Sitting of 12 November 1914

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 10th November, 1914, under The Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain Shops in the burgh of Dunfermline [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 817 (Falkland Islands, Report for 1913–14) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LEEWARD ISLANDS.
Copy presented of New Rules relating to the Government of the Prisons in the Leeward Islands [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO CREDIT AND BUSINESS.
Copy presented of further Papers relating to the Measures taken by His Majesty's Government for sustaining Credit and facilitating Business [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee on Sickness Benefit Claims under the National Insurance Act, with Appendices, Minutes of Evidence, and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report of the Committee appointed to consider and advise with regard to the application of the National Insurance Act to Outworkers in Ireland. Vol. I. Report. Vol. II. Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 24th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subsidiary Employments) Consolidated Order (Ireland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 25.]
Copy presented of Special Order, dated 24th July, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Special Customs) Consolidated Order (Ireland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 27.]

NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS AND OTHER EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1914–15 (SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the sum required to be voted for Naval and Military Operations and other Expenditure arising out of the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 24.]
ARMY.
Copy presented of Interim Report of the Committee on Garrison and Regimental Institutes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE).
Supplementary Estimate presented of the additional number of Men required in the year ending 31st March, 1915, in consequence of the War in Europe [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 26].
NAVY (HEALTH).
Order [11th November] that the Paper relative thereto be printed, read, and discharged.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (ACCOUNT.)
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Account of the

39
Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1914, and from 22nd August, 1881, to 31st March, 1914, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed, [No. 28.]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1913–14.
Copy ordered "of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1913–14, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1914; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Montagu.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
Mr GINNELL: I desire to draw your attention to what seems to me to be a breach of order. Yesterday I handed in notice of a Bill. That notice does not appear on the Paper to-day, and I would respectfully ask you by whose direction it is omitted, and under what authority?
Mr. SPEAKER: It was announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, in the course of his speech, that there would be no ballot for private Members' Bills. It was, therefore, no use accepting the notice of the hon. Member. If he will look at the Order Paper he will see that the Prime Minister has a Motion which will stop private Bills being brought in until the end of the year.
Mr. GINNELL: I have asked you on what authority this was done. An announcement of the Prime Minister does not bind this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: It was done on my authority, after having heard what the Prime Minister had to say.

WAR IN EUROPE.

  GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That on every day on which the House sits until the 31st day of December—

  (1) Government Business do have precedence;

  40

  (2) At the conclusion of Government Business Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, "That this House do now adjourn,' and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put not later than half an hour after the conclusion of Government Business; and

  (3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."

  I said yesterday that I would make this Motion for a time limit to-day, if not on Friday. I find it is necessary to make it to-day, and perhaps the House will allow me to make it now. It is a necessary formality. I am sure it will be in consonance with the general opinion, and for the general convenience of the House.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. He announced yesterday that it was intended to take certain emergency Bills. Of course, it is a matter of extreme interest and importance to the House, and I would ask whether in regard to these Bills we shall have some more notice than we had in the last Session of Parliament? I can assure him that the draftsmen of these Bills have not had that consideration for the position of the Laws of Ireland which is desirable. If I were disposed I could make an observation in respect of one of the most important of these Acts which I am afraid might have a tendency I do not desire. Therefore, I do think, with every respect to those charged with the important duty of looking to the defence of the realm, that it is desirable that others who have hitherto had some acquaintance with the law between the two countries should have some opportunity of making observations not in the least with a view to embarrassing the Government, but rather with a view to their assistance.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the grievance of the hon. Member is a perfectly legitimate one, and I will take care, as far as I can, subject to some exceptional and unforseen emergency, that due time shall be given for the consideration of these Bills. I might point out that one of the most urgent affects ourselves. It appears to be the law that Members who accept Commissions under the Crown accept offices of profit and vacate their seats. Therefore, it is of the highest

  41
  importance that at the earliest possible moment we should put that matter right and by Act of Parliament provide that they shall be deemed not to have vacated their seats and should be allowed to sit without danger.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Before we agree to this Resolution we ought to be quite sure that private Members of this House are given sufficient time to raise the many questions in which they are interested. If you look at the terms of the Prime Minister's Motion, you will see that if we agree to it unanimously to-day it practically means that every day up to Christmas or such days as we meet between now and Christmas there would be only half an hour left to Members of this House to raise questions of public interest. If we were going on in the ordinary way the Government business would be over soon in the afternoon, and the remainder of the day until eleven o'clock would be left to private Members to bring forward items of interest not only to the House but also to the country. There are a very large number of those questions just now which many of us are desirous of raising. None of us, of course, wish in any way to embarrass the Government, but at the same time it does seem to me to limit very severely the opportunities for raising public questions if we are to be every day restricted to one half-hour. I wondered whether the Prime Minister could not extend it a little further. Members will recollect that when a private Member of this House raises a question of public importance on the adjournment — I have frequently heard questions raised by members of the Opposition; sometimes Members want to raise different points—it cannot always be done in half-an-hour; and, while I do not want the Government to extend the time so that any of us can raise all sorts of questions, yet I do plead with the Prime Minister that he should give us the maximum amount of time which will enable us to raise several of these questions with a reasonable opportunity for debate. If the Prime Minister could do that, he would certainly be meeting the convenience of a great number of Members of this House, and I very much hope, therefore, that he will be able to see his way to do it.
  Mr. GINNELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has expressed great sympathy with the private Member, whoever
  42
  he may be. I do not apply that expression to myself, because there is no private Member in this House to my knowledge. We are all equally with the Prime Minister and with yourself duly elected according to the law of the land. We are official and unofficial; not otherwise private. This anxiety about the rights of private Members comes rather late in the day now when private Members have been so grossly trifled with as they have been during the last eight or nine years. Not alone does the Prime Minister propose to limit the rights of private Members—the rights of the entire community they represent in this House to a nominal thirty minutes, but he and his Whips, and the Leaders of the Opposition and their Whips, will take care that, when any unofficial Member has anything to raise before this House, no matter how important it is, no matter how many be concerned or how vitally it concerns them, these Whips, with the knowledge of Mr. Speaker, take care there shall not be forty Members here to listen to us, and, instead of thirty minutes, we have not three minutes under the Prime Minister's proposed scheme. The fact is that this House, under your Chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, has been conducted on an elaborate system of fiction—fiction in regard to both the laws of the land and of this House. Care is taken that neither night, noon nor morning shall we bring forward anything that may, for any petty party reason, be displeasing to Gentlemen on either Front Bench. I shall oppose this Motion, no matter how little support I may get or whether I get any at all. I shall, of course, be bound to oppose both Notices on the Paper, and I cannot sit down without telling you that you have, with reference to the Notice I handed in at the Table, exceeded your powers and rights.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the Motion before the House.
  Mr. GINNELL: It is true, all the same.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: On behalf of Members connected with India, and especially as at this time India is so much concerned with regard to the Army, I have to say we would accede to this Motion with greater pleasure if we were informed that the usual Debate on Indian affairs, which we have once a year, will come within the Government business to which this Resolution applies.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that. In reply to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ginnell), I have to say that this Motion does not preclude the ordinary Motion for Adjournment on a definite question of urgent public importance.
  Mr. GINNELL: Beyond thirty minutes.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The ordinary Motion for the Adjournment of the House can be supported by any number of Members, and that will not be interfered with. In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), I can only say what I have said before, that if there is, in regard to any particular question, anything in the nature of a general desire for a period exceeding half an hour, the Government will be prepared to move the adjournment between the Government Orders to enable that to be done.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  Ordered, "That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the Ballot, and no Notices of Motions on going into Committee of Supply be received before 31st December."—[The Prime Minister.]
HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS— [SECOND DAY]—(11th November).
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Sir Robert Price.]
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The announcement made by the Prime Minister
  44
  with regard to the White Paper scheme of Pension and Disablement Allowances, relieves me, for the present, of the necessity for dwelling on that subject. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Government for having acceded to the suggestion that we made that this was a subject that ought to receive the attention of the House at much greater length than could be given in the Debate on the Address. I hope that the day will be fixed very early, as all sections of the House will admit that there is a great amount of interest in the country on this important subject. In the few observations I have to make I will endeavour to emulate previous speakers by seeking to avoid anything in the nature of party controversy. It appears to me to be altogether impossible to overestimate the advantage that has accrued to this country and to the very serious cause it has in hand, both on land and at sea, from the splendid unity which has characterised all sections of the community since the War began. I want to say that, so far as we are concerned on these benches, we have come to the conclusion that everything ought to be done to preserve, right to the end of this great trial, that valuable asset, the unity of the entire Empire.
  The brevity and substance of the Gracious Speech from the Throne remind us that there is only one supreme consideration upon which Parliament must concentrate its attention. All our energy, all the capacity and experience of the nation, both civil and military, must be so applied as to enable us to prosecute this War to a successful issue; and may I say the more expeditious the issue the more every one will be pleased. In making the statement that we must prosecute the War to a successful issue, I think I am expressing the view of the entire organised labour movement of this country. We feel that whatever differences of opinion there may have been prior to the opening of hostilities, there is no other course left open to us as a nation, there is no alternative that presents itself to us, than that we must go straight through with this very serious business. In fact, we feel that everything must be done to enable our Allies and ourselves to crown their efforts with a complete, and, I hope, a final victory. When the time of victory does come and when this House and the nation have to turn their attention to the question of a permanent settlement, the organised labour movement in this country will use

  45
  its powerful influence in order to direct that settlement on the lines of the true spirit of nationalism and in keeping with the high ideals of democracy. Believing, as we do, that in proportion to the completeness of the victory will be the permanence of our future peace, we shall continue, as we have done from the commencement of hostilities, to give the Government our united support, in the hope, as the Gracious Speech says, that we may carry this issue to that desirable success upon which most of us have set our hearts.
  There is in the second paragraph of the Gracious Speech a reference, a most important reference, to the extension of the area of the war. I am quite sure of this, that all sections of the House must have deplored that it became really necessary to extend that area which, most would admit, was already far too large. The experiences civilisation has passed through since the early days of August I am sure must lead all of us to the conclusion that the more the area of such operations can be restricted the better it must be for everybody. I must say here, having watched as closely as I could the public conduct of affairs, that it seems to me that the Government desire the credit of the country for the patient way in which they bore what were tantamount to very direct insults from Turkey during the days immediately preceding the declaration of War. It seems to me that Turkey left us no alternative than to take the very direct action which the Government on behalf of the country felt impelled to take. The reference to this part of the Gracious Speech leads me to make an inquiry—I regret that the First Lord is not in his place, but, perhaps, the Prime Minister will convey to him the point I wish to make—to ask him, with all reserve, whether the Government are in a position to tell us a little more about an incident, a very important incident, if not a very powerful factor in compelling the declaration of war with regard to Turkey. I refer to the escape of the two German warships, the "Goeben" and the "Breslau."
  It may be that this is a subject upon which the Government cannot speak too freely. The House will be prepared to make every allowance, but I do think that we have not had quite all the information on this subject that might have been conveyed, not only to the House, but to the country. We saw some weeks ago that the
  46
  officer in command had been recalled and that there was likely to be a trial by court-martial. That is so long ago that some of us had almost forgotten it, and it was only to-day, on my way to the House, that I was reminded of the whole incident once more by noticing on a placard that the court-martial had come to its finding on the subject. Now that the court-martial has come to its finding, it may be that the First Lord will be in a position to tell the House whether these two ships really escaped by accident or mismanagement; whether, in the opinion of the Government, they were in the waters where, I believe, they were chased for some time, trying to carry on acts of warfare quite legitimately, or whether, in the opinion of the Government, there was some prearrangement between Germany and Turkey with regard to these two ships; and whether there has been a legitimate sale or not? I do think the country is entitled to know a little with regard to the incident to which I have just called attention.
  The next point to which I want to refer is one that was referred to yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that is the conditions, of which there is so much complaint, regarding the treatment of the New Army, now known in the country as Kitchener's Army, and the conditions under which thousands, yea, tens of thousands, of these men are at present placed. Before the House rose the hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouthshire (Sir Ivor Herbert) raised this question, and I took part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War gave us, in the short time allowed, a little information. He promised, I think, certain reforms. At any rate, he promised that the matters that had been brought to the notice of the House would receive attention. I am not going to say that there has not been an improvement. I think there has been an improvement—a considerable improvement—but I must insist on saying that there is still room for very considerable improvement according to the letters I am receiving. I am quite sure I do not stand alone in this matter, anl that all sections, indeed nearly all Members of the House, have been receiving such letters from all parts of the country. I am going to quote from one I received two days ago, which was written on the 7th of the present month. It is an extract from a

  47
  letter from one of my Constituents. He left a fair position and, responding to the appeal that was made, he enlisted in Kitchener's Now Army. [HON. MEMBERS: "The King's Army!"] Well, the King's Army. I said a little while ago that it was known in the country, and the War Office encourages the idea in its literature, as Kitchener's Army. I have one of their leaflets here in my hand, which encourages the use of that name. I do not think we need quarrel about it, for the Under-Secretary for War knows exactly what I mean. At any rate, my Constituent enlisted at Darlington into one of the new branches of the King's Army, and this is what he writes on 7th November:—
  "I beg to call your attention to the deplorable conditions under which we are forced to exist."
  This is written from Aldershot on 7th November.
  "The conditions can be described in one word as scandalous."
  It gives as an instance that they are sleeping, in the month of November, in an ordinary summer tent—healthy young men who responded to the appeal, who left good homes and good positions.
  "We come here to be treated more like dogs than men, Sir. These statements are perfectly true, and I ask you if nothing can be done to alter these conditions which are the only cause of slow recruiting."
  I should like to call the Under-Secretary's attention to this further remark:—
  "You would be surprised if you could read hundreds of letters that go home to parents and pals, also the deception of the recruiting officers must be stopped at once."
  This latter point about the deception of recruiting officers deserves the careful attention of the War Office. I have here a leaflet, Army Form B 218, and one paragraph opens:—
  "A private soldier in the Infantry on joining gets 6s. 8d. a week, clear of all expenses."
  I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House whether that is correct or not. If it is not correct it ought never to be published. My opinion is that it is very far from being correct. I think there are all sorts of stoppages, to say nothing about the allotment for the wife and for each child. There is the stoppage for insurance. I have heard in some cases of a stoppage to provide soap for the washing of the soldiers, and it seems to me if he starts off on 1s. Id. or 1s. 2d. a day and has 3s. 6d. stopped from his pay and allocated to his wife, if he has 1s. 1d. deducted for each child, if he has 1½d. deducted for insurance, if he has so many
  48
  coppers deducted for soap to wash himself, and so much for the washing of his clothes, there is not going to be very much left. In fact, I have had cases brought to my notice where, after all the deductions were made, the only sum that could be left for the soldier to purchase tobacco or any other thing that he took a fancy to was 11d. per week, or 11½d., to put it strictly accurate. Can the House wonder that there is some delay in recruiting? When we raised this question before the House rose, what was the surprising answer that the Under-Secretary gave? He attributed the check to recruiting to the fact that the War Office had raised the height and chest measurement, and, I believe, altered the age.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I think my hon. Friend is mistaken.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am informed by my Friends who heard the statement, that he said this was done to stop the rush. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept those words?
  Mr. TENNANTmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: It would have been perhaps better if the right hon. Gentleman had not challenged me on my first statement, because I am prepared to accept the suggestion that it was done to stop the rush. The effect is the same. What was stopping the rush or checking the recruiting, whichever way you care to put it, was mismanagement, the very grievous conditions which were being imposed, shall I go further and say the breach of faith as between some of the recruiting officers and the men who were being enlisted. Some of these men were leaving £3 and £4 a week. We know cases where they have left £5 per week. They have done it for the love of their country. They have done it out of a real spirit of patriotism. They have made the sacrifice and they have been told they they would receive 6s. 8½d. clear of all expenses. Week after week passes and we find that the magnificent sum of 11d. at the end of the week is their portion. The House, I think, was immensely pleased to hear the statement from the Prime Minister, that notwithstanding all these difficulties, notwithstanding this mismanagement, there has been the magnificent total of something

