlefields of Europe. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to forsake the callous indifference of this and preceding English Governments in their treatment of the soldiers who keep 98 per cent. of the manhood of the country snug, safe, and prosperous. Let him forsake the old time callous indifference and increase the allowances to the wives and children left behind and the pensions, too, of the widows and children, who will number thousands upon thousands before this horrible war is over. Let him also increase the pensions to brokendown soldiers who come back from the firing lines. Although I have tried since five o'clock, I regret I have not been able to speak before. I think the House would have been better engaged in considering its serious obligations to these brave men rather than dealing with other questions which, to my mind, are quite outside the main issue that faces this country and empire—the success of our men in the field.
The separation allowance at the moment to a soldier's wife is 7s. 7d. per week and 1s. 2d. per child per week. So if a wife has two children she will have 9s. 11d. weekly while her husband is abroad. The soldier at' the front gets 6s. 8d. per week, and if he dies his wife is left with a maximum pension of 10s., and an average pension of 7s. 6d. I put it to the House and especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who at any rate is not ungenerous to rise to the occasion now and guarantee double the present separation allowances to the wives and children of those who represent the first line of real sacrifice in all this huge area of armies, and to double the separation allowances in every soldier's home, not only in the case of soldiers abroad, but of those those who are under orders to go abroad.
When it comes to the pension, I would urge him to make £1 the minimum
538
pension granted to any widow whose husband sacrifies his life for every Member of that Government and for every one of the 98 per cent. who neither can go or will go to fight their country's battles abroad. I further put it to him in reference to the disabled soldiers that he ought in their case to guarantee a minimum of 20s. per week as long as their disability lasts. I will not delay what is left of the House for a moment, although I speak here with considerable feelings of conscience, because I have been one of those who have been sent up and down the country to encourage recruiting, and scores of men who have joined and sworn allegiance to the Crown have turned to me and said, "We look to you to see that the Government looks after the wife and kiddies while we are away and if we never come back." I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the obligation is upon him who controls the money bags of the country to see that he reflects the best spirit of the country, which I know is universal, and that no broken soldier either wants for lack of a few shillings and that no wife or child or widow or orphan goes short of bread and meat because the husband and the father has died for him and this old country and Empire.
With reference to the officers, there have been hundreds of men killed in the recent contests who get only 5s. 3d. a day from this ungenerous Government, although no more ungenerous than any preceding Government. The minimum pension for the widow of an officer should be raised to £100 and the minimum for a child should be raised to £25. The total disablement pension should be raised to £150 for an officer. I say these things because it is the least this old House can do and it is what the 98 per cent. who will not or do not go to the front would like to see done for the officers and men of our Army fighting and suffering there. I omitted one point: I think a minimum grant by way of allowance of 2s. 6d. a week should be given to every child of a soldier, whether it is an orphan of a dead soldier or the child of a father who is fighting abroad for his country. All these allowances are only to soldiers who are abroad or under orders to go abroad. I believe that, in granting these, as I hope the Government will grant them, that they