  49
  like 1¼ million men raised practically since the War broke out, either in the Regulars or in the Territorials. This is a great credit. The men have enlisted, not because they wanted higher pay but because they wanted to do their duty to their country, and if that was the motive that inspired them the motive that ought to inspire the responsible trustees of the country, namely, Parliament, in this matter, is to see that as speedily as possible the grievances to which I have called attention are permanently removed.
  Another matter that I should like to call attention to is the position of many of the women in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Middlebrook) yesterday paid a very deserved tribute to the conduct of the great majority of the women. I want to associate myself with that tribute. I think every word that he said was deserved. Many of our women folk, and especially the wives of our soldiers and sailors, have gone during the last three months through the roughest time of their whole lives. Let me try to visualise the position that many of them have been placed in. Their husbands were called to the Colours. Many of them have been keeping their lonely vigil on the sea. Their wives were left at home. In connection with some of the wives of our sailors the only thing they have to depend upon in the early stage is what they received from the pay of the husband. In some cases they did not feel that it was sufficient and made application for assistance. I had letters sent tome before any allowance was granted by the Government which proved that some of these women had been most shamefully insulted by relief committees. In the case of soldiers' wives the case was even worse. For the last three or four months they have been almost the victims of an attack by misguided representatives of charitable organisations, and in some cases the representatives of an organisation which had had experience and should have known better. I am referring now to an organisation that I have some good opinion of, and that is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. These people were entrusted with filling up the gap that ought never to have existed. The War Office, it seems to me in the early stages, if they were not in a position to pay out the money to the wives directly, though their own pay offices ought to have done what I think the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind yesterday
  50
  when he said the War Office had not taken advantage of the organised capacity of this country. We have the finest machinery of local government in this country that there is in any country in the world, and yet the War Office seems to> ignore the fact that we have county councils, borough councils, and urban district councils.
  In the early stages of this War, if they found that they were incapable of paying the money direct through the pay office, or through the post offices, it seems to me that all they need have done was to enter into arrangements with the accountant's office of the county council, the borough-council, or the urban district council, giving to each soldier's wife a permit or cheque, or whatever you care to call it, to go to the accountant's office, and the money would have been paid straight away. What took place? Representatives of charitable organisations took this-work up, and they not only meddled unnecessarily, but they muddled most severely. Their inquisitorial methods were a disgrace to everybody concerned. I had a case brought to my notice where a small sum was coining into a sailor's home. The wife was asked what she did with it. The sum was £2 per month—10s. per week. It is the form of the question to which I take exception. The wife has one child. The question was asked what she did with the 10s. per week. Did she drink it? Did she go to see the pictures? Mark you, it was this woman's own money. It is the wages of the husband who is keeping his silent vigil on the sea, and the wife is to be insulted by being asked what she does with her husband's wages. Is this the sort of thing that the Board of Admiralty approve of? Yet this is done in connection with the administration that has been going on during the past three months through the War Office, and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which is doing the work for the War Office. I could give some equally telling cases. I think there is not a Member of the House but could do the same. The point I want to make is this: Can we be told now that all the arrears have been overtaken by the War Office paying out the money, and is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association going to be done with this business? I hold that where these questions of sailors' pay or soldiers' separation allowances are concerned, no charitable organisation whatever has any right to be employed as

  51
  between the Government and the Government employé, and I hope that from every part of the House this question of the unnecessary interference of charitable organisations between the soldier and the sailor and the Government Departments will be pressed until we are told that it is finally and permanently withdrawn.
  I have another point to make so far as the wives of soldiers are concerned. I am glad to notice that the Home Secretary is now on the Front Bench. I want to bring to his notice what I conceive to be a very important case. I have told the House about the way soldiers' wives are being harassed by the agents of charitable organisations; but we have gone one worse. I wonder if the House is fully alive to the fact that the latest thing to be done is to move from the agent of the charitable organisation to the police. The Home Office the other day, I think, surprised everybody by issuing a notice. What do I find? I am going to read a few lines of the letter sent from the Home Office. It was headed in the "Daily News," "New Police Duty":—
  "I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that the Army Council desire to have the assistance of the police in the measures which are being taken to provide for—"
  I ask the House to notice this:—
  "to provide for the withholding of separation allowances payable to wives or dependents of soldiers in the event of serious misconduct on the part of the recipient."
  I am going to pronounce this "the limit." I will yield to no one in the House in my anxiety to promote good living among the people. My views with regard to temperance are well known. I have supported legislation going in the direction of what I conceive to be the promotion of the sobriety of the people ever since I came into this House, but I must say I am going to oppose, so far as in me lies, any intention to put upon the wives of soldiers any such surveillance by the police as that described in the letter I have read. Which Member of this House would like any such treatment if he did not behave himself? And I suppose we do not all behave ourselves at all times to the satisfaction of everybody else, and not always to the satisfaction of the police. But whether it be to the satisfaction of the police or the civilian, I venture to think that the last thing we would ever tolerate would be that someone should intervene and say to us how we have got to spend our money. I claim that the separation allowance is only part
  52
  of the pay—part of the actual earnings of the soldier, and though it may be regrettable that some soldiers' wives do not know how to spend the money, they are not alone in this respect. Unfortunately there are other wives who do not know how money should be spent, and there are many husbands who do not know how to spend their own money. Then why, if this be the case, should soldiers' wives, after being harassed in the way I have pointed out by the representatives of charitable organisations, be handed over to the police in the manner proposed. May I make an appeal to the Prime Minister? I am quite sure my appeal will be realised by him, that we have no right to put the police between the wives and the spending by them of the hard-earned wages of the soldier. I hope this Order will be immediately withdrawn.
  I sincerely trust that the Government, in view of the day for discussion they have promised, and the Committee I understood the Prime Minister to say he was going to set up, will make the terms of reference sufficiently clear and broad that the whole conditions of the treatment of the soldier and sailor, and of their wives and children, will be subjected to a very careful analysis, and that they will report to this House, for I am quite certain that this should be done if the War should go on even for the period the Prime Minister hinted at, and if we have to have another million men recruited. I am doing my little bit in that direction. Since the House rose I think I have spoken at some thirty meetings, and I am prepared to speak at another thirty, but I do say that those who are throwing themselves into this work have a right to have at least a searching investigation, and to have a judgment pronounced upon the conditions I have brought before the notice of the House this afternoon.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I have a few words to say on another question which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, namely, the question of not giving way to clamouring newspapers by adopting a policy of vindictiveness towards those aliens who are in our midst. In common with some other Members of the House, I have received letters pointing out that many aliens are married to English wives, and that the wives and children of those who have been interned are suffering. I do hope that the Government will take this matter into consideration, and

  53
  that they will thoroughly investigate each particular case on its merits, and not cause unnecessary hardship by any wholesale system of action against those people without sufficient investigation. I assume, for the sake of argument, that the Government are not animated by any vindictive motives, but are animated, as I believe they are, solely with the desire to do what is best for the country, but I submit that they should show due consideration to the dependants of those aliens. After all, they are innocent people. As has been suggested, they include some English wives. But even when they are not English wives they appeal to our humanity. They are in our midst. It is through the action of the Government that their breadwinners have been withdrawn. Therefore, I think that the Government ought to take the responsibility for their actions and make some provision for them.
  I pass from that question to one other on which I wish to offer a few remarks. In the King's Gracious Speech we find the following words with reference to the making of financial arrangements for carrying on the War, which is, of course, a matter that comes more particularly before the House of Commons:—
  "Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
  You will be asked to make due, provision for the effectice conduct of the War."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—on Monday, I think—would make a financial statement, and would give us some idea of the forthcoming loan, but so far as I am able to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, there was no indication given as to anything in the way of meeting any part of the expenditure by new taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), in August last, made a plea which I think was responded to on all sides of the House, that a certain part of this expenditure should be met by taxation, and I think I saw in the "Times" that this was approved of by that newspaper; but, to my regret, I saw to-day that the right hon. Gentleman has written a letter to the "Times" disclaiming this attitude, which he had taken up, on the ground that the circumstances were not the same now, and that his advice had not been taken at the time in August. I do not follow his remarks there, because had his advice been taken in August I do not suppose
  54
  that the right hon. Gentleman would suggest that taxes put on in August should be taken off in November. But he went on in that letter to point out that he did not know the facts, and that if the Government felt called on to bring forward new proposals for taxation they would do so on their own responsibility as he had not been consulted, and he ended his letter by stating that if they chose to bring forward proposals for fresh taxation he would not criticise these proposals. I speak from memory, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm what I say.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that the opinion to which I gave expression in the House of Commons should not be quoted, as it was in the "Times," as being necessarily applicable to the present state of affairs. And the concluding sentence of my letter, to which the hon. Member has referred, states that if the Government now decide that it is not desirable to impose taxation at this moment, but that it is better to postpone their new proposals to a later date, I should not criticise that procedure.
  Mr. MASON: I do not wish in any way to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But you said the opposite of what I said.
  Mr. MASON: I may have used the words in the opposite sense, but the sense in which I wish to convey them is that in which the right hon. Gentleman has used them, that if the Government bring in new proposals for taxation now he will not criticise them. My hon. Friend (Mr. MacCallum Scott) again corrects me. The right hon. Gentleman said that if they fail to do so he would not criticise their decision. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his subtlety, but I think that he will agree with me that, dismissing all subtlety of words, the main fact emerges from the right hon. Gentleman's letter that apparently he has changed his attitude of mind since last August on the great question of Taxation versus Borrowing. If His Majesty's Government have finally made up their minds on their proposals we shall hear more on the subject probably on Monday. I do hope that His Majesty's Government and this House will take into consideration the extreme gravity of facing now this problem and this responsibility, and the effects on the country which will result if they pursue the policy that has been adumbrated in certain quarters of carrying on

  55
  this great War upon credit and upon credit only. Of course, I know that we are bound to have fresh taxation even for the purposes of the Sinking Fund and amortisation, but surely the principle of paying a part of the expenditure as we go along ought to be very soon, if not immediately, put into practice. I submit that there are immense issues hanging upon this principle being put into practice. There will be involved the most severe and tremendous hardships upon, more particularly, the wage-earning classes, if we go on, as we are doing, piling up an enormous loan expenditure. We have already incurred something like £101,000,000 expenditure, of which £90,000,000 have been spent on this War, which is purely loan expenditure. What will be the effect upon the industrial classes if this policy is pursued?
  We are all agreed as the Leader of the Labour party said, in the vigorous prosecution of this War, and any criticism which is made—and the Prime Minister invited criticism—as to the way of carrying out this War, in getting recruits, in the finance of the warfare, and its maintenance in a vigorous, methodical, proper, and businesslike manner, must be directed to those who are in control, and the Government will surely give us credit for sincerity, patriotism, and a desire to see the War carried out in the best interests of the country in any criticism which we may offer. Why carry on this policy of finance, which, if it were entirely upon loan emissions, would be detrimental in the highest degree both to the industrial classes, and also to the interests of sound finance. It is well known by those who have given a study to this subject that if you pursue a policy of loan emissions you enormously stimulate the demand for labour for the time being. You bring a great influx of labour into the market, as is seen now in the decrease of unemployment throughout the country as a result of this vast expenditure of capital. When the War comes to an end, you are met with an enormously expanded labour influx, accompanied by depleted capital, if you largely finance the War through loan emissions. No one for a moment would suggest that this War can be carried on by taxation, or even largely by taxation, because of its enormous cost, but, if you have a certain proportion of War supplies derived from taxation, you would bring before the people the fact of what
  56
  War is, what the expenses are, and this would tend, in the nature of things, to direct men's minds, as soon and as expeditiously as possible, to the possibility of bringing about an honourable peace.
  It is interesting in this connection to look back to past wars. What was the cost of the Crimean war, and what was the financial conduct of that great operation? The Crimean war, which the Government may consider rather an important war, a great operation, actually cost this country only about £76,000,000. In the three months during which this War has already been going on, we have expended some £90,000,000. It is estimated in many quarters that before it is finished, this colossal undertaking in which we are engaged, will cost £300,000,000 or £400,000,000. Of course, the principle of meeting the expenditure by taxation is not so applicable to-day as in the days of the Crimean war. But the cost of the Crimean war was met by £40,000,000 additional taxation, and £41,000,000 added to the debt—about 50 per cent. from taxation and 50 per cent. from loan emissions. If hon. Members would take the trouble to read up the Debates at that time, they will find that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer contended with all his might for this most important principle of taxation to meet the cost. Mr. Disraeli, on the Conservative side, supported him, and many others at that time were alive to the extreme importance to the interests of the country with a view to preventing untold misery to the industrial classes later on, that they should pay a proportion of the expenditure out of taxation. I have taken this opportunity on the Address to bring this point before His Majesty's Government, in the hope that they will give it their serious consideration.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I rise now because I regret very much that the speech made by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) has not been followed by an immediate declaration from the Government on this question of pay. I hope it is unnecessary for me to say, as has been already observed by my Leader in this House, that anything we advance here, and in anything we say, we are not actuated by any desire to criticise, much less to find fault. We are actuated solely by the desire to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech, namely, that if by our experience recently

  57
  we are able to assist the Government in this stupendous task which they are called upon to discharge, it is in our opinion our duty to do so. The statement made by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle is no exaggeration of the history of this question of pay. I had intended and hoped to be present myself at this very hour at a recruiting meeting within easy reach of this House, but I preferred to make my statement here, and get somebody else to take my place there, for the reason that, in my humble opinion, this question of pay and the allowances to dependants lie at the very root of the recruiting question. In a country village where you have twenty, twenty-five or thirty men gone to the front—and I can say from my part of England, the South and West, the response on the part of the men to the demand of the Government for recruits has been magnificent—where you have a village from which twenty to thirty men have gone to the front, in respect of half that number, or it may be more, there is no complaint, but if in respect of the dependents of four or five of those men the cases are as stated by the Member for Barnard Castle, it is useless for the Prime Minister, himself the most powerful orator this House or country could produce, to go into those villages and ask fresh men to join the Colours. I am speaking, not from my own experience alone in my own district; I am speaking from experience which I have gained as a member of the executive committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund, and from visits which I have paid to a variety of our camps in different parts of England. I have had in my hand long lists of men, members of the New Army, in each of whose cases, their dependants, their wives and children, have not received one penny of pay or allowance from the day when the husband and father joined the Colours up to the time I saw them. I have to-day received a letter from a man whom I at last succeeded in getting admitted to the Army, and who enlisted at the end of August. His wife has received since then something under 6s. per week, and up to two or three days ago the man received the sum of 6s. 9d.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Gross, or per week?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LONG: Those are the total sums, the whole of the payments. His wife got for some weeks 5s., a few pence per week, and the husband received 6s. 9d. He is a determined man, and he was not to be turned from his purpose, and he
  58
  has gone to the Army. I am doing my best, and others are doing their best, to prevent his case from deterring others, but it is idle for this House to shut its eyes to the effects, and it is idle to say we must not mention them, because they may do harm since they are known all over the country. That is the difficulty, not the raising of the height which has, for the present at all events, kept recruits from joining the Colours. Is there any married man with children in this House who would not take the view that those men take. I have read some of the letters which those wives have addressed to their hnsbands, heart-breaking letters, in which they have said, "What are we to do; we are left without any means?" I venture to say if it had not been for the action of the executive committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund you would not only have had grave trouble among those who have recruited for the Army but your recruiting would have stopped altogether weeks ago. They meet in the course of an hour and a-half, and I believe they will find that we shall have expended up to date something like from £800,000 to £900,000 in connection with sailors and soldiers. And how has that money gone? It has gone in advancing money due from the War Office to the people whom they have recruited. I am not going to deal now with the amount of the allowance, because the Prime Minister made a statement on that subject yesterday, and he was good enough to announce that he had decided to give a day for the general discussion when we can open up all that question. I am only going to indicate in very general terms what have been the difficulties, in order that the Prime Minister may, if it so pleases him, bring immediate pressure on that Department to relieve us from the difficulty under which we now are, whatever may be the final settlement.
  When the Prime Minister made his statement yesterday I ventured to say that whatever the decision of the Government might be as to allowances, and whatever scale they might adopt, or whatever plan they might decide upon, it was all useless so long as the channel through which those funds passed to their recipients were hopelessly blocked as they are at the present moment. To promise a particular amount of pay is easy enough, and here may I say that I wish with all my heart before we had reached this stage that a Committee of some kind had been appointed to advise

  59
  the War Office and to help them out of the difficulty. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle spoke of the fact, and it is an undoubted one, that you have in your New Army a great many men who have been earning in civil life wages and salaries amounting to three, or four, or £5 per week. Let the House remember those salaries did not come to an end as a result of the War; they were in the great majority of cases solid places which those men could have kept and which they voluntarily surrendered in order to go to the Colours. What is the natural consequences of a salary like that? First of all, it is that a man earning such a salary will give his wife and children a better kind of home than otherwise he could have provided for them. All honour to the man. The money has not gone in luxuries or amusements, but he has deliberately decided to pay a rent for a home for his wife and children which he could not possibly have afforded to pay if he had not earned those big wages. What happens? Unless you can invoke the aid of some charitable organisation there is no possibility of that man being able to keep that home for his wife and children whilst he is away, the home that he has provided for them up to that time.
  In many of those cases those homes are now being given up. [An HON MEMBER expressed dissent.] It is idle to deny it. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me, I think he does so from a misapprehension. It is not the fault of the Government, and I doubt very much whether it could be prevented, but in many cases, I repeat, those homes are being given up. I think this House sympathises with the wives who are called upon to change their homes because their husbands have gone to the War. I know that what the Prime Minister said yesterday is absolutely true, that it passes the wit of man to invent a scale which is going to mete out equal justice to all those men who were earning different wages beforehand. The War Office have made a serious mistake in this matter, and I am going to tell the House why, in my judgment. The War Office made this first serious blunder, and I wish it had not been so. The War Office proceeded solely from what I may call the military point of view. Everybody who knows anything of civil and military employment knows that the man who lawfully rises to the higher ranks in the Army is very often not the man who has the gifts
  60
  which make him the better workman in civil employment. The man who is gifted as a soldier with the power of command and a facility of drilling is very often not the man who in civil employment earns the higher wages. I can point out to hon. Gentlemen a case arising close to the neighbourhood where I live.
  You have at this moment living in a village there a woman, the wife of a man whose wages were £4 per week, and who paid £35 per year rent for his house. You have side by side a labourer whose income was probably 22s. or 23s. per week at the very outside. They both joined the Colours, the labourer proves himself the more efficient soldier, and recollect that in the New Army you are raising corporals and sergeants in a few hours and days where it used to take weeks or years. The labourer proves himself the better man and gets his stripes and becomes a sergeant. What is the effect of that under the War Office scale? It is that the wife of the working man whose income had been from 22s. to 23s. per week gets an allowance of 27s. or 28s. per week, while her husband is kept and clothed and lodged in the barracks, and out of his pay has an allowance for himself. That woman is infinitely better off by many, many shillings than she ever was when her husband was at home. In the case of the man next door who was earning £4 per week and who is not so efficient a soldier the allowance his wife gets is from 18s. to 20s. per week.
  The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. LONG: I think it is wrong, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. I agree that you cannot invent a scale which is going to base your actual payments upon other than the man's rank in the Army. That is obvious. The Prime Minister and the other right hon. Gentlemen ask whether there is any way of meeting this. What have we done in dealing with the relief of civil distress in London and throughout the country? We have fixed the amount which is to be paid to the people as what we think the relief they ought to get, and we have given to the local authorities, whose duty it is to do this, a discretionary power to add to this amount certain payments if they think the circumstances of the case necessitate that; or, in other words, that the people

  61
  concerned are living under conditions which demand an extra payment to be made in addition to the 20s.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: You mean the local relief committees, not local bodies.
  Mr. LONG: Yes, of course, but we do not call them relief committees, we call them mayors' committees.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: They are called relief committees.
  Mr. LONG: You may call them what you like, but we who brought them into existence and formally christened them call them local representative committees or mayors' committees, not relief committees, and for very good reasons. Their proper title is local representative committee. Those are the committees which were given this power. It would be quite easy in dealing with this new Army to have exercised a power of this kind in some of those difficulties. The subject is one which has been a matter of most anxious consideration for us, both in the country districts and in London, where we have been sitting on a committee like the Executive Committee. It is not the first time we have approached this. At the very time those figures were issued I held these views, and I hold them still. I do not very much care what your scale is, and whatever your scale is there will be injustices and hardships, but what I ask is whatever payment you are going to make—and I hope and I am sure that it will be as adequate as it can be made—that it shall be promptly paid, and that it shall reach the people who are entitled to it. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle referred to a circular issued by the Home Office and which I never heard of until the hon. Member read it just now. That is no doubt an attempt, as I gather from his speech, to deal with intemperance. The House is probably aware that the committee on which I have been sitting has been violently attacked for making payments to women who were not legally married to their husbands or who have practically no relationship of any kind, or, in other words, that we have authorised women who were common prostitutes to receive the same relief and in the same way as it is given to the wives of men away. We have not done that. What we have done is to take the home and to endeavour to keep the home going where it exists, so that the man may not
  62
  hear that in his absence the home has been, broken up. That is what we have done.
  I am going to ask the House whether in these questions this is the moment to take them in hand, at a moment of war, when the country is plunged in all the horrors of war, and when the wives and children are separated from them, and have no friends to fall back upon and nobody to seek counsel or help from. Is that the moment to say to them "we are going to lecture you upon your conduct and examine into your life and to apply to you tests" which we would not dare to apply to people in a higher class of society? I am the last person, I hope, to say anything in any speech I ever made-here which would seem to me to draw a distinction between class and class, but, on the other hand, I do maintain that you: could not possibly propose, in regard to the middle or upper classes, the course which it is seriously suggested you should take at this precise moment of war. Therefore I deprecate, as much as the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, the attempt to interfere with those people at a time when they want all the help they can get and as little interference as possible in connection with that help. I hope that we shall have at once a statement, which need only be a very brief one, from the Government that those difficulties will be removed. It is no good telling us that in the case of widowhood, for instance, the woman will get twenty-six weeks' separation allowance after the death of her husband unless you are going so to alter your system that, whether it be a payment to the man or an allowance to the woman or a pension to the widow, those payments will be made the moment they are due and to the people concerned. You will not do this unless you entirely alter your War Office machinery. I believe myself that the only plan is to break up the country into much smaller districts than it is now, and to employ additional machinery, probably of a civilians character. Really it is not very difficult. In the country districts it is quite easy. I will undertake to say that in the part of the country where I live—many men, I am happy to say, have gone to the Colours, and there are also many sailors and members of what we now call the Old Army—any one of us who are resident there would be able to see that every woman had her money the day it was due. We did so in my own district, and it was done in a great many others. But what

  63
  did we do it with? We did it out of a fund provided privately in advance, in order that the payments might be made and the people not be called upon to wait until the War Office payments were received.
  That is what we want at the present time with regard to pay and allowances. I am confident that, whatever promises may be made, they cannot be carried into effect unless you alter the machinery and make it of a much wider character. Let the House think of the difficulties with which you are confronted. Your Army was the other day—I do not know how many—I suppose 250,0000—I do not know. You have now got, as the Prime Minister told us, an Army of 1,100,000 in this country to be paid. The difficulty does not end there. The old original Army was enlisted in a totally different way. The men came to the Colours because they elected to join the Army; there was no appeal to them; they were not asked to come, except by a requiting sergeant here or there; there was no general appeal. A man who entered the Army enlisted generally at the age of seventeen or eighteen; he was an unmarried man; he knew, however ignorant he was, that the inevitable consequence of his enlistment would be many interferences with his liberty, and that he would be unable to do many things which he had been able to do before—amongst them that he would be unable to marry unless he had the consent of his commanding officer and certain specified conditions were fulfilled. Therefore when he went to the Colours, he did not take with him the responsibilities and obligations of a married man. That is entirely changed by the appeal made the other day—an appeal in which we all joined.
  Like the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, I went to many recruiting meetings, and I believed that I was only using the language that I was authorised to use by the statements I had heard here when I said, "If you men choose to come forward patriotically to serve your country, the Parliament of England and we, the people of England, whether we are Members of Parliament or not, say to you, that your women and children will be cared and provided for, and will undergo no suffering, much less endure want or poverty." That statement we made broadcast, and
  64
  we believed we made it with authority. Can any man say that that statement has been carried out by the payments made by the War Office?
  We know that the payments have broken down. Why have they broken down? Because of the machinery employed. Previously you had to deal with an Army of 200,000 or 300,000 men, and you tried to pay the men and the allowances to women and children in this case by the same machinery that was sufficient for a number about one-fifth of that with which you have now to deal. Of course, the machinery broke down, and it will break down again. We are at this moment, through the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, paying, and shall go on paying, I am confident, for weeks to come, moneys to these people. And why? Because we believe that the money was subscribed, not merely for the relief of civil distress, but also to aid sailors' and soldiers' wives and families, and we have determined that if we can help it none of these cases shall be left out. Unhappily, although we have paid out £800,000 or £900,000. although we have issued statement after statement in the Press, although we have written all over the country to the local representative committees, and to the local committees of the Sailors' and Soldiers' Families Association, there are to my knowledge to-day—I say it with profound regret—many cases where the women are getting nothing whilst their husbands are with the Colours. The War Office has to realise that it is the best cases which suffer the most. Let me give one case. I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but the matter is so important and so vitally affects recruiting that I believe the House will not feel their time to be wasted even in listening to what I have to say on the subject. I will quote only one case, but it is one case out of hundreds. The first difficulty was that the War Office declined to recognise the wives of men married off the strength.
  The PRIME MINISTERdissented.
  Mr. LONG: I beg pardon. Even the Prime Minister must be cautious about interrupting in that way, because I am speaking of what I know.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The reason I interrupted was that I myself announced in the House that no distinction would be made in those cases.
  Mr. LONG: The Prime Minister is perfectly right, but, if he will permit me to say so, he has forgotten what it was to which I was directing the attention of the House at the moment. It was not the premises or statements made by the Prime Minister or the War Office; it was the machinery by which those promises were to be carried out. It is very easy to get up in this House and promise to do anything. You can promise every man who joins the Colours £100 a year if you like. The question is, are you going to see that the man gets the money or that his representatives get their share? I am talking now not of the promises made, but of the machinery. Will the Financial Secretary to the War Office deny this statement, which I make deliberately, and which, after the Prime Minister's interruption, I imagine the War Office will be prepared to take up. I am prepared to discuss it on the spot, and, if necessary, to give names, including the name of the regiment, and the name of the town. The Prime Minister said that he did not agree that the War Office were unable or declined to deal with women married off the strength.
  Mr. TENNANT: You said that the War Office refused to recognise them.
  Mr. LONG: It is a much better phrase, and is really more accurate. Many of us on these committees heard of cases where women were in dire want. We made inquiries, and found that they were women married off the strength. We naturally asked the War Office for information. They told us they had not got it, and they were quite right. How could they recognise cases when they did not know of the women, and how was the money to be paid to them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a totally different thing.
  Mr. LONG: No, it is not a different thing. The Prime Minister is wrong. I am very sorry that he so interrupts me. I am dealing with the machinery by which the money is paid to these people. I say that these women got no money. The Prime Minister says that this is a different thing. Does he mean that his promise would be sufficient to put bread and meat into the mouths of these women and their children? If not, what does he mean?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to interrupt, but I am anxious that any mis-understanding should be cleared up. What
  66
  I said was that at the beginning of the War I announced on behalf of the Government that no distinction would be made in the case of wives married on or off the strength, and, so far as I know, no distinction ever has been made. There may have been difficulties in machinery in carrying that out. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to charge the War Office with having refused to recognise these cases. I am very anxious that the matter should be cleared up. If there has been any difficulty in such cases, I am sure it has not been because the War Office refused to recognise them. It is due only to difficulties of practical application. I am very anxious to clear the War Office from any suggestion that I had made a promise which they refused to carry out.
  Mr. LONG: If my phrase conveyed that idea, I withdraw it. That was not my intention for a moment. I would not suggest that the Prime Minister did not intend to carry out what he promised, still less that the War Office would depart from what he laid down. What I was trying to point out was that from the beginning the machinery had failed. I will give a case in point. A man married off the strength of the regiment; he had been in the regiment for some time, and probably had been married two years. He went to the front, and his wife was left without relief. I made inquiries through the medium of the War Office. There is no other way in which I could inquire, as the staff of the regiment is abroad. The War Office had not, at that time, and have not now, any machinery by which they could trace the wives of men married off the strength of the regiment. If they had before the War broke out or the moment the promise of the Prime Minister was made intimated to the regimental staff, or such of it as was left in this country, that they were to ascertain the name of every married man and the address of his wife, their machinery would not have been open to the charge I have made. But they did not do it, and their answer was, not that they were not willing, not that they did not desire to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister, but that they had not the information. Your promises may be as full as you like, but if you have not the machinery to give effect to them you will have the results which we all deplore to-day. That is why I say that if you give more liberal allowances than you have given hitherto, unless, you entirely alter the machinery,

  67
  you will have the same difficulty. I do not know whether it is true, but I am told that in some cases the attestation papers have been lost.
  There is only one way in which you can deal with the matter, and that is by some civilian assistance on the spot where the wives are known. The local people know them. I have no doubt that there are officials of the local authorities who could act for you. There would be obvious objections to employing the relieving officer, but there are other people whom you could employ. If you object to employ them, there is not a single locality in which, if you invoked the aid of local people, you will not be able to get the assistance you require and obtain complete lists within a week. The moment you have those lists, whatever your separation allowance is, you can go to the people concerned and this grievance will disappear. I assure the Prime Minister that I have not raised this matter from any desire to bring charges or to attack him: that is the last thing I would do. God knows that I realise anybody who has been a member of a Government which has had to conduct a war can realise in some degree the terrible burden which rests upon the Prime Minister to-day, and I would be the last to add to that burden or to do anything that would weaken rather than strengthen his hands. But I am satisfied that we cannot get the men we want unless we at once remove this difficulty of adequate provision for those they leave behind. Most unmarried men in many districts have gone, and if more men are to be enrolled you will have to have more and more married men. It will have to be made perfectly clear that you are going to make adequate allowances; that your machinery is such that those concerned will be able to get what they want without any delay, or without any practical difficulty. Then I believe the patriotism of our people will enable them, will induce them, to answer your call as before, and you will get as many recruits as you want—whatever that number may be. Unless, however, you remove the difficulty you cannot blame men saying: "Before I join I must know what will be the fate of the women and children I leave behind."
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complained that no answer was immediately given to the speech of my hon.
  68
  Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson). The reason is that a large part of that speech—and, indeed, a large part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself—was concerned with the amount of provision made—a subject for which a day next week is to be given and for the consideration of which there is a Committee to be appointed. I do not therefore propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman on points of that character which he raised in the course of his speech. The main gravamen of his charge, so far as it concerns us this afternoon, was, I think, in regard to the machinery which the War Office has employed, and the alleged delay that has been taking place in the payment of the separation allowance. Before I proceed to that there is one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle to which I shall just make reference, as there may not be another opportunity to deal with the subject—that of deductions from the pay of the private soldier. The hon. Gentleman drew a picture which I confess appeared to be of very serious import, showing that, when the full tale was told, nothing but a very few pence was left in the pocket of the man.
  I was astonished to notice that apparently the answer made in the White Paper had entirely escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman, that any deduction in respect of children was no longer a liability on the soldier, but one which the State has undertaken. That means that, so far as the family of the soldier is concerned, no man can have more than 6d. taken away from his pay. With regard to the 6d. that remains—the 6d. I mean in respect to the wife—I would like to point out to the House a consideration to which hardly any attention has been paid in the course of these controversies; that is that in law a man is liable to maintain his wife. If we did not make the deduction from the pay there-would only have to be the far more cumbrous process of a magisterial order to secure, by process of the Court, at a greater expenditure and waste of time and delay, the same result. In addition, we have, where the wife's means were sufficient without allotment from the husband, provided means whereby the husband and wife can agree that allotments by the husband need not be made. In many cases, where the husband is still compelled to make an allotment, it is merely to pay

  69
  his wife money which by a far more cumbrous process he would be required to pay by the law which governs every citizen.
  I pass now to what has been the main subject of this discussion—the amount of delay that has taken place in the payment of separation allowance. I must confess, although I certainly would not impute to the right hon. Gentleman any intention of making an unfair and partisan attack, that it did appear to me, and I hope it will appear to the House by the time I have finished, that he has given a very onesided and partial presentment of the case. It is very important in such a case as this to know the date of the grievances which are brought forward. I think a large part of the criticisms which have been made, both by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle and by the right hon. Gentleman, might have been true a month ago, or even three weeks ago, but really do not hold good at the present time.
  Mr. LONG: One case which I quoted was dated yesterday or the day before.
  Mr. HENDERSON: On a point of Order, I quoted from a letter dated 7th November.
  Mr. BAKER: It is quite true that the hon. Member quoted one case—
  Mr. HENDERSON: And I could give dozens.
  Mr. BAKER: But we are dealing with half a million of them. And so far as we know at the War Office there are no arrears. I am confident that hon. Members will corroborate me when I say that every case which they have sent to the War Office has been remedied with the least possible delay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: I wrote a letter about three cases fourteen or fifteen days' ago, and I have not yet even had an acknowledgment of that letter—
  Mr. HOGGE: There are a lot more cases.
  Mr. BAKER: And I shall be very much surprised to find that the cases sent in are not now having the money sent to them.
  Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman has charged me with a partial and party attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Well, partial and unfair attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Then he misquotes
  70
  me. Is the hon. Gentleman dealing with the pay or the allowances? Is it the pay or the allowances of dependants that he is dealing with when he says that the grievances have all been removed?
  Mr. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that I never suggested—I should be very sorry indeed to suggest it—that he made a party and unfair attack. What I said was that his account was partial and one-sided. I was referring to the separation allowances when I said that his complaint in regard to arrears was rather out of date, and for reasons which I will give. The right hon. Gentleman said that the channels had been hopelessly blocked, and that it was entirely due to the faulty machinery employed by the War Office.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Hear, hear.
  Mr. BAKER: Let me describe to the House what the situation was. As the Prime Minister reminded the House, the announcement was made that wives off the strength were to be included in those eligible for separation allowances. In peace time 1,100 women receive separation allowance. At this moment there are half a million. If no new decision had been taken there would have been 100,000 in a time of war. Suddenly there was thrown upon the resources of the War Office by the very wise and generous decision which the Prime Minister came to the task of dealing with a number magnified by that amount. To avoid any delay at all, and in order to deal efficiently with these numbers, we told the paymasters that they were to act on prima facie, evidence and pay at once, and we would verify afterwards. That, I think, disposes at any rate of part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that we had not taken any steps at all to meet the emergency. We then, of course, had to discover who these women were who had married off the strength. We had to ask the units to furnish the necessary rolls. The units were invited to furnish these rolls. It is not a matter for blame to them, but they sent in lists, imperfect in some cases, and there was no list but what, through no fault of those concerned, there was not considerable difficulty in compiling. Remember that the colonel commanding the regiment had not the slightest knowledge as to who these women were. Being unrecognised they were unknown to the people who knew quite well those of