539
will carry with them the views of those who think seriously about the great issue before us. At any rate, without apologising to the House for speaking at this late hour, I intend to keep pounding at the Government, as I have done ever since I came into the House, I intend to stump the country on it, if necessary, and I intend to vote against the Government if necessary. I will do my duty to my conscience and these men who are fighting for me and mine by endeavouring to do what is only fair and seeing that this great country looks after the wives and children of those who are away, and the orphans and widows of those who never come back. It may mean a half-penny on the Income Tax; it may mean, at the most, a penny on the Income Tax; but I appeal to the House, would anybody be mean enough to sit at home while others fight for him and deny this small token of respect and regard for those heroes who have enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand at the Treasury Box to-night and boast that England's trade and England's millionaires are unaffected by this ghastly war?
Mr. FALLE: I very cordially agree with what has just fallen from the hon. Member, but at the same time when he speaks for the Army and the 98 per cent. there is another force which ranks before the Army and which is more important to this country than the Army. I wish to say a word about the Navy. It is a very important matter, so important that a perfectly plain statement is sufficient, and I wish to make a perfectly plain statement. It is not a party matter and I do not wish it to be made a party matter because I want the moral support of the whole House, such as it is to-night. It is the failure of the Government to give a separation allowance to the sailor's wife. The soldier's wife receives 7s. 7d. a week and 1s. 2d. for every child. On the other hand the sailor's wife receives absolutely nothing. There is no separation allowance for her or for the wife of the Royal Marine or for the child of the, sailor or of the Royal Marine. The Special Reserve man receives 7s. 7d. a week. The ordinary A. B. under six years' service, I believe, receives 11s. 8d. Some of these men are able to send home 10s. a week to their wives. There is nothing for
540
the child, and on 15s. a week the woman and her children have to pay rent and live. At present there is no work to be had. I speak of my own constituency. There are large factories there, but they are closing down because, owing to the benefits of free importation, the majority of the goods they make up are made in Germany, and because of the war they are not now being sent and the factories are closing down, and these poor women are absolutely unable to earn a penny. What is the consequence to them? They can seek charity, they can starve, or there is another alternative, which I will leave to the imagination of the House. It is not possible for these poor women to live on what their husbands are able to send, even if they are able at present to send it, and it is not fair or just-that people on whom we depend in our first line should be worse treated than the soldier. Take a soldier with three or four children. His wife is 6s. or 7s. a week better off than the sailor or the marine in the same position, and that is a position which is shameful to this Government. I shall be told the cost is prohibitive. The cost is something over £2,000,000. We are now probably paying out over £500,000 a day. It means, therefore, two days expenditure of this country to put this matter right, and it is a matter which should be put right even if it means the expenditure of three days. It is necessary for these men who are fighting, and they are probably going to fight during the whole of the long, cruel winter in the North Sea, to know that while they are fighting, while they are ready and willing, as we have seen, to give, their blood for their country, that their wives and children at home, should be looked after by this great country, and not go through what they are going through now in Portsmouth, absolute starvation, because these women can get-no work, they will not beg, and they will not steal. They have only to starve.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to support my hon. Friend the member for Portsmouth in everything he said to-night. I go further, and ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give some information to the House as to why a distinction is made between the soldier and the sailor. The right hon. Gentleman

541
is very courteous to me, and he always answers my questions very clearly. He has also written to me some very polite letters, but he has always said that it is impossible to do what I asked him to do—in fact, impossible to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth asked him to do to-night. I wish to know why it is not possible to place the sailor's wife on the same platform as the soldier's wife. I believe I am right in saying that separation allowance is made to the wife of the Royal Marine when he is on land on active service, but when the Royal Marine is afloat the separation allowance does not stand. What does that mean? If I am rightly informed, it means that the wives of the Royal Marines who have been landed at Ostend are not to be allowed separation allowance because they are landed from ships. The fact of their being on land—at least, so I am informed—does not mean that they are eligible for separation allowance. I think the House will agree with me that the sailor's wife should be considered in exactly the same manner as the soldier's wife. The sailor's wife and family are living in exactly the same circumstances as the soldier's wife and family. The sailor and the Royal Marine on active service have to face the same danger as the soldier on active service, and yet the soldier's wife is given privileges which are not given to the sailor's wife and the Royal Marine's wife. I do not want to suggest that any of those privileges should be taken away from the soldier's wife. On the other hand I should like to see something added to those privileges. What the House would like to know is why the same privileges as are now given to soldiers' wives are not extended to the wives of sailors and Royal Marines.
Mr. HOGGE Mr. HOGGE rose—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
Mr. HOGGE: I only asked a question as to the Press Bureau.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have the hon. Member's name in the list of those who have spoken.
Mr. HOGGE: I only asked a question, though I should have liked very much to
542
be called upon if I had been able to catch your eye. I hope the Government will take into consideration what has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Greenwood). I do not think the question of money should affect the Government on this point. This war we are waging is not only for ourselves but for posterity. It means the whole future of the British empire, and why these charges cannot, be carried as part of the National Debt I do-not know. They ought to be carried as part of the National Debt every whit as much as the money we are expending now. I hope that the Financial Secretary will convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has always shown himself extremely sympathetic to those who have lived in those conditions, that public opinion expects that, at any rate, a minimum ought to be paid to married men, not less than £1 a week for their dependents, and that would be the beet stimulus to recruiting that we could possibly have. It is absolutely hopeless for Members of this House attempting to help in the present situation. A great many of us have volunteered in quite a number of ways. Two ways have been suggested to me. One was to go on local relief committees. In a great many cases that is already being very well done in the localities. If you take our large corporations you find sufficient men of public spirit who are doing all that kind of work that is required. The second thing offered to me was a clerkship in connection with the organisation of relief in London, I believe under someone-called Morant, whoever he may be. I replied to that suggestion that that seemed to me to be the very class of work that ought to be given to unemployed men.
A great many clerks are now thrown out of work and it seems to me an absolute shame that any of us should step in and do this work and keep people out of employment. If these are the only suggestions that can be made it seems to me that we are in an extremely hopeless position. The Government should bear in mind that many of us are prepared to give up our vacation in the periods when we are not sitting here to do anything that is really helpful. The Government have a vast reserve of strength in the House here