  71
  recognised status who had married on the strength. This all put a sudden and enormous strain and burden on the Pay Office. In order to meet it, extra staffs had to be engaged, and we increased the establishment actually and literally tenfold. The increase in the number of staffs did not meet the whole difficulty, because we could not possibly find increased numbers who had the necessary training in this special kind of work. No doubt those concerned have suffered very considerably indeed from the fact that the new men taken on had to learn their work before they were able to deal with the subjects with the speed and skill of the old staff. Then, of course, there were certain changes—and proper changes—made for the benefit of the women which all threw largely increased work on these untrained staffs which had suddenly to cope with the situation. The rates were increased, weekly payments were introduced, instead of monthly; all changes, I think, which were pressed upon the War Office by this House, and which were widely approved by the country: all these meant considerably more work for the staff of officials who had to cope with this business.
  So far as the War Office is concerned, I think that even if the civilian machinery for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked had been brought to bear upon the problem, it would still have been found inadequate to clear up all the cases. The fault did not really lie in the machinery or in the War Office. It lay in no want of energy, so far as I can discover, no lack of foresight that I am prepared to admit on the part of the War Office officials, but was owing to unalterable circumstances of the case, and largely because of the enormous variety of human error which, when you are dealing with a difficult situation, is possible, not merely in our own officials, but amongst the men and the women themselves. I would like to give the House some of the types of cases with which we have had to deal. In a vast number of cases the soldiers had either failed or refused to declare their children. The War Office could not know who the children were; they were bound to rely upon the soldiers' statements. In a large number of other cases, for reasons which I leave the House to conjecture, soldiers have enlisted and deliberately declared themselves to be unmarried. This was perhaps done very often with the object of avoiding the allotment—at any rate it
  72
  was done—and it was impossible for either the recruiting officer or the central organisation to know that the man who had declared himself unmarried was, in fact, married, with very possibly a family at home.
  A vast number of letters have come from women without any address to which the War Office could reply. Letters, again, have come with no reference to the husband, and not showing what his name or his regiment was. Again, women have given wrong addresses, and sometimes marriage and birth certificates have been sent in without any covering letter or any possible means of identification. There have been many causes of error—some in cases where soldiers have had the same name. There was one very extraordinary case in this connection where two women of the same name were living in adjoining streets with husbands in the same regiment: each had one child, and in each case the child was born on the same day. I think it was pardonable on the part of the paymaster to hesitate a moment before he dealt with those cases. The right hon. Gentleman, so far as I can follow that part of his speech, objected rather to the part which the Prince of Wales' Fund had been called upon to play in this matter. We certainly at the War Office had hoped that they would recognise the impossibility of our identifying all these women at once, so that separation allowance could be paid through the ordinary channel, and we had hoped that they would fall in with the scheme of making advances to them, which they would eventually recover from us. That was an essential part of our machinery. It has been carried out in some cases, not in all. If that had been carried out, very few indeed of the unpaid cases which have been brought to light, would have occurred, and a large part of the suffering and hardship which these women are said to have suffered—and which I know they have suffered—would not have taken place. Some branches of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association did in fact adopt that plan, and made advances upon our behalf. Others for some reason did not, and there the proposed machinery did not work with that smoothness which we inferred would come from the arrangements made in the earlier stages of these matters. We were not content with that.
  When we learned from hon. Members the state of affairs, special officials were immediately sent out from the War Office

  73
  to temporary pay offices to deal with the matter, and to take whatever measures they thought necessary immediately without reference to us in order to meet the local difficulty. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his place and I am sure he will corroborate me when I say that on an appeal made by him we did meet him, and the same applies with regard to appeals made by hon. Members from Wales. These hon. Members will corroborate me with regard to the serious difficulties that arose in South Wales partly owing to the number of people of the same name and partly owing to other difficulties. We set up special staffs, in temporary offices, and they have been working night and day to deal with the applicants on the spot. Further, by means of advertisements, and with considerable inconvenience to ourselves, we invited those who had grievances to come to the War Office and to complain upon the spot. I have assured myself, from careful inquiry, that so far as we know centrally in the War Office the quantity of arrears now is very slight. If there are cases within the knowledge of hon. Members, and if they will follow the directions given, and if on writing to the Paymaster a woman fails to establish her claim, they then refer the matter to the War Office I think the arrears will be reduced very considerably.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate from the War Office with the local representative committees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and ask them about the outstanding cases?
  Mr. BAKER: I will do that.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Then you will get an eye-opener.
  Mr. BAKER: There is one class of claim which I would have been willing to pass over. In some districts—not in all—we have to cope with a vast number of claims which in fact were not good, and had to be rejected, and I might mention, in no spirit of levity, another cause of considerable delay, namely, the tendency amongst those kept out of separation allowance to get not only one person, but often as many as eight or ten persons to write to the War Office on the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It enormously increases the amount of work.
  There are other matters I should like to mention before I sit down. There have
  74
  been complaints of various forms of interference with the lives of soldiers' wives and their families. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle made an attack upon the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association—an attack with which I am familiar—which goes very much beyond the truth. It must happen in all voluntary associations that a certain type of inquiry passes into the stage of inquisition. I should not like to let this occasion pass without recording the sincere thanks of the War Office, and of the community at large to the very valuable work done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. Such work cannot be done without a certain small amount of friction, but they have, so far as they have been able, risen to the occasion, and they have, I think, rendered great service. An hon. Member of this House, in control of a very considerable branch of this association, has told me his experience, and that, instead of complaining of inquisition people are much more apt to come and tell their story and ask for information. I do not think that voluntary organisations can even so be altogether satisfactory, and no doubt it is better to have an official organisation. If there are hon. Members who do object to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association, I may say, I think, their official work is now complete, and that all that will be left to them in future will be to investigate cases of necessity that pass beyond those of State allowance. So far as supplementing and aiding the War Office machinery is concerned, their work is done, and done under great difficulties, and I say it deserves our thanks.
  There is one other matter, and that is the question of a certain Police order to which attention has been drawn. All Police orders are objectionable, but I must say I think the hon. Member very much misrepresented this one. As I say, all Police orders are objectionable, and all Police orders, I think, are liable to misrepresentation; and it was with that idea. that long before any public attention was drawn to this matter that order was withdrawn, and its phraseology amended, so as to be entirely free from misconception as to what its purpose was. There was no question of inquisition into the lives of soldiers' wives, or of handing them over to the police. That order was devised by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, simply and solely in the interests of the women themselves. All allowances and pensions are liable to be withdrawn in

  75
  case of gross misconduct, and it was to avoid that that this order was issued and to show that if gross misconduct was likely it would involve this withdrawal, so that the woman might be warned and given a chance to avoid the danger. It was also in the interests of the children to see that they did not suffer by the misapplication of the allowance. I can assure the hon. Member and others who have been alai-med by the supposed purpose of that order that it is most strictly limited to cases in which misconduct has already arisen. There is no power or invitation given to the police to inquire until that is so, and the only object is to prevent cases reaching such a point that the allowance would have to be withdrawn.
  It is not a new device. In the South African War allowances were withdrawn for misconduct, and it is the general principle which applies to allowances and pensions. Of course it might be possible to avoid friction and say "let things take their course" and allow these people to be deprived. It only applies to a small minority of cases. But it was thought better, and I have the authority of my Noble Friend to say that he still considers it better, that for the sake of these women themselves, they should in the last resort, but before they have reached the state of grave misconduct, receive this warning from the police, so that they still have a chance of retaining the allowance.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? He is aware that local representative committees have been asked to provide if possible the names of all the soldiers and sailors who have been getting relief, and in some cases the committees have distinctly refused under this order to give the names.
  Mr. BAKER: I have heard that, but I fail to see how it affects my argument in any way at all. The police would not be in a position to warn these women if they did not know who they were. Supposing a woman is guilty of misconduct, how is a policeman to know if she is receiving an allowance unless she is on the list. I do not see how any great slight is put upon them than is put upon any of us whose addresses are known to the police. At any rate, the purpose of the chief constable was, in asking for that information, to be able to deal with those cases when, and not before, they arose. I have had
  76
  to deal with matters that aroused a certain amount of criticism of the War Office. No doubt anyone who has had a special case of hardship brought to his notice is very apt to visit upon the person whom he conceives to be the offender in that respect a certain amount of natural feeling. But I venture to say, after the explanation I have offered to the House of the problem with which we were faced—a sudden and unforseeable problem—and the various steps we have taken, and the sending of Special Commissioners to deal with these matters, the House will realise that the officials have done their duty as well as they are able, and that the main grievances have been largely met, and will, I hope, in the course of the next few days entirely vanish.
  Mr. J. WARD: There are one or two observations I should like to make. I entirely agree that we should debate this question now when the War is on, rather than later on, when perhaps we should not be so very considerate of the soldier as we are now, when so much depends upon his service. I am not very concerned just now about the pay of the soldier. I know, and have known for many years, in spite of what the Financial Secretary has said, that there are considerable deductions from the soldier's pay whether he makes a return for his wife or not, and that there are always considerable deductions from his pay for one thing or another. It is not the soldier's pay, however, that we are concerned with just now. What is most essential now is that we should secure recruits for the Army, and we can only do that by assuring them that those dependent upon them shall be properly cared for. For the extra men we require now. we must to a large extent rely upon married men who have large or small families as the case may be, and it is most essential, if we are to recruit, and maintain the voluntary system of enlistment—because after all, the way in which we can secure recruits goes to a large extent to decide whether voluntary service can supply us with an Army—and, if we are to preserve the voluntary system, that the men whom we ask now to fight the country's battle in this emergency though they will not concern themselves about their own pay, should at least know that their wives and families are cared for. I suppose we are not discussing the amount of the allotment, and therefore I need not refer to it. But I assure the Under-Secretary

  77
  that if he carries out his suggestion of sending out to the mayors and chairmen of district councils a circular asking for lists that have been verified, and that have up to now recently received absolutely nothing, he will be surprised at the numbers with which he will be supplied.
  5.0 P.M.
  I do not know why it is, but it must be clearly the case that in places like York and Moseley, where I have been round to the different recruiting stations, there is still a good deal to be done. I have not attended a place up to this week where I have not received the offer of a lengthy list of cases of women dependants upon soldiers who are either at the front or preparing for the front, and although their husbands have been enlisted for weeks, they have not yet received any recognition at all. I think that is an unfortunate condition of affairs, and I am sure that is not the intention of the War Office. Nobody disputes the assertions which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Long), and I do not think that he imputed any want of consideration on the part of the War Office or the Government, but what is absolutely essential on this occasion is that the officials at the War Office should not be satisfied with what they have done, because there is still an immense amount of work for them to accomplish before they have solved the problem of distributing these allowances. No doubt there are complaints of inquisitorial inquiries, and I know some cases that would almost make a cat laugh if described, of the questions and inquiries made into what were self-evident cases, and you would never imagine that the inquisition would go to such an extent. But this is not the fault of the War Office. If we thought for one moment that the Financial Secretary, or the Secretary of State for War were really satisfied that they had now got in all the arrears of outstanding cases, we know that they would make one of the biggest mistakes they ever made.
  I would suggest that the Financial Secretary should write to York and ask how many claims from Moseley have not been dealt with up to the beginning of this week. That is one little place where recruiting has gone on splendidly, and yet the number of these cases is very great. I told the mayor that the best thing to do was to send the cases to York, and he
  78
  said that he might as well send them to New York. I know that the officers do not wish to delay these cases at York, and I should imagine that there is not really a sufficient staff at these places to accomplish the work. After all, our people are coming forward splendidly, and they include working people of all classes. Of course, the top and the bottom are better than the middle, and they always are. The fact is, they are the backbone of the State. I feel sure that if a young man within the military age was only certain that his wife would receive an allotment the moment he joined, you would get hundreds and thousands of recruits, and you will not get them until it is made positive that the enlistment of a man means an allotment for his wife and children. The one thing should be as automatic as the other. If a man were to absent himself for twenty-four hours from his duties as a soldier without permission he would be brought before a magistrate. The military authorities have the machinery to do that, but the payment of this money to the wife of a soldier seems to be the only machinery that is missing. I dare say it is true that the War Office have done wonders, and no one disputes that. I do not think there is any part of the House that does not recognise that under the special circumstances the War Office has done magnificently, but there is still a margin to make up which makes all the difference between successful recruiting, and that is the difficulty of the women getting this money. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to lay the position of affairs before his Noble Friend, because I feel sure that he will be able very soon to devise ways and means of solving the problem. There are still arrears that require to be made up. The machinery for this purpose is not in that perfect condition which the official mind imagines, and that is the cause of the delay in recruiting.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not rise to continue the general discussion, but I wish to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, and which I had drawn up before I heard the speech of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that my right hon. Friend is alluding to his Amendment about allowances and matters of that kind. As the Prime Minister has agreed to give a day to discuss those matters, I think it would be much better

  79
  that the discussion should take place then, and that there should be no discussion now. I am sure the Whole House will agree that as my right hon. Friend has put down his Amendment, it would be right that the discussion should be initiated by him. Upon that understanding, I am sure my right hon. Friend will at once waive his right to move this Amendment.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Upon that understanding, I waive my right. I have taken a special interest in this matter, and for a long time I have acted as Chairman of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, dealing with the pensions of widows and orphans.

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS— [SECOND DAY]—(11th November).

    TREATMENT OF ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Address the words,
    "But humbly regrets that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the public danger arising from the presence in the Kingdom of aliens who may be in possible communication with the enemy, and of limited companies consisting almost entirely of alien shareholders."
    Mr. HOGGE: I understand from what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition that the Amendment which is down on the Paper will not be pushed to a Division. If the hon. Member continues the discussion upon this subject of aliens, I would like to know if that will prevent a great number of us raising other questions with regard to the War Office, which have not yet been exhausted? I would like to know if the moving of this Amendment means that we shall be ruled out altogether from discussing other matters?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have the opportunity of raising other matters when this Amendment has been disposed of.
    Mr. HOGGE: How shall we know that the matter is disposed of?
    Mr. SPEAKER: When the Amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not move my Amendment with any hostility to the Germans in our midst. For many years England has been the home of foreigners, but I think they should be the first to
    80
    realise that our first duty is to protect ourselves, and I would rather that irreparable damage should be done to any individual or individuals rather than our country should be placed in danger even for a moment. There are a very large number of aliens registered in this country at the present time. On the 9th September the Home Secretary gave us some figures, and he told us that there were 50,633 alien Germans registered in this country, and 16,014 Austrians. If we were to add 10 per cent. for non-registration up to that date, then we should get a total of over 73,000 alien enemies. I know it is a very difficult matter to say that A or B is a spy, nor could the German or the French say that A or B was a spy before they found him out. I think we are entitled to consider here what happened in the case of France and Belgium. There they have found a complete system of espionage. Soldiers, sailors, policemen, telephonists, tram drivers, professional men of every kind, and men of every class in the working life of France and, Belgium have turned out to be spies. Any officer or soldier who has returned from the front will tell you that those countries have been infested with spies. Now England is a greater enemy to Germany than either France or Belgium. The enmity of Germany is more directed against us at the present time and has been for some years past, than against Belgium or France.
    On the other hand, England has been the easiest country to enter, and therefore it is fair to assume that as we are considered the greatest enemy of Germany and as ours is the easiest country to enter, we have a larger number of spies than either Belgium or France. You may say that this does not matter unless Germany invades us, but we must prepare for eventualities. Personally, I am not one of those who think that we shall be invaded, but we must prepare for eventualities. If there is no possibility of invasion, why is the Government providing against it? Why are trenches, wire entanglements and other reasonable precautions which sane men would take to protect us being prepared by our military advisers? I think those who are responsible for dealing with the spy question should take the same steps to protect the country against the possibility of trouble from spies as the military authorities are doing. I do not think I could do better than read to the House a quotation from the speech

    81
    made in another place by the Earl of Crawford, who gave case after case of spying which occurred in one part of England.
    Mr. HOGGE: Not in England?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am dealing with the whole country, and England is a shorter term than Great Britain and Ireland.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is not right.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Noble Lord gave instances in a country which is as dear to me as it is to the hon. Member opposite who interrupts me, and I am just as much concerned to see that there are no spies on the East Coast of Scotland as upon the East Coast of England. Those facts were given by Lord Crawford, and I am bound to say that the Lord Chancellor in dealing with that speech last night dealt with it, if not in a tone of levity, at least in a tone of indifference which I trust the Home Secretary will not adopt to-night. It is a very remarkable fact that our alien friends seemed to inhabit not the great industrial centres of our country, but mostly the, agricultural counties. I have a return here, not of Germans who are registered to-day, but of Germans who were registered in the Census returns three years ago, and it shows a very small proportion of people registered then as Germans compared with the number of Germans we now find to be in the country. I think I am right in saying that in England and Wales alone there were only about 13,800 as given in the Census returns, whereas now we know that there are something like 56,000. Of that number an enormous proportion were in Kent, Sussex, Essex particularly, and Yorkshire—all those counties along the East Coast of England. Hon. Members may laugh, but why did those men go and settle there, unless it was with some intention of being useful to their own friends if and when the day came, possibly even of an invasion of Great Britain. The Home Secretary has always been an optimist. He dealt with this matter last Session in the most optimistic spirit. He told us that nobody had been shot.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Are you complaining of that?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I am not complaining of the fact that nobody has been shot, but I am complaining that no
    82
    body has been caught who ought to have been shot. That, perhaps, is a different matter. I am quite prepared to say that I believe there are, and that there have been all the time the right hon. Gentleman has been making those optimistic speeches, men who for the interests of the country would have been very much better shot than left where they were. I say that without the slightest hesitation.
    Mr. McKENNA: Can the hon. Gentleman give me the names of any of these people?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, I cannot. Could the French Government, before the War began, have given the names of all the people they have had to shoot since? Of course, they could not have done! It was when the War began, that France and Belgium found that there were people in their midst whom it would have been very much better if they had shot before the War began. Of course, I cannot give the names, but everybody knows that there are spies in our midst, and it is futile for the right hon. Gentleman to make these optimistic speeches. He did not know when he made that speech of Lieutenant Lody. I will give his name as one who might have been shot. I should like incidentally to ask why the execution of that spy was kept secret for five days?
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: For military reasons.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There were no military reasons at all. If a spy is convicted, and rightly convicted and executed by the laws of our land, there is no reason why it should be kept secret. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants to know, that there are two more spies going to be tried by court-martial before many days are over. Let him contradict that if he can! He cannot contradict it. I cannot give him the names, but I will ask him whether it is not a fact. The Prime Minister himself has admitted, not once but twice, that there has been for years an organised system of espionage in England. Many men have been known and have been shadowed not for months, but for years. All the known ones were locked up when the War began. Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to believe that there were no unknown spies?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I never suggested that.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am suggesting that as there were spies known, shadowed, and locked up, so there are bound to be a large number who were not known, who were not shadowed, and who were not locked up. The Home Office has not merely been optimistic but also vacillating. Under the Aliens Restriction Order aliens were not permitted to move 5 miles without a permit, and then they could only move under that Order for 24 hours unless they got a special permit, in which case they could go for four days, but they were required to report themselves day by day wherever they went. I should like to know how many permits of that nature have been given, and in how many cases the conditions with regard to reporting day by day have been complied with. The information I have been able to obtain from special constables—I do not mean the rank and file of special constables, but men higher up in the service of the special constabulary—is that the Order is very rarely complied with by those who have got a four days' permit. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman particularly with regard to one case of a gentleman who has been reported to the Government as a spy. I have a letter in my possession dealing with this case. It is from a sub-commandant of the special constabulary in the South-Western District of London. I declined to use it until I had seen the gentleman, and I not only saw him, but I also saw the head commandant of the district himself about it, and they fully confirmed what is in this letter with regard to this gentleman. He is a German, a director or agent of Krupp's, and his brother is a well-known German statesman. Six months ago he went round with Krupp's representative to all our shipyards and arsenals. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that Herr Krupp came over and this gentleman went round with him to our shipyards and arsenals. He was here during the South African War, and he was then suspected of being a spy. He was reported upon as a spy and his house searched, but, as the statement says, he was too clever to be caught. He is now on parole, and he frequently comes into the police station with a smile for a permit. The police in the division openly say that they can do nothing.
    Mr. McKENNA: What is the district?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will give the right hon. Gentleman his name, the names
    84
    particulars. The police say that they can do nothing as they think he is protected in high quarters. I do not want to put it higher than that, but that is the information which comes to me. That gentleman was arrested earlier in the War, and he was then let out after three days' incarceration. He is a German and admittedly a man who is in touch with German statesmen and with Krupp's firm. I venture to suggest, however estimable and good he may be, that it would be far better that he should be under lock and key than living in the South West of London. Amongst the right hon. Gentleman's special constables were two young men with names so German that I should have thought any policeman would have been suspicious of them when they came to be enrolled. They were sons of the London agent of Krupp's. Word came to me about them, and I communicated to the head department. I am bound to confess that inquiries were made, and, the statement I made with regard to them being found to be true, they were removed from the list of special constables. It ought not, however, to be left to a private Member of this House to turn two young Germans off the list of special constables. I do not want to brand their names in public. They may be estimable, but they were sons of the agent of Krupp's, and one of them was engaged in the business itself. Obviously, they clearly ought not to have been allowed to be enrolled among our own special constables. During the first five weeks of the War 1,680 aliens were arrested. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Fred Hall) and myself began to ask questions, and quite coincidently there was some agitation in the Press. The result was—I am giving the right hon. Gentleman's own figures which he gave me before the House rose—that within the next week 1,001 aliens were arrested, or three times as many as he had arrested in any previous week.
    Mr. McKENNA: Would the hon. Gentleman give the date of the Order on which they were arrested?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I am afraid I cannot do that.
    Mr. McKENNA: 7th September. The hon. Gentleman's agitation in this House was on 9th September.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I asked the right hon. Gentleman how many aliens had been interned up to 8th September

    85
    and how many during the following week. The figures were, 1,680 for the first five weeks, and 1,001—they are the right hon. Gentleman's own figures—during the next week. I was saying it was coincidently not merely with the questions I asked in the House and the agitation in the public Press, but also with the Order he issued. I venture to suggest the coincidence is clear. He issued the Order because of the agitation outside. When the agitation died down the right hon. Gentleman also died down, or, at all events, his activities died down, and when the agitation arose again a month ago with regard to those unfortunate waiters all over London, the right hon. Gentleman sprang up again and men were taken right and left. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to rise and fall in accordance with the barometer of agitation outside. He is responsible for the safety of the realm. Either these men should have been put under lock and key or they should not; but the Home Secretary is the official responsible, and he should not blow hot one day and cold the next day. That is what I suggest to the House he has been doing, largely in consequence of newspaper agitation. What is going to be done with them? The Prime Minister said they would be passed through a sieve of inquiry. What is going to be done with them afterwards? Are they going to be let out again, embittered, as undoubtedly they will be embittered, by having been incarcerated? It would be far better that some arrangement should be made by which they should be sent back to Germany. We have here some 70,000 enemy aliens. Are we going to keep all those at our expense for one year, eighteen months, two years, or as long as the War lasts? It would be very much better, although some of them may be of military age—I would give Germany the benefit of that—that they should be sent freely into their own country, rather than they should be incarcerated here behind wire entanglements or in any other way at the expense of this country.
    There is one other question with regard to the East Coast. There is widespread anxiety with regard to spying on the East Coast. There is widespread anxiety with regard to the naval disasters we have had on the East Coast. There is a widespread feeling that signals have been given from the East Coast to the German Navy by which disasters have taken place. How about the loss of those three cruisers? There is a widespread belief that there were signals either by wireless or somehow
    86
    that enabled the submarine to get in, and that there were also some means by which the mine chart off the East Coast was known to the German flotilla that came over to Yarmouth ten days ago. How was it they could get over so easily? The right hon. Gentleman will not believe anything of the kind. He may say that I am spy mad, but he is spy mad in the other direction. He will not believe that what has been done in every village in Belgium and France may be done in this country. The Noble Lord in the other House last night vouched, for instance, of signalling taking place on the East Coast of Scotland by flash signals and otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman does not get up and deny that.
    Mr. McKENNA: Is not that a matter for the Scottish Office?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Scottish Office is represented in this House, and no doubt is acquainted with the Noble Lord's speech; let its representative get up and deny the statement in that speech if he can. No denial was attempted in the other House last night.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): No case has been brought to our notice of any suspicion of that kind which has not been promptly investigated.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: My point is this: The Government seem to think the authorities who are responsible for the safety of the realm are those who sit on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] What did the right hon. Gentleman say? That every case which had been brought to his notice had been investigated. Is the safety of the realm dependent on somebody bringing cases to his notice?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member must be reasonable and fair. I did not say no case had been investigated that was not brought by him and his Friends to my notice. That is a very different thing. But I would rather leave this matter to the reply which is to be made to the Amendment. The hon. Member does not seem to understand where the responsibility really lies.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that any cases had been investigated, and neither did the Lord Chancellor in the other House last night. I am not making an attack, and

    87
    I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division. I am making my statement in order to relieve the anxiety of the public mind, and to enable right hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell us what they are doing in regard to this question. If they have been investigating a large number of cases on the East Coast of Scotland, let them say so. If the Home Secretary has investigated any such cases, let him say so. We have not known what has been done in this direction. I want to ask with regard to the regulations relating to the right hon. Gentleman's last roundup in London. Is it the fact that he issued a regulation that no more than 200 were to be rounded up in any police district, and that no German minister of religion, or German doctor, or anybody who employed English labour, was to be arrested? Does it not seem likely—indeed I am certain—that any German who intended to act as a spy would be sure to cover himself by employing in some business or other, two or three English labourers, because he would then be less likely to be suspected. I am told—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the order was that no German doctors—and these are men who are most likely to be in a position to get information—no German minister of religion, and no German employing English labour was to be arrested under the right hon. Gentleman's Order. Finally, I want to ask him why the sentences that have been passed on those men who have contravened the Defence of the Realm Act have been so extraordinarily light.
    Mr. McKENNA. That is not for me to say.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know the right hon. Gentleman says it is not for him, but we know the power he possesses in moulding the opinions of magistrates.
    Mr. McKENNA: I must repudiate that. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds for saying that any Member of this Government has ever interfered in the slightest way with the exercise of the discretion of the judiciary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Home Office, from time to time, issues circulars to magistrates, and I am quite sure that if he issued a circular to magistrates with regard to the Defence of the Realm Act,
    88
    pointing out the dangers against which that Act was passed, and urging the importance of its being thoroughly and efficiently administered, no one would blame him.
    Mr. McKENNA: That has been done.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad to hear it has been done. There is something else which it is in his power to do. What action does he take in regard to men who have contravened the Act after they have served these absurdly light sentences? Are they allowed to go back and keep their pigeons; are they permitted to go back to the houses full of arms for the keeping of which they have been convicted? Surely when, in these times, a man has been convicted of a definite offence under the Act—an Act which we passed in this House three months ago—the Home Office should take good care, after the sentence has been served, that the offence is not repeated. I should also like to ask—but perhaps somebody else is responsible—as to the action taken in regard to the German spy found on the mine-sweeper in the North Sea? How was it, when the man was discovered, he was not handed over to the naval authorities and tried by court martial, with the possibility of a sentence being pronounced on him much more adequate than the one actually passed by the Civil Court of three months' hard labour? This man was prosecuted for not having registered himself as an alien, and he was given three months' hard labour. If he had been handed over to the naval authorities I venture to suggest that, if he had been convicted of being a spy on a mine-sweeper in the North Sea, he would have received a much more adequate sentence.
    I do not know whether there is now present any representative of the Board of Trade, but I want to say something in regard to trading companies. I see the Solicitor-General in his place. I would suggest that this is a question of equal importance with the other that I have raised. The question is, how far trading companies nominally English, but in reality purely German, are to be allowed to carry on business in this country, in communication as it is quite possible for them to be through neutral countries with their German headquarters. We raised this question a few months ago, and were then promised by the Attorney-General and by the President of the Board of Trade that a statement would be made on the subject.

    89
    I have searched the OFFICIAL REPORT—indeed, I was present at most of the sittings of the House—and, so far as I know, no such statement was made at any time. We had the trading with the Enemy Act, but on the admission of the Attorney-General himself that did not deal with the point I am now raising in regard to alien companies. I mentioned a case which is very well known, a big firm which had contracts with the Admiralty and the War Office, and an enormous proportion of whose share capital is held in Germany, the directors being Germans also. There is another case which has been brought before the Board of Trade and the Treasury Committee. It is the case of a company registered in England, the whole of the shareholders of which are German, every single one of the directors being also German. I see no reason why I should not name the company; it is the Continental Tyre Company. I have myself used Continental tyres in times past. That company is neither more nor less than a branch of a German concern. It is a pure branch. It is registered here because they have taken advantage of the law to register themselves as a limited company, but every single share is held in Germany, and every single director, except one, lives in Germany, while the one who lived in England is now fighting for Germany, having left this country at the outbreak of war.
    This company is pressing its debtors in England so as to get as much money in as possible. I do not say it should not get its money, but I do say that the Board of Trade ought to do, in regard to that company and other companies, what is being done in Germany. It ought to appoint receivers, controllers and managers, as is being done in Germany, where they have a large and elaborate system of receivers and controllers of English companies. That system has been instituted in Germany since the House rose. Why should we not follow their example? We asked the Government to do it; we pleaded to it to do it before the House rose. I do not want to stop British industry for one moment—indeed, I think it much more likely, if English administrators were appointed, that such companies would be able to carry on their businesses and keep their workmen employed. What I do want is to stop the money going to our enemy. Thousands of pounds have been collected by this and other firms. Requests have been made from various parts of the country
    90
    to the Board of Trade for guidance in this matter, and, in reply to one, relating to this very company, the Board of Trade answered:—
    "There is nothing to prevent you from trading with companies, whatever their constitution, duly incorporated in this country."
    If that is so, the sooner we alter the law the better. The sooner we make arrangements to stop these limited companies of German shareholders trading here, and transmitting money to their own country, for the benefit of our enemy, the better it will be. The Treasury Committee wrote to another correspondent in regard to this company, under date 13th October:—
    "There is nothing in the Proclamation to prohibit the payment of any sum properly due by you to any company incorporated and carrying on business in this country, whatever the nationality or residence of its shareholders."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General and the President of the Board of Trade promised that a statement should be made in the House in regard to this matter. It was not made, and I now beg to ask what they are doing in regard to alien companies. I also ask that there should be a system established here of controllership, so that money which has been paid by English debtors to German-owned companies should be prevented being sent abroad to a neutral country for the benefit of our enemy. It is not nice to have to do this thing. But the question is, Are we at war with Germany or are we not? If we are at war, we have to strain every nerve to win. The Prime Minister said, only yesterday, the War must be fought economically as well as by military means. This is one of the economic ways of fighting it, and I venture to suggest to the House we should fight the enemy in this House as well as on the Continent. I want to make one apology to the right hon. Gentleman in case I should have to leave before he replies. Like other hon. Members I have to speak at recruiting meetings, and if I leave the House shortly it will not be through any lack of courtesy on my part, but simply to fulfil my engagement. I beg to move my Amendment.
    Mr. SANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I have one on the Paper which to a certain extent covered the same ground, and I will therefore speak a few words in support of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is not intended, of course, to press it to a Division. I regard this question of trading companies as almost

    91
    as important as the military operations now being conducted in France. Everybody must recognise we are now engaged with an unscrupulous foe who has shown himself devoid of all standards of honour, and who is ready to take advantage of any deception. Hon. Members will remember, no doubt, what was the state of affairs when the War broke out. I was told on good authority that an amount of German Bills had been floated in this country which were, at all events for the time being, quite worthless, but which were sufficient to finance Germany for something like the first five or six weeks of the War! If you are dealing with an enemy capable of doing a thing of that kind are you to suppose he will not try it on again? In my opinion the matter goes a good deal further than has been suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not only a question of dealing with companies which are in reality German, but which appear to be British; it is not only a question of dealing with branches of companies of alien enemies which may transmit money from this country to Germany to be utilised for the purpose, perhaps, of providing ammunition and guns to be used against their countrymen. But it is a much bigger question we have to face, and we must face it boldly. How much of our financial system in this country is controlled at the present moment by alien enemies? It is a tremendous matter which we have to inquire into. I do not intend to go into it in detail at the present moment, because I had an opportunity of speaking with the Attorney-General a few minutes ago, and he informed me that the first business of this House to be taken, at the conclusion of the Debate on the Address, will be a Bill to amend the Proclamation which deals with trading with the enemy. Therefore many of the remarks which I intended to have made upon this occasion I shall certainly not make, because I understand from the Attorney-General that we shall have an opportunity of dealing with this matter fully as soon as the Debate on the Address is disposed of. I shall content myself with saying no more on this occasion, except to formally second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand it to be the expressed intention of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment not to press it to a Division, and that that is intended to convey the meaning that it is not moved in any hostile spirit, but merely to give
    92
    opportunity of discussing the subject which has much disturbed the public mind. I am grateful to them, although if the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this matter will allow me to say so, he greatly exceeded the limits of a wholly impartial statement in the form of some of his observations. What does the hon. Member really complain of? Does he mean to say that we, being at war with Germany, are to treat every individual German in this country now as we should treat an enemy on the battlefield? Does he really mean that?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I never said anything of the kind.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think he does. But the whole tone of his language would convey the idea that every German is to be treated under grave suspicion, that he is to be interned, and that apparently no matter what the evidence may be on his trial, and however much the evidence may satisfy the jury or the magistrate, he is to be given the severest punishment, and if that punishment is not given the Home Secretary is to intervene and tell the magistrates that they are to give a more severe punishment. I must say that if that is the hon. Gentleman's point of view, I join issue with him at once. I am entirely in sympathy with him in saying that our first duty in this War is to win the War, and that we must run no risk which we can avoid. But I will not go so far as he goes on to say, that in endeavouring to avoid risks we are to do injustice. That is where I part company with him, and I am bound to act, and I hope I always shall act upon such evidence as will satisfy a reasonable man, always, as I said at first, taking no risks. The hon. Gentleman, like a great many hon. Members of this House, in his own action in connection with Germans whom he knows, acts upon that principle. The hon. Member knows many Germans. He thinks well of them, he respects them, he thinks them suitable candidates to become British citizens, and he thinks I ought to naturalise them at the present time.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The case that I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about—[Interruption.] He has challenged me, and perhaps the House will allow me to say this: I wrote to him in August last with regard to a German who had been carrying on big works and employing a large amount of labour in my district, and I submitted that it was a suitable case for