543
quite willing to help. They have made the age so high as to prevent some of us from enlisting as soldiers and going to the front as many of us would do if we got the opportunity. We are all anxious to help and I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will convey this to the Government in the period which elapses before we return, is there nothing which the Government can suggest to Members of this House which would make them really feel that in addition to all they are capable of doing in other ways they are having a real hand in the business of the State? There must be many of the Government Departments which must at present be capable of reinforcement. For instance the Scottish Board of Agriculture is looking after putting men on the land. Men cannot be got on the land because of the paucity of staff in connection with the Board of Agriculture. A great many of us would be quite willing to go on the Board of Agriculture for the next six months to expedite men going on the land. There are a good many things of this kind which may be considered before we come back to the House. I believe the hon. Member for Sutherland is right. The people of this country do not keep their end up with regard to the money which they pay to soldiers and sailors. We ought to make that the first consideration. We ought not to be afraid of increasing the National Debt if need be by paying these people not only what they deserve but something really that we cannot express in money, our appreciation of the services rendered not only to us at this time but to the whole future of the British Empire and to what I consider the leading civilisation in the world.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No one, I think, will charge me with lack of sympathy with these men, and their wives and children. I am myself the son of a non-commissioned officer. Therefore he will not accuse me of lack of sympathy with soldiers' wives and families, especially at this time. Goodness knows I should never begrudge them anything in any circumstances. But I think that my hon. Friend is not fully familiar with the provision which the State makes, first as regards soldiers' wives and children. I
544
will place in his hands the full statement of the public assistance which is given to the soldier's wife.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: From the State?
Dr. MACNAMARA: From the State. I quite agree that the soldier's wife does get assistance now from public funds during this war, whether the husband is carried on the strength or not. She will get 1s. 1d. a day separation allowance; 2d. for each child; 6d. a day if she lives in London, and 6d. from her husband's pay if he is abroad, and a 1d. for each child if he is abroad. That is the case of the private's wife. The colour-sergeants, quartermasters, and warrant-officers of equivalent rank get a higher allowance. In the case of the private's wife it work's out at 2d. less than £1 a week. In the case of colour-sergeants, quartermasters, and warrant-officers the amount is rather larger. I am taking the case of the wife living in London and her husband abroad, and if my hon. Friend (Mr. Hamar Greenwood) will do me the pleasure of reading through carefully the provisions from public funds for the soldier's wife I think he will see his way to modify some of the rather severe statements which he has made. I will put it into his hand, and he will then be in a position to see what the State does. In regard to the sailor, he is, generally speaking, better paid than the soldier. Apart from his substantive pay he may get what is unknown in the Army, except in the artillery and engineers, namely, non-substantive pay, and one out of every two sailors in the British Navy-gets non-substantive pay ranging from 2d. to 1s. 7d. a day. In addition to that, if you examine the number of petty officers, chief petty officers, and warrant officers you will see that the opportunities for advancement are much greater than in the case of the soldiers.
At this moment it is not legal to deduct anything from a sailor's pay in support of his wife or other dependent relatives, but as the two hon. Gentlemen opposite know from their great acquaintance with the dockyard, a great many sailors make remittances to their wives, and a great