    93
    naturalisation. I believe I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with me and granted naturalisation papers. That was the case of Mr. Poppe. There was another case of Mr. Palm, who married an English lady and had applied for leave to go to America. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and said that I thought it was a case where he might be given leave. That coincides with the expression of my opinion. I think it would have been better if large numbers of these aliens were allowed to leave the country—a very large number. I say at once that I do know Germans, many of them. I respect them, many of them. If they want to go to neutral countries, by all means I would let them go.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman must not suppose that I referred to these cases by way of reproach. On the contrary, I only did it to remind the hon. Gentleman that in the case of Germans whom he knows he does not apply the principles of his speech. One of his points in the course of his speech was that a man because he employs labour is more likely to be a spy, and that that is exactly what a spy would do in order to avert suspicion. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the names of Mr. Poppe and Mr. Palm. There was a third one quite recently, on 14th September. That was another Mr. Poppe.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of the same firm.
    Mr. McKENNA: There was Mr. Fitz Poppe and Mr. A. L. Poppe. I think the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate in saying that certificates have been granted. Papers may have been sent, but a certificate has not been granted so far as I am aware. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he knows Germans, that he has known them for years, that they have married English wives, brought up their children as English children, and associated themselves with English social life in every respect, and that it is not only cruel but ridiculous to treat them as enemies and as spies. I agree with the hon. Member, and make no reproach against him for sending me three recommendations to naturalise Germans. I begin with that because, throughout the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in every other particular there was hardly a single matter in which I am responsible—hardly a single point. He seems to be quite unaware that the civil authority has no initial responsibility, either in the internment or the release of
    94
    any aliens. It is purely a military matter and the Home Office interned Germans, released Germans, stopped interning them, renewed interning them, ceased again from interning them in accordance with recommendations of the Naval and Military authorities. All my function, when I get that recommendation, is to arrest and hand over the person for internment to the Naval or Military authority. When the hon. Gentleman, therefore, makes a violent attack upon me for my vacillation, and says that on 7th September, anticipating a question from him on 9th September, I issued—
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: You had notice of it.
    Mr. McKENNA: Therefore not I, but my Noble Friend Lord Kitchener had, anticipating the hon. Gentleman's question before 7th September, and in consultation with me, thinking that the time had come when for various reasons, on which I need not enlarge now, that further arrests should be made, and the arrests were made—the hon. Gentleman speaks of that as my succumbing to newspaper pressure. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman and to the House in all fairness to say, Has there ever been a Minister within any of our memories more persistently attacked and abused in the public Press than I have been? I think it is a modest claim to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer?"] My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had the abuse for a longer period, but during the last six weeks or two months I do not suppose there has ever been such a torrent of abuse poured on the head of a single Minister, and not once have I by voice or speech, or letter to the Press, ever remonstrated in the least degree in respect of the charge that I had not interned prisoners, or had ceased to intern prisoners, for I had not the smallest power in the matter. After that I do not think the hon. Gentleman will suppose that the Home Office acted in consequence of public attacks. I tell the hon. Gentleman, speaking for myself for the moment—it may be purely a constitutional matter—that attacks in the Press of that kind, the scurrilous attacks, do not move me in the slightest degree, not the slightest! I have one advantage over the Press in that matter; I do not read them. When I find a newspaper is devoting itself to personal attacks, I have put it on one side. I know

    95
    I have been attacked because of the anonymous letters sent to me, because of the cuttings sent to me, and because of the vast volume of them, but I have not read them beyond a line or two, and have put them on one side at once. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all suffer."] We all suffer.
    Therefore what does the hon. Gentleman suppose are the reasons that have actuated the public authorities, who have a very heavy burden imposed upon them at the present time, quite apart from the interning of Germans? What reasons does the hon. Gentleman consider might possibly have actuated the military or naval authorities or the Home Office in the conduct they have pursued? It was thought in the early days unnecessary to intern more than those people who were suspected. There was no question then of invasion; there was no danger of an outbreak of Germans concentrating together on a sudden invasion causing a panic here. The arrests in the earlier days were limited to suspected persons. Then a number of Germans began to be thrown out of employment, young waiters and others losing their employment, who were likely to be dangerous from the fact that they were starving. We then increased the number of internments on the recommendation of the military authority, and again on the recommendation of the military authority we have arrested, or not arrested, according to the situation as it appeared to the military authorities at the time necessary or unnecessary in the interests of the State. The hon. Gentleman thinks the military authorities are wrong, perhaps, in their opinion as to whether a larger number should be interned or not. He thinks they are wrong.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: All this comes to me as a surprise. I understood that while, of course, suspicious cases were dealt with by the military authorities, it was the Home Office, with the police, who took precautions as to finding who were or were not likely to be suspicious. But as far as I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech now, he has no responsibility at all except to obey military authority.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am very sorry to have been so obscure. I was dealing at the moment with the question of interning all Germans and Austrians. The point I am dealing with is the charge of vacillation against the Home Office, and I think the
    96
    right hon. Gentleman himself made the same point in the course of his speech. We have at some points arrested Germans and Austrians at the military age, and then have ceased to arrest them. Was not that the vacillation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps it was. It all depends upon who the authority is how it is dealt with. So far as I could judge there was no fixed system in what they were doing, and apparently their policy was influenced by public opinion.
    Mr. McKENNA: The conditions do not allow of any fixed system. Unless we say that we will here and now arrest all Germans and Austrians of military age, and keep them interned, we cannot have any fixed system. The military authorities in recommending internment, unless they are to adopt that fixed system, must be guided by the degree of danger. For instance, it is quite obvious that a general internment which might be desirable and even necessary if a hostile invasion were expected would not become urgent or necessary if the invasion were regarded as out of the question for the time being. Or, again, if a Zeppelin raid were anticipated, a class of people might properly be interned who would be perfectly harmless if there was no opportunity of creating a panic. There are considerations of that kind. I conceive, in my humble way, that the military and naval authorities are far and away the best advisers as to what precautions are necessary in safeguarding us either against espionage or against panic. Of course, no one would suggest that the internment of 50,000 or 60,000 Germans and Austrians of all ages and both sexes could be necessary in order to guard against espionage. An examination of the individuals would show that large numbers of them could not be guilty of spying, but it is conceivable that they all might be guilty, in a moment of panic, of rushing together, under the sense that blood was thicker than water, to assist their friends if they were here in London or if they were in the country. It is conceivable that you might intern on a large scale in order to avoid anything of that kind happening, but it is not conceivable that you would intern all Germans and Austrians of all ages and both sexes merely to avoid the possibility of spying.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the principle

    97
    on which certain numbers of aliens were incarcerated and others were not? That is the kind of principle I want to know.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is precisely what I was endeavouring to do. I will begin again. In the early days, under the advice of the military authorities, who alone are responsible—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the point. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that it is for the military authorities to decide when the people should be interned. We all know that recently a great number of Germans and Austrians were interned, and a great many others were not. I want to know the principle on which the selection was made.
    Mr. McKENNA: That is precisely what I am endeavouring to do. I am trying to show the right hon. Gentleman how the numbers grew, and on what principle they were selected. In the early days they were selected on the ground of personal suspicion. I am speaking now of the police who act under my orders in London. Later they were selected on the ground of being out of employment and consequently likely to become dangerous, and because they had no homes, and were starving. Numbers of them were thrown out of employment and it was really a kindness to intern them. They would really have become dangerous for the reason that they were suffering and friendless, and they were interned. When we had disposed of the great mass of them, the military authorities considered that it was not necessary to intern further, and they did not therefore divert from the housing of the recruits, and the other matters which were imposed upon them at the time, such labour and material as would have been necessary to find room for further interned Germans and Austrians. We still continue to intern on suspicion, and numbers of suspected persons were brought to the military authorities every day from all over the country. But we did not go on interning on the general principle of rounding up.
    I come now to last month, when the military situation began to wear a different aspect for a time, and it was then considered that we were getting within measurable distance of when it might be necessary, owing to the possibility of a Zeppelin raid in force, to intern a much greater number. Again, acting upon the recommendations and at the wish of the military authorities, we arrested more, but that step was not pro
    98
    ceded with because we found it was not considered necessary, as developments grew, to go on with it, and consequently the military authorities once more declined to devote the energies and the housing accommodation which could be given to recruits to German prisoners. It was no longer considered necessary in the circumstances.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly the Statute or regulations under which these Germans and Austrians were arrested and kept in captivity?
    Mr. McKENNA: The detention in custody of the subjects of an enemy State is a power which is exercised by all States in case of war, the right of the military authorities to hold them as prisoners of war never having been denied. It does not depend upon Statute at all. It is a prerogative. In modern times it has generally been held that this right applies only (1) to active or reserve officers of the hostile country, and (2) to all persons whose presence or conduct appear dangerous to the safety of the country. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Manual of Military Law, page 236, paragraphs 11, 12 and 13. The internment of enemy aliens, therefore, is a military measure, the decision to take this step rests with the military authorities, and when interned they remain in military custody. Their detention in prison is expressly provided under The Hague Rules, No. 5. Manual of Military Law, page 249, paragraph 9:—
    "While detained they are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the army of the State in the power of which they are."
    Mr. BUTCHER: Have any of these gentlemen been arrested and detained under No. 13 of the Consolidated Defence of the Realm Regulations?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, these have not been interned. I think we should have power to arrest and detain them under these powers, but even if they were arrested and interned under these powers they would still be handed over to the naval and military authorities.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Not necessarily.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. The Hague Rules would still apply. I do not know if I have sufficiently answered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The subject is one which should be dealt with rather by the

    99
    naval and military authorities than by me, because in this matter I only act on their instruction in arresting.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: On suspicion?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, on suspicion I act on my own authority in certain cases, but in the general arrest of classes of persons on the ground that they might become dangerous, or are suspected, I act, and that has been the great ground of the charge, only upon the recommendations of the naval and military authorities. Now we come to cases of suspicion, mainly upon the East Coast. We have recently passed two Acts of Parliament, the Aliens Restriction Act, and the Defence of the Realm Act. Under the Aliens Restriction Act we have power to enforce the registration of every enemy alien, and we have placed them under restrictions as to residence and moveability. I am not aware that any complaint has been made as to the administration of that Act. No, as far as I know, the registration of the enemy alien has been quite complete, and such cases where registration has been evaded, as far as I can judge, have been promptly detected, and the delinquents brought before a magistrate. In addition to the registration of aliens this Act provides also for dealing with aliens in prohibited areas. The authority to determine what is a prohibited area is the Home Office, but the Home Office has acted upon the advice of the naval and military authorities in every case. As regards the exercise of the powers under the Aliens Restriction Act, that exercise is exclusively in the hands of the local chief constable. I can neither appoint nor dismiss chief constables outside the Metropolitan area. They are quite independent of me. The duty laid upon me under the Act is to issue to the chief constable the instructions under which they are to work, and there my real powers end. These are the instructions which are issued to chief constables: 1. That they are to exercise the greatest care in the issue of permits. Permits would be permissions given to aliens to remain in prohibited areas. 2. They are to consult the responsible military authorities of the district in any doubtful case. 3. They are to supply full particulars to any enemy alien permitted to reside within a prohibited area to the War Office.
    It has not been brought to my notice that in any case any chief constable has
    100
    disobeyed those instructions. How does the case present itself to me? When the hon. Member tells me that enemy aliens are allowed to reside in prohibited areas on the East Coast, that they are notorious spies, that signalling goes on at night, and that information is conveyed to the enemy, he must be satisfied that the chief constable in the district knows all this, or is ignorant of it and allows it to go on, and that the War Office, to whom the presence of these enemy aliens must have been reported, are indifferent to the fact, and that he and other people who think these events are occurring are more careful of the safety of the country than the chief constable and the military authorities directly concerned. I find it difficult to believe. I can say that I have no individual responsibility in the matter. The Home Office does not come into this transaction at all. What evidence have we got that these malpractices occurred? The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) stated that information was given to the enemy by spies which ended in the sinking of the three cruisers.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to misinterpret what I said. I did not say that. I said it was commonly believed that it was possible that it was done by spies. How can I be made responsible for the individual case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not the slightest desire to misinterpret what the hon. Gentleman has said. I congratulate him on being far more cautious than the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford), who asserted, in regard to these three cruisers, that they were lost on account of information given from this country to the German Admiralty.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I should not have said it if I did not believe it.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is more cautious, and he tells us that it is commonly believed to have been possible. Everything is possible. The Noble Lord goes further and says they were lost—he knows it—by information given to the German Admiralty from this country. The Noble Lord spoke with great feeling of how terrible it was that the sailors were lost, many of whom he knew, and he referred to the sorrow of the wives and families. I thought it was really a terrible charge that anybody had been neglectful of duty, and that, on

    101
    account of the neglect, there are thousands of widows in the country. It is one of the most terrible charges that could be made. The Noble Lord brought that charge against the Home Office.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote my words?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I will. The Noble Lord said:—
    "That is a monstrous thing, and it should be stopped."
    He went on to say that he would invite public meetings all over the country to compel the Home Office to do its duty and prevent such a thing happening again. I have already explained that, so far as the East Coast is concerned, direct responsibility of the Homo Office does not exist. By Act of Parliament it has been placed in the discretion of the military authorities and chief constables. But when this particular point was brought to our attention, I immediately communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I asked him to write to the Noble Lord to let him know what information he had got when he stated that the cruisers were lost through information given from this country to the German Admiralty. It became of the utmost importance that we should prosecute instantly any persons against whom there could be shown to be the slightest foundation of suspicion of having conveyed information so disastrous to our sailors. The Noble Lord's reply was that he had no information.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Read what I said.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord wrote as follows:—
    "In regard to the statement made by me in Aberdeen on 2nd October to which you refer, I am satisfied that it was correct. There were certain aspects of the occurrence of which I spoke which conclusively appeared to me to justify my remarks."
    We invited the Noble Lord again by a further letter to state the aspects of the occurrence which justified him in making the remarks. We asked him to communicate these aspects, and he replied:—
    "I have been so busy since I received your letter that I have not had an opportunity of answering it. The action now taken by the Home Office appears to me to be one in the right direction, as numbers of alien enemies have been arrested without that proof or evidence which up to now has been the means of so many of these dangerous persons being at large."
    If the Noble Lord thinks I was in error in endeavouring to seek information which would justify me in proceeding further
    102
    against all possible spies who gave information to the German Admiralty, and in seeking the information upon which the Noble Lord founded himself when he made the statement that these cruisers were lost through information conveyed by spies—if the hon. Gentleman thinks I am wrong I am sorry for it, but it appeared to me to be my duty to pursue any clue at the time. Letters have been written by Lord Leith of Fyvie of the danger of spies in that quarter of the country. Although it did not come under my jurisdiction at all, I have never failed to write and follow a clue. One case has occupied me in correspondence—I do not know how many letters have been written about it.
    Lord C. BERESFORDmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. McKENNA: That has nothing to do with me. That was the action of the military authorities. I do not really know that much advantage is obtained by following up these particular cases. I have a number of cases which would show the House that infinite care is exercised. In every case of suspicion we have made every possible inquiry, and we have endeavoured to track down any case that comes before us of espionage or wrongdoing. In some cases we succeeded, but in the vast majority of cases we found that there was no evidence upon which we could act. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there were not a large number of spies who were not known, not shadowed, and not locked up. I should have thought myself that the very form of that question necessitates but one answer. How can I say that there is not what I do not know? If spies are not known, how can they be shadowed or locked up? All we can do is to endeavour to discover them, and the only charge that can be fairly put—if any charge is brought against the Home Office—is that the police in London have been neglectful in not following up clues for the detection of spies. Those cases are not brought to my notice. The charge against me is of neglect in Scotland because a young German was on a mine-sweeper. If he was on a mine-sweeper that was a matter under the control of the Admiralty, and it has nothing to do with me if the Admiralty did not court-martial him, or send him to the civil authority. If the Admiralty came to the conclusion that he should not be handed over to the civil authority I am sure they came to that