545
many more declare allotments month by month in favour of their wives or other dependent relatives. On the 1st August, before the declaration of war, we had 73,000 allotments to deal with, and to send out to sailors' wives, and in many cases to aged fathers or mothers. During the month of August, since the beginning of the war, the number of allotments has been increased by 37,000, so that last Saturday we sent out for the first of the month 110,250 allotments, which will be received regularly month by month on the declaration of the sailor in favour of his wife or other dependent relatives. The average amount is two guineas. That figure takes no account of the remittances which many sailors make by way of postal orders in private letters to their wives, or by the official remittance system of the Admiralty. During August from 7,000 to 10,000 remittances went out from the sailors in addition to the allotments. My rough estimate is that the number of married men with the Fleet is from 80,000 to 85,000, so that if they send 110,250 allotments I find that a very great majority of sailors' wives are assisted regularly by these allotments from the husbands' pay. It is also true that the blue-jackets, in addition to assisting their wives do, in many cases, help aged parents out of their pay. The Soldiers and Sailors Families Association, which is an excellent organisation, has been very rapidly mobilized, and is now receiving grants from the Prince of Wales Fund. It is doing its best to meet any cases of temporary difficulty which may have arisen from the rapid mobilization, the non-receipt of remittances, or the nonpayment of allotments.
I desire to pay a tribute of gratitude to all those who have assisted in giving at once, so much help to those who, for the moment, find themselves in temporary distress. No doubt, in rapid mobilization of large numbers of men, there must be cases of temporary distress. The great bulk of these cases, from the first of the month, will now find themselves in receipt of regular contributions from their husbands, and a large number of persons in each locality, connected with the services, and others, are only too glad to do what they can for those whose husbands, whose
546
fathers, or sons may be serving their King and country at the present time.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question with regard to the Royal Marines at Ostend?
Dr. MACNAMARA: The Royal Marine, when he is on shore, detached from headquarters on special duty, gets the separation allowance, but he is then treated under the Army Council Regulations. Therefore, the wives of all Royal Marines, whether married on the strength or not, if they are on detached duty on shore, get the separation allowance.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the men at Ostend get the separation allowance?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Are they on shore at Ostend?
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Certainly they are.
Dr. MACNAMARA: Then they will get the separation allowance.
Question, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Wednesday, 9th September," put, and agreed to.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) BILL.
Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.
PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.
EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
Committee thereupon deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.
POST OFFICE (ILLEGAL USER) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.
CHECK WEIGHING IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th September
DIRECT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 9th September.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Bill,
Death Duties (Killed in War) Bill,
Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, without Amendment.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes before One o'clock a.m., Tuesday, 1st September, till Wednesday, 9th September, at a Quarter before Three o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS' CARDS.
  EMPLOYED CONTRIBUTORS' CARDS.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Land Commission (Report).
  Irish Land Commission (Report).
  War Office Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  War Office Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mercantile Marine (Sight Tests).
  Mercantile Marine (Sight Tests).
ARMY ENLISTMENT.
  NEWSPAPER COMPETITIONS BILL.
  NEWSPAPER COMPETITIONS BILL.
  ABNORMAL FOOD SUPPLIES (BELLIGERENT POWERS).
  ABNORMAL FOOD SUPPLIES (BELLIGERENT POWERS).
  BRITISH FIELD HOSPITAL.
  BRITISH FIELD HOSPITAL.
  GOLD RESERVES AT HOME AND ABROAD.
  GOLD RESERVES AT HOME AND ABROAD.
  DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.
  DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.
  EMPLOYMENT OF WORKPEOPLE.
  EMPLOYMENT OF WORKPEOPLE.
  DECLARATION OF LONDON.
  DECLARATION OF LONDON.
FRENCH AND ENGLISH NEUTRALITY.
  STATEMENT BY SIR E. GREY.
  STATEMENT BY SIR E. GREY.
  GOODS IN GERMAN STEAMERS.
  GOODS IN GERMAN STEAMERS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-INSPECTOR SYME).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-INSPECTOR SYME).

NAVAL PRIZE BOUNTIES.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Treasury have arrived at a decision as to the grant or bounty which the First Lord of the Admiralty stated when introducing the Naval Estimates was under consideration as a substitute for naval prize money.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty informed the House of Commons that the Government intended to abolish prize money. He stated also that a considerable number of naval officers were in favour of that course, and added that the question of issuing some grant or bounty to sailors during the course of a war was under consideration. That was on March 17, and the matter, I suppose, has been under consideration ever since. Now here we are in a war, and the question of prize money is one which is, I hope, very likely soon to arise. Therefore I trust that the Treasury have arrived at a decision with regard to this matter. At the present time the question of prize money is governed by the Order in Council of 1900. Prize money up to the present moment has therefore not been abolished, but I understand that an Order in Council dealing with the question is under consideration. I trust that that Order in Council is very soon to be issued, and I venture to hope also that His Majesty's Government have made up their minds as to the system which it is proposed to substitute for the present system of prize money.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, the Admiralty issued a statement through the Press Bureau on August 29 to this effect—
"Parliament was informed earlier in the year that His Majesty's Government had decided that prize money in respect of captures should not be granted. An Order in Council has been passed cancelling the previous Proclamation of September 17, 1900, in respect of captures from the enemy. In lien of prize money a system of bounties will be established. The exact form that the bounties will take and the manner in which they will be distributed are under consideration, but the intention is that prizes captured during the war should cease to be the perquisite of a limited number of fortunate crews, and that the proceeds of the sales of vessels and cargoes should form a fund out of which the distribution will be made on a basis to be subsequently determined and announced
560
by Proclamation. No alteration will be made in regard to the grant of prize bounties for the capture or destruction of enemy warships as provided for in the Naval Prize Act, 1864, provision for which will be made by Proclamation."
I have further to say that the Treasury have agreed generally with the Admiralty to substitute the system of prize bounty for that of prize money.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I was under the impression that the new Order in Council had not been passed. Apparently I was wrong.
LORD WIMBORNE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Is the Order in Council in force?
LORD WIMBORNE: It has been passed.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Do I understand that prize money has been abolished and yet the system which is to be substituted has not yet been determined on? It surely is an extraordinary thing that one system should be done away with and that you should postpone till a future date the decision as to the system to be substituted. I was, as I have said, under the impression that the Order in Council was under consideration, and that when it was issued it would contain a full and complete statement of what was to be substituted for prize money.
LORD WIMBORNE: That matter is still under consideration. The old system has been done away with and a new one set up, but the exact form which it will take will be announced in due course.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Ever since March 17 the new system has been under consideration, but it has not been settled yet!