    103
    conclusion on proper evidence, and that they were right in not handing him over to the civil authority. It is not proper to assume in every case because a man has a German name that necessarily he is a spy.
    There is only one other matter to which I must refer, and that is the charge against me by the hon. Gentleman of making optimistic speeches on this subject. He endeavoured to justify his reference to optimistic speeches by referring to my statement that no spy had been shot. It is usually stated in the Press that I proudly boasted in the House of Commons that no spy had been shot. It is stated that I issued to the public a complacent statement as to what had been done. "Proud boasting" and "complacent statement" are the two stock-in-trade charges made in the Press against me. If the House will allow me, I will state what happened. An hon. Member, at the end of last Session, asked the Prime Minister if any spies had been shot in the United Kingdom since the War began, and, if so, on what authority, and I replied:—
    "The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative, and the second does not arise."
    That was the "proud boast." Any more moderate statement of the case I cannot imagine. Then we come to the "complacent statement" which a Noble Lord referred to in such complimentary terms as giving ground for great public uneasiness. I have never before heard of a mere question of style giving ground of uneasiness. If a statement contained matter giving ground for uneasiness, I could understand the charge, but to say that a statement is complacent in form does not seem to me a sufficient reason. If I were to judge by his outward appearance he struck me, when he was in this House, as being extremely self-sufficient, but those who know him well know what an able and admirable man he is. We should, consequently, be most unwilling to judge by appearances. We ought always to be very careful in judging of persons or documents merely on account of their style. With regard to the style of this particular document, I can speak of it without fear or favour, as I was not the author—we are always more willing perhaps to criticise the report of somebody else's production than of our own—but, of course, I am responsible for its issue.
    104
    I looked to-day at what was described yesterday by the Noble Lord as this complacent document. I read it through to see what was the substance of the charge, and I noticed that at the beginning the document states:—
    "It may be well to state briefly the steps which the Home Office, acting on behalf of the Admiralty and the War Office, has taken to deal with the matter in this country."
    That is the preliminary start of this complacent document, in which we plant all the responsibility for what has been done, not upon the Home Office, but upon the Admiralty and the War Office upon whose behalf we were acting. Then I observe, indeed, that there is a certain degree of eulogy in one part of the document, but it is eulogy not of complacency on the part of the Home Office but of the Intelligence Department created in the War Office—a department which, in my judgment today, deserves the greatest eulogy for its activity before the War in detecting and bringing to boot the spy system which existed in this country. We have not praised ourselves in this document, but we have given—and justly given—to the Intelligence Department of the War Office the eulogy to which they are fairly entitled. I would remind the House that when this statement was issued it was received not with condemnation as a complacent document, but with entire satisfaction by the whole Press. When the document itself was forgotten—and no man who condemns has read it since—and this particular Press wished to revive the spy danger they invented the charge against me that it was complacent, and one after another all the critics have each of them used that same phrase—"complacent document"—though in nine cases out of ten they have never even seen it. In this House, at any rate, we shall have no unfair repetition of these charges. If charges are to be made against the administration of the Home Office for neglect, for supine-ness, or for incapacity, and even by one Noble Lord for treachery, I trust that they will be made giving chapter and verse and the grounds of belief which the hon. Member thinks justify the charge. It is not enough for him to say that he believes the charge, he must give the grounds on which he forms his belief, and he must bring home the responsibility to the Department concerned.
    Mr. BALFOURindicated dissent.
    Mr. McKENNA: Attack the Government by all means if you wish, but if the charge

    105
    is to be brought against the Home Office you must show where the Home Office is concerned. Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with that doctrine?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I disagree profoundly. Rightly or wrongly, there is great suspicion about the spy danger. It is the business of the Government to do their best to prevent that danger being really injurious. It is not the business of the critics of the danger to say which Department is concerned.
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman and I are absolutely at one. It is not the business of the critics to say which Department is responsible, but do not then let them say that the Home Office is responsible. I think that we are entirely agreed on this. Let them say that the Government is responsible.
    Mr. BALFOUR: There is someone responsible.
    Mr. McKENNA: In this House we shall all know which is the Department responsible. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a very simple case: What is the use of attacking me for something done in Scotland? Why say that the Home Office has done this, that, and the other, when if you begin to examine the case you find that it is in relation to something that happened in Scotland? If the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Government is responsible then the responsible Minister will answer. The right hon. Gentleman is too fair not to see the point and not to appreciate that a campaign has been conducted against a particular Department and a particular Minister which may be grossly unfair, and if any Member who has got any complaint to make immediately selects the Home Office, and says that that is the responsible Office though, I am quite willing, as I have said, to bear outside criticism and make no complaint on that score, yet in this House that must not be done. In this House the attack must not be made against a particular Minister unless it is supported by chapter and verse giving the grounds on which the attack is made. I thank the House for having listened to me with such patience.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman began by rather finding fault with my hon. Friend behind me, and saying that although my hon. Friend professed to deal with this subject in a non-controversial way he had not entirely succeeded. I think that I may say, with all
    106
    deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that he, who has more reason as a responsible Minister for avoiding all controversy, has erred to some extent in the same direction. Let me say at the outset with regard to this matter that I consider—and I was very sorry to see the levity with which it was treated in some quarters—that this is one of the most serious criticisms with which the Government has to deal. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was very happy in his reference to my Noble Friend Lord Crawford. He said that style and that sort of thing were no evidence to offer. He says that my Noble Friend—and nothing I think could be more untrue—had the appearance of self-sufficiency. That was not the impression which he made on me. But the real truth is that in a question of this kind the way in which a Minister deals with the subject, the amount of seriousness which he puts into it, and the extent to which he treats it is as a case of tu quoque, all that is in itself evidence of the amount of seriousness which he attaches to the whole question. I did not intend to speak now, but I feel that something ought to be said as to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I said yesterday that this is a very difficult question. Nobody realises it more than I do. But I say also that with the knowledge which we have, the knowledge which, in spite of the limited amount of information which we get from the seat of war, we have of the assistance that has been afforded to Germany in Belgium and France by Germans who were living in those countries before the War, with that knowledge before us surely the man must be absolutely blind who does not realise that there is a probability that the same danger is facing us, and is facing us, from citizens who are dwelling among us.
    I think that the point, on which he dwelt at some length, as to which Member of the Government is responsible, is very trivial. It may be that a particular Minister has been too much referred to in connection with this, but after all the public only refer to one Department and that Department has a great deal to do with it, and to say that they ought to blame the Government and not a Minister for any charge of not fulfilling a particular duty is very trivial. My own feeling I am bound to says is this: I do not say as these newspapers which the right hon. Gentleman never reads are constantly telling us—so he informed us just now—that it is due to

    107
    the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly does give the impression that he does not realise quite adequately the seriousness of this matter and that he had the idea at the outset of the War that because the Government had had traces of organised espionage, to the bottom of which they had got, and they had safely put under lock and key all those who were shown to be guilty, that that covered the whole of the danger.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, that is precisely the charge that is made against me. Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in repeating that charge unless he gives chapter and verse? Can he quote anything which I have said to justify it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I really think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little too critical of a speech of the kind.
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to be unfair to him I hope. Certainly I do not want to. What I said was that the way in which he had dealt with this had given me the impression that he thought that the back of the trouble had been broken when he had got rid of those who were known to be spies before the War broke out. I cannot give proof of that, but that is the impression which I have received.
    Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If that is not so, all the better. I may point out this, and I think that it explains a great deal of the feeling which exists on the other side of the House against taking action in regard to these matters: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Germans who have been living amongst us, men whom he knew and who are not to be treated as espies when we know what good fellows they are. But in my view the better a man is, if he is of German birth, the more likely he is to take risks to help his country when that country is at war with us. I am perfectly certain of this: If he or I had lived in Germany for twenty years of his life and if this war had broken out, not only would our sympathies have been entirely on the side of Britain, but if we thought we could render our country a great service we would be prepared to do things which the Germans would consider dishonourable in order to help our country. That is my view at all events. Take the case
    108
    of the man who was shot the other day as a spy in London. I say nothing about the offence, except that conventionally spying is considered to be a dishonourable business; but that man seemed to me to be really a patriot, who died for his country as much as any soldier who fell on the field. There was no evidence that he was paid for what he was doing; he may have been, or he may not have been; there was no evidence. I say that it is right to shoot spies, and if an Englishman did the same thing it would be right to shoot him. But I say that the fact that a man is a good fellow, and has proved himself to be a good fellow, is no reason why we should not suspect him of injuring us if he has the power to do an injury to us in this War.
    I was nonplussed at first by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because I gathered that he referred to himself as if the Home Office had no responsibility in the matter at all. But take the way in which we are to deal with the question. On what principle are you to act? On one or two principles, or perhaps three, if I may put it in that way. You are only to deal with those in regard to whom you have some ground of suspicion; or you are to intern the whole lot of your alien enemies; or to intern all such alien enemies in particular districts where you think they are likely to have the power of doing damage to this country. Those are the alternatives. Those are intelligible principles, but I cannot see that any of them have been adopted by the Government. Take the case for which the right hon. Gentleman himself is responsible—the case of suspicion. He said that his responsibility is only confined to London, and that it is left to the chief constables in all the other districts. Really, we are at war. The sort of rule applying in ordinary times does not apply now. Some Minister—I do not care who—ought to make it his business to see that all over the country the precautions which the Government think necessary are carried out.
    Mr. McKENNA: The naval and military authorities are responsible over all the proclaimed areas, which cover a great part of the country.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there no Minister?
    Mr. McKENNA: The competent authorities are the naval and military authorities—the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty. They use as their officers, for the purpose of carrying

    109
    out their orders, the local police, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the local police are not under me. Consequently, the Ministers who are responsible are the Naval and Military Ministers.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Again it is not a question of which Minister is responsible. Really, we want to see the thing properly done. What I mean is that, in particular districts, whether in Scotland or the East Coast of England, or wherever they may be, I do not care, the Government have decided that all alien enemies should be removed from a part of the coast where they might give information that would be dangerous to our Fleet. I understand it to be the duty of the chief constable to give to the authorities a list of all the alien enemies. Surely the first thing the Home Secretary, or someone, has got to do, is to see that a complete list is given, and, if the Government think it right, as a general principle, that these alien enemies should be removed from particular districts, it is somebody's duty to see that it is done in every case, and that not one of them is left within the radius.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That is not done; it is not done in Scotland.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is what we complain of.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have the point quite clear. That is the rule. The chief constable has power to make exceptions, but, under our instructions, he is not to make any exception before communicating the fact of the exception to the War Office, and no exception is made without the Secretary of State confirming it before it is allowed.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not an easy thing to get a complete list of all those aliens. How does the right hon. Gentleman know that the chief constable is really giving him the entire list, or has he made arrangements to give assistance, or made arrangements for extra assistance, to see that this is done. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me now that what the Government thought necessary in those prohibited areas has been carried out, and that no alien enemy is there, I am satisfied. If less than that is done, I am not satisfied, and something more ought to be done until we are satisfied. Take another case, and this is the kind of thing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that
    110
    makes me still feel anxiety. I asked him a question with regard to this rounding up. The Government did not adopt the principle, which I say is quite intelligible, of taking all alien enemies in an area which was thought to be dangerous, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman on what principle he did that, and I was amazed by his answer. He said he did it for the good of these German aliens.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not; it is an outrageous misrepresentation.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: State what you did say.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Because he thought there might be some danger in it.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am trying to give as far as I can the exact words.
    An HON. MEMBER: Attack the right man.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Who is the right man? [HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Kitchener!"] No; Lord Kitchener is not concerned in this case: it is more a matter for the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman did say that he took these people up because they were out of employment—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is in London!"]—and that, because they were out of employment they were likely to become dangerous. He went on to say that it was really a kindness to these people who were starving, and that, later on, for other reasons, he did not continue this process, although the reasons he gave still remain.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman did; he said he stopped doing it.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I did not.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman did. I am sorry he thinks I am making a personal attack; I do not mean that. I want to be satisfied that the thing is being dealt with. Take another case. My right hon. Friend behind me said—and the right hon. Gentleman did not contradict it—that the Department for which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, sent out a notice as to particular people who ought to be arrested, and that no men of particular professions were to be included in the list—doctors, ministers, and so on. Is that accurate?
    Mr. McKENNA: That is quite accurate. Under an arrangement between Germany and ourselves all medical men and ministers may leave the country, and, consequently, it is a mutual arrangement that ministers and doctors in this country are not interned here, and British ministers and doctors in Germany are not interned there.
    An HON. MEMBER: That is not true.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If they would leave the country I have nothing to say against it. But when you are arresting people who are likely to be dangerous, and if you adopt what I think to be the correct principle, do you not think that the men who are most likely to be helping their own country are precisely those who are the best educated and the best off? All I wish to impress on the House is—and I hope that what I may say will not increase the panic outside, if there is one, or the animosity, if there be any—that I really think it is more likely to be increased if the public get the impression that there is any lukewarmness on the part of the Government. All I wish to impress on the Government is that every German in this country is almost certain, whether he is naturalised or not, to have his sympathies with his own country, just as I would have them with my country if I were in Germany, and, therefore, for that reason he is suspect, and a tremendous effort should be made to keep a careful watch on every enemy of that kind who by any possibility can do injury to us in the great War in which we are now engaged.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sorry to trouble the House, but as reference has been made to Scotland here and outside, and in many places, and as we all appreciate the extreme importance of the safety of the East Coast of Scotland from a national point of view, I think the House will have to bear with me if I say a few words, which I promise will be as little controversial as possible. I shall not enter into the question which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend, as to the jurisdiction of the various Ministers representing Departments in dealing with this question. I suppose that, strictly speaking, my technical responsibility is very small in this matter; but, as a matter of fact, in dealing with the East Coast of Scotland no technical question has arisen. From beginning to end the naval and military authorities, the police authorities and my Department,
    112
    have worked in most complete and perfect harmony. The military and naval authorities have known that we were ready to give them assistance, even though we have no direct authority. We were able to give assistance through the chief constables, and we were always ready to do it. The one complaint I have to make is that a great many general statements are made, and general conclusions are drawn from those statements which, if they are based upon facts, should have been treated in an entirely different way. I cannot understand for the life of me the state of mind of a man who in a great national emergency has knowledge affecting the safety of the country and writes a letter to the newspapers. What is that man's plain and manifest duty? Not to publish the facts so as to put people on their guard; it is to go to the authorities, the naval or military authorities, or whatever may be the proper authority in the country.
    I have received innumerable letters, and I could not understand for the life of me why a man should write to me a letter full of statements of a general character, evidently based on hearsay; but when he made a specific statement, I found, on its being investigated, that there was nothing in it. We must recognise, the fact that there have been many cases of grave suspicion requiring to be investigated, but which it was found had no basis of fact for them. There is a type of man who the moment somebody tells him that he has a suspicion in some case immediately adds up all the cases he has probably heard of and writes a letter to the "Scotsman" or the "Times," as the case may be. I can give one case, a very suspicious one of signalling. There has been a great deal of signalling on the East Coast, and the police authorities have investigated a great many cases, though sometimes they have not been able to get to the bottom of them. Sometimes, in the most suspicious case, there was a perfectly natural explanation. In one case there was a man with a bicycle working signalling lamps in a somewhat erratic way, and in another case the signal was found to be proceeding from a house. Immediately the military authorities communicated with the police, they surrounded the house, which they found to be empty, and there was no appearance of material for signalling. We came to the conclusion that the signalling was proceeding from another house, and a constable suggested that it might be the reflection from a window. He went to the house and asked

    113
    the woman whether she was up at three o'clock on a particular morning, and she replied that she had been up and that she had been attending to a sick child. It happened that the shutter of the room had a circular aperture and that the light from that passed on to the other window which had been watched, and as the woman passed backward and forward to Kelp her child there were intermittent flashes of light which were very suspicious. There is a type of mind which takes a case of that kind and says it is a case of signalling. What they ought to do is go to the authorities and say, "That is a very suspicious thing; will you investigate it?" I have never known of any case like that where the police have not been most anxious to make investigations. I may say that no specific case has ever been brought up to my notice which I have not investigated. Let me give one case brought up to ray notice. Some people objected to a neighbour of German birth who was naturalised, and who was supposed to be in a position which gave him the opportunity to signal to an enemy at sea. What was the fact in that case? The fact was that the military authorities interned that man. He was suspected of having tampered with telegraph wires, or having tapped the telegraph wires. They took possession of the man, and on inquiry the commander came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the case, and the man was allowed to return to his home. The military authorities were satisfied in that case, but the police authorities were not satisfied, and we were not very well satisfied, and we made representations to the police authority, and he has been removed to a safer place.
    7.0 P.M.
    I want to point out to the House this fact, that wherever you have got a prohibited area the military and naval authorities have power to deport from within that area, not merely a German, not merely a naturalised German, but you or me if we are suspected. That is a power which I do not possess, but which the military and naval authorities do possess, and which gives them complete control over any case of suspicion. I do think that the House may be reassured. I know parts of the East Coast of Scotland fairly well, and I see a number of hon. Members of this House who know it very well indeed. My impression about the East Coast is this, that
    114
    the Scottish people are so keenly patriotic and really so suspicious on these matters that it would be a very dangerous thing for anybody to try and ply the trade of a spy there. I do not think there is very much chance of a spy escaping on the East Coast of Scotland. We are not leaving anything to chance. I never take the view that it is an improbable thing, and should not be investigated. I had very improbable things brought to my notice, and I found, when I investigated them, and had them investigated by the police in Scotland, that I was right in my first impression, that they were improbable, but I never considered that a reason for not investigating them. I think the representatives of the naval and military authorities will agree that they have found us willing to work with them in every possible way, and willing to give them every assistance that we can through our influence, and such power of direction as we have, and it is, of course, rather direction and influence than authority of the police, and that we have never treated lightly any case which was brought before us, and I think, as far as human effort on the part of the police and the military and naval authorities is concerned on the East Coast of Scotland, the country may feel that nothing is being left undone to protect us against any danger of espionage or any other danger from alien enemies.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in cases of this sort there is an enormous amount of panic, and an enormous amount of false information, but that does not relieve the danger. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give us cases in which there was nothing, but there are also cases in which there is a great deal. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary referred to me at the end of his speech. I have nothing whatever to retract off what I said or wrote. I will explain exactly my position. There were three cruisers lost with 1,400 men; they were my own comrades, the men I had the honour to command. I made inquiries and I found out there was a good deal of suspicion, and many proved cases on the East Coast. The aspect of the situation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, was this. There was a three days' gale, and there were no torpedo-boat destroyers to carry out their duties with regard to the cruisers on patrol. That being so, I was perfectly justified in