THE PRESS AND THE WAR.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the communication professing to come from the seat of war which was published in The Times of yesterday, the contents of which were calculated to cause so much needless distress, and which, apparently, from the official account published by Lord Kitchener this morning, were not justified by the facts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the article to which the noble Viscount refers. It was a very regrettable article and inconsistent with the facts as they have been ascertained. Your Lordships are aware that there is no existing legislation by which Parliament has control over the Press, and, on the whole, it has not been necessary. The Press has acted very loyally in carrying out arrangements which were thought out long before the war, and which have been carried out since, and we have had no cause to complain, with some slight exceptions; but the article in The Times of yesterday was a most regrettable incident. I do not myself believe that it will recur. I think there must be some explanation of it. Sunday editions come out sometimes when those responsible are not on the spot, and I have every hope that the incident referred to by the noble Viscount will not be repeated, and that the loyalty which the Press has shown—a loyalty which has been very great—will be observed in future generally. If it should happen that more of this kind of thing occurs, it might be considered necessary to ask Parliament for exceptional powers to deal with such cases.
Meanwhile, I wish to add that the Government are taking steps to supply as fully as they can, and in a more adequate form than has been possible up to the present, a narrative of events from day to day founded on direct information from the seat of war, which will satisfy the legitimate public desire to know what is going on. The fact that that narrative has not been given up to now has not been the fault of the War Office. The reason is that information has come very carefully from the seat of war at times when fighting was going on, and it is not always possible to send from the Army Headquarters the news until a considerable period has elapsed. Your Lordships will see from telegrams the substance of which was published yesterday that it is now possible to give a narrative in a much more connected form than has hitherto been done, and we hope that that system will be maintained and developed in the future. I can assure your Lordships that we are endeavouring to make arrangements to that effect.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has made a statement which throws the entire responsibility upon the newspaper which published the article in question, but that newspaper has stated that the document was sent to the Official Censor and passed by him. I know nothing about the matter myself; but if that be true, it seems to me that it ought to have had a place in the statement of explanation given on behalf of the Government. If the Official Censor passed this article, clearly the responsibility does not rest wholly with the journal which printed it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe the Official Censor did see the document and that the particular sentences were either passed by him or escaped his notice. They were obviously sentences which should not have been there, but, as I say, I do not think the incident is likely to recur. There have been cases in which things have appeared in the newspapers which have not been before the Censor, but I have every confidence from what I know that the Press will respect the obligation of loyalty which is incumbent at this time, and that we shall not have occasion again to regret such an incident.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, for three or four years in succession I have brought before your Lordships' House the subject of the dissemination of news in time of war, requesting the Government to undertake well-considered legislation in time of peace for fear of bringing in bad legislation in a hurry in time of war. The Times is not the only newspaper to be complained of. I read in the Globe an estimate of the number of troops that had been sent abroad. Now it is obvious that that estimate should never have appeared in any newspaper. That is one of the things for the enemy to find out. The writer of that article in the Globe called himself Major Redway. I do not know whether his name is to be found in the Army List. I certainly could not find a major of that name in the Army List through which I looked. I maintain that figures of this kind ought not to have been printed. If legislation on this matter is not undertaken, I am afraid we shall have other and more troublesome cases of information being given to the enemy which he certainly ought not to have.

THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.
*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that we have to continue the sitting of the House in respect of certain Bills which are due to come up from another place, and during the interval I may, perhaps, call attention to a subject which is being dealt with by a debate in another place this afternoon—namely, the financial position. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is about to make a statement, so far as he is able to make one at this moment, on that subject, and in particular on the subject of the Moratorium as it is called, which, as the House is aware, would in due course expire in a comparatively few days from now. We have formed the conclusion that it is altogether impossible that that Moratorium should forthwith cease altogether. The confusion which would result in the City of London and also in all commercial circles might be so serious that we could not take the responsibility of doing away with that suspension of liabilities which, as your Lordships will remember, dates from the beginning of the war for a month in respect of all previous liabilities.
There have been various questions asked and suggestions made as to how far it is possible to limit the system of suspension, whether it is possible to apply it only to certain subjects, certain classes of debts, or whether it is necessary to maintain it in its entirety. There are a great number of different issues involved. The issue of finance, strictly so called, has more than one aspect of its own. The aspect concerned with international finance is not in all respects the same as that with which finance and banking at home are concerned. Then there is the entirely separate question of commercial and trading credits and business. Those are on a somewhat different footing, and they, again, are greatly complicated by the existence of liabilities in other parts of the world, or payments due from other parts of the world, as compared with the strictly domestic aspect of trading. I think it is clear that we shall have to proceed to some general continuance of this suspension of payments within limits; the limit, as the House knows, is now a low one. What we have to consider, constituting the great anxiety of those who are responsible, is what steps we can continue to take to start once more the great
564
and intensely complicated machine of credit in this country.
One observes that different people looking at these matters from different points of view assume that the matter is in itself tolerably simple, and that if one set of parties engaged in these transactions could be satisfied, the whole machine would then at once begin to work again. For instance, there are some who assert that if only free play could be given to the discounting of bills trade would immediately recuperate, and that all the countless transactions, commercial as well as financial, which are concerned with bills of exchange would recommence in their full activity. We have done a great deal to assist the discounting of bills. The Bank of England has undertaken a great liability, supported, of course, by the Government, in that respect. But although a great deal has been done, at the same time the discount market is not active and the flow of bills of exchange has not proceeded with anything like the necessary rapidity demanded for a recuperation of trade. Then on the other hand there are persons, looking at the matter from a quite different point of view, who say that if only rates of insurance for freights were made easier and simpler and all war risks were taken over by the Government, then foreign trade would at once begin to flow backwards and forwards as before. There, again, we have done a great deal; and what I think is perhaps not entirely realised by the public is that the ordinary processes of marine insurance at Lloyds are going on for a great number of risks on a large scale, and there are risks of a different kind which are met on a certain payment by His Majesty's Government. But although that has been done it has not brought about the complete ebb and flow of trade backwards and forwards which might have been expected, although war risks at sea, except in a very few places and on an exceedingly small number of routes., cannot be described as in any way serious, thanks to the precautions which the Admiralty have been able to take in safeguarding a vast number of the main arteries of trade.
Then, again, others assert that so long as you go on protecting banks, and in particular joint stock banks, from a run by their customers or their depositors caused by panic, all banking operations will

565
proceed in their ordinary course. Well, banks are so protected. No run on any bank is possible; and it is quite evident that that particular kind of suspension must continue, at any rate for some time to come. But in spite of that fact, and although I think in the main—I carefully limit the statement—the banks have done what they can to assist the trading community, the machine does not yet work with its proper regularity and with absence of friction. We therefore have to consider very carefully what further steps may be necessary in the riot distant future for the lubrication and the restarting of this intensely complicated machine.
The problem that confronts us here in England is quite a different one from that which any other country has to encounter. The City of London, as we all know, is the great centre of credit of the world, and a great many of those operations requiring credit are conducted under limitations of actual capital which in ordinary times would be sufficient, because it is not possible in the average conditions of commercial life that heavy immediate demands can be made upon an individual or a firm, and that fact, of course, adds vastly to the delicacy and difficulty of our present position. The whole conduct of financial business, for instance in Paris or in Berlin, is of an entirely different kind and on a totally different scale from that which obtains in the City of London. There is no precedent in the world's history for the present position, and there is no very useful example to be obtained from other countries. Therefore we have to consider with the utmost care, and with the recognition of the necessity sometimes of being exceedingly bold as well as exceedingly cautious, that steps may have to be taken in the future of a much more far-reaching kind for sustaining, as we believe in reality it is quite safe to do, this vast fabric of international credit of which the City of London is the centre.

DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN WAR) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I may remind the House that we have already had a discussion on this subject on a Question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. He, I think, quite clearly, from his Question and the speech which accompanied it, desired, in the case of persons losing their lives in war, that the Death Duties should be remitted altogether. The Government have not felt it possible to go so far as that. I told the House on Wednesday last that the existing law stands on a basis which was framed by Lord St. Aldwyn when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1900. In this Bill we have gone somewhat further than he did.
The Bill provides in its first clause that Section 14 of the Finance Act of 1900—which makes provision, in case of persons killed in war, for the remission of Death Duties on estates up to £5,000—shall have effect as respects the present war as if it applied to property passing to ancestors as well as to property passing to the widow or lineal descendants. There are some cases in which a man is killed and the property goes to his mother, in which case it seems certainly right that the same privilege should be enjoyed as in those other cases where the property passes to a widow or to a son. The present limit stands at £5,000. Clause 1 of this Bill provides that where the value for the purpose of Estate Duty of the property passing to the widow, lineal descendants, or lineal ancestors does not exceed £5,000, the whole of the Death Duties leviable in respect of that property shall be remitted. Where the said value exceeds £5,000, in respect of the first £5.000 the whole of the Death Duties are remitted. The effect of that, as the House will see, is more far-reaching than the mere excusing of the payment in respect of the first £5,000, because the abstraction of the sum of £5,000 from the corpus of the estate in many cases may bring it into a different classification permitting a lower scale of duty. The Bill further provides that where the said value exceeds £5,000 there shall also be remitted so much of the duties leviable in respect of the remainder as exceeds the sum which, if accumulated at compound interest at 3 per cent. per annum from the date of death with half-yearly rests, would, at the expiration of the period of the normal expectation of life of a person of the age of the deceased

567
at the time of death (calculated in accordance with the Tables of Mortality of Government Life Annuitants, 1912) amount to the whole of the duties so leviable. That, as I stated in answering the noble Earl's Question the other day, is calculated to amount, roughly, to something like a remission of 50 per cent. of the duties taking average lives. I think those are all the points that I need call attention to in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, which I now do.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am bound to say, as regards the observations made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, that the Government have considerably improved the position in this matter of a person who loses his life in the service of his country and leaves property. By this Bill, where a man leaves, we will say, £8,000, on the first £5,000 no Death Duties will be leviable. The result is that the remaining £3,000, as the noble Marquess said, will fall under a lower category. That is a very important concession, because I imagine that there are a good many men in the public service whose property does not amount to more than £8,000 or £10,000. I am afraid I am not sufficient an actuary to be able to calculate what the words of the Bill, if reduced to figures, would mean; but taking the concession to be, as the noble Marquess says, 50 per cent. or thereabouts of the duty, the Bill represents a considerable alleviation of the burden which would fall upon such an estate.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack puts the Question, I might add that Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the subject of rapid succession. It states that where the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that Estate Duty has become payable on any property passing on the death of any person to whom Clause 1 of this Bill applies, and that subsequently Estate Duty has again become payable on the same property or any part thereof passing on the death of some other person to whom Clause 1 applies, the whole of the Estate Duty payable on such subsequent death in respect of the property so passing shall be remitted, or, in case the duty has been paid, repaid, and the property shall not be aggregated with any other property passing on such subsequent death for the purpose of
568
determining the rate of Estate Duty. That would affect the case of two brothers or some other case which might occur in the course of the war.
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 280.)

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª. and to be printed.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill, as the title indicates, is an emergency Bill intended to deal only with the exceptional state of affairs produced by the war. The Government received strong representations both from the Military and from the Police authorities as to the need for wider powers dealing with the liquor trade during the war, especially in districts where there are training camps. The Bill, as presented to the House of Commons, proposed to give the licensing justices power to make Orders restricting the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on licensed premises or clubs, with the proviso that if any Order was passed fixing an earlier closing hour than 9 p.m. the Order should not remain in force for more than fourteen days without the approval of the Secretary of State. On the Second Reading in the House of Commons there was some criticism directed against the Bill as being too severe, and Amendments were accepted in Committee by the Home Secretary so as to provide safeguards against any unfair use of the powers. The Bill, as amended by the Commons, provides that the licensing justices can only make an Order on the recommendation of the Chief Officer of Police that it is desirable to do so for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness. Any Order fixing an hour earlier than 9 p.m. must be approved by the Secretary of State. An appeal is given to Quarter Sessions against convictions for contravention of the Order. These and other minor Amendments having been made, the Bill was agreed to by all parties in the House of Commons and passed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Stanmore.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill is a very extreme case of an emergency measure, for it interferes with the liberty of the subject to a great extent. I suppose that in the circumstances it cannot be avoided, but I am glad to see that in dealing with Scotland an important Amendment has been made. In the first place, the Sheriff, who is responsible in Scotland for the peace of the county, was not in any way mentioned in the Bill originally. But as the Bill now stands the Licensing Court—in Scotland it is the Licensing Court—must have t he approval of the Sheriff before it acts. Once the approval of the Sheriff has been obtained, the particular regulations as to hours, &c., which the Licensing Court may make will absolutely depend upon the Licensing Court. But the important thing is that the Sheriff is introduced. The Sheriff's approval is required in Scotland instead of, as in England, the approval of the Chief Officer of Police. In Scotland we attach great value to the Sheriff. I wish that the Sheriff had been more frequently made use of in legislation of late, but I think that the Amendment on this point which has been introduced into this Bill in the other House is a very great improvement.
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 281.)

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill has not yet passed through the House of Commons, but perhaps it may be convenient if I take the course which was adopted the other day and state to your Lordships by way of anticipation what is in that Bill which we expect to receive here shortly. The general purpose of the Bill is to prevent anybody being what is popularly called "sold up" when the circumstances are such that the position is not due to his own fault, but due entirely to causes arising out of the war. The Bill embodies four principles. The first is that the Bill is only temporary. It will operate during the continuance of the war and for six
570
months after, with the power by Order in Council to put an end to its provisions. It is obviously not a Bill which the Legislature would desire to continue in normal times. The second principle is that it is operative only if the causes which prevent the debt being paid are causes due to the war. The third principle is that a discretion is given to the Court to look in each case into the circumstances of the person who desires relief, because it is obvious that there is considerable risk of a number of people who do not deserve consideration attempting to make out a case for relief under the Bill. The fourth principle is this, that the mode in which the Code is to act is to be governed by rules made, by a Judicial authority cognisant of and experienced in these matters. That is the general scheme of the Bill. It applies not to the taking of proceedings and to the issuing of the writ, but to execution, including, by way of example, execution in distress for rent, ejectment proceedings, forfeiture of penalties under boads, and matters of that kind. The Bill applies only to contracts made before August 4, the date of the outbreak of war, but with one exception—namely, that of rent; cases in connection with rent may be very hard cases. But the general principle is not to relieve any person from the consequences of contracts which he has made with his eyes open after the outbreak of war. As I have said, it will be open to anybody to issue the writ and to take proceedings, but he cannot proceed to execution to enforce his judgment without the leave of the Judge or of the Court. And by analogy the same thing will apply to ejectments. There are certain things saved—such as pawnbrokers' pledges, which it is impossible to interfere with, and certain things in connection with insurance companies. The Bill has been the subject of long examination by a Committee of experience in these matters, and we have hid the advantage of the advice of the Judges, including that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. The Bill is framed so that it will as far as possible meet cases which are required to be provided for, while not meeting the cases of persons not deserving of assistance. I do not suppose that it will be possible to keep out altogether people who are trying to take an undue advantage of the situation, but we have inserted stringent provisions for finding out such people and preventing them getting the benefits of the Bill.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That all periods of time limited by Standing Orders Nos. III, IV, V and VI be extended to the third sitting day of the House for Judicial Business in October next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Marquess who leads the House is disposed to take advantage of this interval in order to give us some idea of the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the course of business during the next few days.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that in another place the Prime Minister is about to propose an adjournment of that House until Wednesday week, September 9, and, if it should be agreeable to your Lordships' House, when we are in a position to move the adjournment to-day we will make a similar Motion. Then, I hope, when we meet again that after such time as may be necessary to conclude business we may be in a position to advise the Prorogation of Parliament. Of course, the question will then arise as to the position, in the altered circumstances which now exist, of the various Bills which are under the Parliament Act. The House will remember that I put down the Government of Ireland Bill for Second Reading on June 30 last. It was not taken on that day because the Amending Bill was then in process of being considered, and we proceeded instead with the Council of India Bill. When we return I shall again place the Government of Ireland Bill on the Paper for Second Reading, that being done in the ordinary course of business. Both Houses will then have to consider, after discussion in the House of Commons and here, what further measure is necessary to ensure that so far as possible the situation is not radically altered by the events which are taking place in Europe. We shall be prepared then to produce our proposals with that object.
572
I wish we could have produced them now, but the House will understand that the pressure of business upon us all has been so heavy of late that it has not been possible to produce them so far, but we shall do so after this short interval. I have no doubt, also, that noble Lords opposite and the Opposition generally will reflect on the whole position and the various possibilities which exist for carrying out the object I have indicated. My noble friend Lord Beauchamp is not able to be here to-day, but what I have said applies mutatis mutandis also to the Welsh Church Bill. I am afraid that that is all the information I can give to your Lordships to-day, but it shows, I think, with sufficient clearness what the course of business is likely to be when we resume our deliberations on Wednesday week.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2ª (The Lord Chancellor): Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 282.)

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following four Bills received the Royal Assent—

Slaughter of Animals.

Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction).

Courts (Emergency Powers).

Death Duties (Killed in War).

House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, to Wednesday, the 9th of September next, a quarter past Four o'clock.