    115
    saying that the aspect of the situation showed, in my opinion, and though it may have beeen wrong I still stick to my opinion, that there were spies, or that spies' influence had something to do with those cruisers being put down. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] An hon. Gentleman laughs. I have had something to do with the sea in my life, and that is my opinion. I give it for what it is worth. I made a strong speech. I retract nothing of what I said in that speech. The curious thing is that after that speech was delivered, and for which I take no credit whatever, there were thousands of aliens locked up. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary smiles, and possibly what I said or what I did not say had nothing to do with it, but that is a fact. The danger exists, and my point is this: we are at war, and when we are at war circumstances are different from when we are at peace. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, is it a time to ask for evidence when you have an enemy at your back? The cruiser had been put down. Take the case of the ship that was lost yesterday. There was a- Dutch cruiser in there, and probably it was not Dutch at all, but German. Do you want this evidence before you act? It is a most serious thing when we have got our men, not too many of them, laying down their lives for this country that any state of circumstances should occur, or should be allowed to occur, when through having alien enemies in this country you might lose the lives of those men who are fighting for you. That is my point. I do not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with it. But I do ask them to agree with me in this: that war is war, and that the situation is perfectly different in war from what it is in peace.
    The right hon. Gentleman found fault with my letters. I think the House will bear with me when I say that the inference which he drew from my letters was totally different from what the letters conveyed when read. I have nothing whatever to say by way of apology for what I have said. My earnest and honest belief is this: that you should lock up your alien enemies during this war and not persecute them in any way, and not in any way be ungenerous to them. We have the enemy at our rear, and in the country's protection you should use precaution, not persecution. If I had my will, I would feed them very well, but I would lock them up behind barbed wire fences, the
    116
    whole lot of them, and particularly those in high social positions. You are locking up waiters and poor men, probably who have done nothing, or have nothing whatever to do with it. I do not say there may not be some injustice, but the safety of the country is far more necessary than that there should be some little interference with some persons in higher positions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition very truly made two remarks. One was that the good German or the good Englishman always remains a German or an Englishman, whether naturalised or not. If he is worth anything, his sympathy is with his country and you cannot alter it. Those in high positions have more influence than those who are not, and they ought all to be secured. We talk of spies. A spy is supposed to be, in ordinary language, something contemptible. He is the pluckiest man in the world because he goes forward to work which he considers right for his country, and he knows that it is certain death if he is found out. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that a spy here should be shot. I go further, and I say that a spy of our own country when he is caught spying should be shot. You upset a whole plan of campaign, and you lose thousands of your men and officers, no matter how I good your plan may be, if you have a spy who reveals it. Therefore I say that this question is far too serious to make frivolous speeches over, and far too serious for us to pass by without debate. Do not let us be ungenerous; do not let us be vindictive, but do let us look after the officers and men fighting for us in the Navy and who may be absolutely undermined if the spy system goes on without proper supervision, and far more strict supervision than the right hon. Gentleman has put in force up to the present.
    Is it really any use to debate what Department of the State is responsible? I believe I said the Home Office in my speech. If I made a mistake, I wish I had said the Government. I said the authority, and that was what I really said. I do not think I said the Home Office. After all, it is a very fine point, and do let us look at it in a very serious way. I assure the right hon. Gentleman I am not at all wishing to take it up in a controversial way. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman all we want is inquiry, and all we want is to support authority. I am not making a party or personal point of the matter, but I do impress on the House that the thing

    117
    is most serious and that proper steps have not been taken to face this danger yet. I only hope that the authority will take far stronger steps than they are doing at present.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I do not desire to prolong the Debate, but I do think, holding the views that I do with regard to this matter, that I ought to intervene before the discussion closes. There is no party question about the matter. Everyone is anxious, as far as possible, to assist the Government, and more especially in a delicate matter of this kind; but I think it would be wrong to suppose that there is not outside a great deal of strong public opinion about this matter. It may have been largely aided, and perhaps it is, by a certain portion of what I may term an ill-informed Press, but that there is solid ground for anxiety I believe, and before I sit down I hope to justify that statement. I think it is a good thing that this subject was raised to-day. It is good for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and I think it is very chivalrous of him that he has waited until to-day to explain where the responsibility—the real responsibility—in this matter rests. Whatever hard things may be said about the Home Secretary, no one who has been brought into contact with him will deny that we have no more vigorous or better administrator in the Government to-day. That is my experience for a good long time, and therefore I say it is a good thing for him that he has had the opportunity of telling the House and the country that he is in this matter acting, as it were, under the supervision, and at the suggestion, of other Departments. I do not think that that is a good arrangement. I do not think it is right that the Navy and the Army should have complete power in an important matter of this kind. Why? Because they have not the local organisation which is absolutely necessary in order to deal with the matter properly. How can the heads of the Army at the present time give proper attention to matters which, in a sense, must be purely local? Their minds are full of much more important and larger things. In my opinion it would be wrong to trouble the Secretary of State for War, or even the Under-Secretary, in a matter of this kind. I think that, at the very beginning of the War, there ought to have been appointed a central influential Committee, composed
    118
    of representatives of every Department, to have this matter as their special charge throughout the progress of the War.
    There is something approaching chaos in this matter because the responsibility is too much divided. I put it to the Home Secretary whether even now he will not consider the question of appointing a Spies Supervision Committee—some body including representatives of the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Home Office. That would give confidence to the public, because there is no denying the fact that the public are very much alarmed with regard to this matter. I speak especially of the East of Scotland. What the Earl of Crawford said yesterday is not half so strong as what people are saying everywhere, as far as I know, on the East of Scotland. There is a feeling—I think I mentioned this to my right hon. Friend privately—that this spy question is not being managed as it ought to be. I will give one of the reasons for that feeling. Some weeks ago the Germans resident there were compelled to report themselves twice a week. The right hon. Gentleman sent them a letter cancelling that order. Why was that? When the position was getting more extreme, the police throughout Scotland were told that it was no longer necessary for the Germans of these particular parts to report themselves at all. That is very important. It gave the idea to the chief constable that matters were not so serious as he had imagined them to be, and therefore there was not the pressure that there ought to be to deal with the matter.
    Here is another fact. The chief constable had certain people under suspicion. They knew them far better than the military authorities could possibly do. Certain men were sent as prisoners under suspicion to the military headquarters. They were sent by the action of the chief constable, who was convinced that he had grounds for his action. What happened? They came back in two or three days. The military authorities sent them back on the ground that it was not necessary to detain them. In this case the chief constable's opinion in regard to men whom he had watched for years is more important than that of any general or admiral. I argue, therefore, that there is something wrong. There is a clashing of authority, which is not to the benefit of the public. These men were dismissed by the military authorities without a word of explanation. Since then these very men

    119
    have been rearrested and taken back. In the meantime they were free to do exactly as they pleased, not having even to report themselves. It is not surprising that people living on the coast there get alarmed and think that there is not the vigour that there ought to be in the administration of an important matter of this kind.
    I will take another incident. Every town on the East Coast is compelled to put out its lights at a certain hour. It is a great inconvenience, but the people complied with the order gladly. They shaded their lights, and so forth. But until a week ago you had, night after night, a blaze of light which was a guiding star to the shipping community. For weeks and weeks that went on all night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Principally, I believe, supplying oal to neutral countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] At Methyl Docks. Who is the responsible authority that puts private people to this great inconvenience, while, within a few miles, at Methyl, there is this great blaze of light allowed to go on night after night? Private people cannot understand why there is this difference of action. There is, as I say, a clashing of authority. I admit that Methyl Docks have since been dealt with, but so far as the light at night is concerned, no action was taken for some time. It was allowed to go on for weeks after the War started. Further, it will not be denied that petrol has been supplied from the East of Scotland to the enemy's submarines. There is no doubt whatever about that. It will not be denied that petrol has been supplied, or that it is illegal to supply petrol.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Have you any evidence?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Am I not giving evidence? Let the Minister who knows deny what I am saying if it is not true. [Interruption.] I will make no statement that cannot be proved up to the hilt. Everything I have stated up till now is true, as the documents at the Scottish Office will prove. I am not in the habit of making statements that I cannot prove to the hilt. Petrol was supplied from a port on the East of Scotland to a Danish ship, which, there is no doubt, was to supply a submarine. I believe a second supply of petrol was sent. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact. The Customs may have been to blame in that case. All
    120
    the facts go to prove that the public are right in having this anxiety. I will take another case. Months—shall I say two months—after the War started, a German had authority from a representative of the State to carry a camera in the neighbourhood of Rosyth. Day after day he took photographs. He was free, living openly, and had the authority in his pocket. I believe that that has since been stopped. The people know all these things, and they begin to ask whether matters are going as they ought to go.
    When anyone offers suggestions or criticism on matters of this kind, the Government must regard them as willing to be helpful. It is not a pleasant job. The best guided people may make mistakes. There is undoubtedly a desire to assist the Government as far as possible. I am sorry to say it, but I do not believe that all the spies belong to Germany. I do not know whether the Government have any information on that point. The most dangerous and difficult to find are not Germans or Austrians. I believe that I am speaking on behalf of every voter in my Constituency in mentioning their anxiety about this matter. As I have said, I think there ought to have been set up at the commencement of the War a central Board to deal with this matter—a strong Committee representing all the departments concerned in Scotland, Ireland, and England, and until something of that kind is done, I do not believe the public will have complete confidence in reference to this matter.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I desire to corroborate from my own knowledge some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel). I have been in communication with the Scottish Office regarding one of the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman himself referred, and I have to thank the Department for making inquiries, and taking steps in that case. But it was very difficult indeed to get that particular individual removed from the position of great prominence—and very useful prominence for the purposes of spying—which he occupied. Why was that? Because, as I understand, the important and prominent officials in the county who went to the chief constable, and did their best to get him to act in the matter, were told that he really had no competent authority to do so. I see now precisely how that was. The right hon. Gentleman has told

    121
    us that the chief constable has to report to the naval authorities about such matters, and that they, and they alone, are the people who have the authority to act. Therefore the chief constable was quite in his proper province in saying that he did not possess that authority. I want to ask this question: What means or machinery have the naval or military authorities for dealing with these cases when they do act? Are they in a position to intern these people? Have they any means of putting them into some lock-up, prison, or whatever it may be? If they nave not that machinery, it is almost putting a premium on their being very lax in their administration of this particular duty.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They certainly have the machinery. The police have always acted under their authority in dealing with cases of that sort. In the district referred to the military and naval authorities have absolute power to remove any person against whom they have suspicion. In case of a provable offence, the police would have authority to deal with it; but the military authorities need have no provable case against a man. If they consider him dangerous in the neighbourhood, they have full power to remove him.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I quite understood that from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I did not quite understand whether they had any place under their care where they could put them.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Bedford.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: You cannot send everybody to Redford. Redford is pretty full now, I believe.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Then I shall be glad to know that some of these people in East Fife are sent there promptly, because I believe there are still some left who ought to go. We all know that on the East Coast of Scotland this question is giving great uneasiness. We have constant patrolling of the coast. The duties of the Military, the Territorials, and the Yeomanry in this district are very heavy and arduous in connection with the question of spying and signalling generally. There has been signalling observed from the hills, but I do not believe that up to the present they have succeeded in catching anybody. All I have to say is this, that I am sure it has been a surprise to many Members of this
    122
    House to-day to be told that the Secretary for Scotland has no real authority in this matter, and no real responsibility—just as the Home Secretary has said that he has not. For my part I should not have troubled him with the case in question had I known that, but should have gone to the proper quarter. There is no doubt that the local brigadier in that part of the county of Fifeshire in command of the Territorial troops is very very fully occupied with other matters, and I really do not think—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that the responsibility ought to be removed, as it has been, from the civil authorities. It would be a very good thing if it could be restored to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me who is responsible for Aberdeenshire being placed: half of the city in the prohibited area, and the other half in the registered area?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The thing has been done on the advice of the military authorities. The point about Aberdeenshire—which has been put right—was the omission to include Torry. The reason for that was that the Proclamation as originally suggested by the authorities went by counties, and Torry happened to be in a different county from Aberdeenshire. The matter was put right subsequently.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask if it is the case that the military and naval authorities have the power to remove a man and the chief constable has not that power? If that is the case, why is it so?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As a matter of fact the chief constable has the power to deal with anybody suspected of offence. He also acts upon what the military authority says. If they say, "We want this area cleared of Germans of a military age"—or Austrians now—the police act and deal with the matter, as they have authority to do.
    Colonel YATE: Why then did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary put the blame on the military officers?
    Mr. McKENNA: Because the responsibility of saying that particular cases shall be interned or not interned rests with the War Office. If they say that they are to be interned, then all the resources of the police are placed at the disposal of the War Office, in order to effect the arrests.
    Colonel YATE: Then why say that the police—?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member making a speech or asking a question?
    Colonel YATE: Asking a question, Sir.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman must do it at Question time.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would it be in order on this Amendment to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question concerning the granting of licences for private installations of wireless telegraphy?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does it deal with the alien question?
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to add, at the end of the Address, the words:—
    "But humbly regrets that the Gracious Speech contains no reference to the censorship of the Press and the lack of information on matters of public interest of past events supplied to the Press."
    I move the Amendment standing in my name for the purpose of bringing under review what has taken place since the censorship was established. Like my predecessors, I have brought the matter forward in no party spirit, and I do not speak on behalf of the Press so much as on behalf of the public. There are certain questions which I think it is right should be ventilated in this House in the Debate on the Address. I cannot help feeling that there was a considerable amount of irritation at the start. The Press censorship started badly. I do not know how it was. I think there was an undignified quarrel as to whether the Press should go in at the front or at the back door. I will not go into that. But I cannot help thinking that any friction was largely due to the fact that in the Press Censorship Office there were very few persons who understood anything about journalism. With the exception of Sir George Armstrong the Press censorship staff was singularly devoid of experience in matters of journalism. That may seem to be a small thing in the management of a Press censorship, but I am myself convinced that
    124
    matters would have worked very much more smoothly if the Government had incorporated into that staff some men who understood how the papers are worked. In my speech I am not going into any particular instance of things which I do not consider were rightly done I am merely going to touch briefly upon where I think things have failed. But I will here and there mention where I think the Press censorship has failed for want of that knowledge of professional journalism which was so necessary for smooth working. Let me take one case.
    In the issue of news there does not seem to be the slightest consideration given to the Press as to the time of the issue. Last night, for instance, the Press, as a whole, knew of the sinking in the Downs of the "Niger" by a torpedo. I believe they received the news at 11.30 o'clock yesterday morning. The news went to the Censorship Office and was not published till 12.30, midnight. What was the result? In technical language the whole of the morning papers had gone to bed, having finished their mechanical operations preparatory to printing the paper. I should like to know from the Press Censor why that news could not have been given out to the public an hour earlier? It would have been invaluable for the morning papers to have had it an hour before they did. It was given out after midnight, just at that aggravating moment when the whole of the papers had gone to press. It was then, I say, that the Press Censor, in the language of the office, "released" that particular piece of information. There may, of course, have been grave reasons why it should not have been released till then, but it is very difficult for the ordinary public to understand why the present condition of things should be. There have been denunciations of the spy danger; we have heard of cases where this has been rigorously censured. I am glad to note the Press Censor in his place, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman examples of what I am speaking of privately, for in the public interest I do not think it is desirable to relate matters in detail. But the Press has been censured in its denunciations of the spy danger; in its criticism of the transport of the wounded, and of the Paymaster's Department in the delay in paying out money to the wives and dependants of soldiers, and the soldiers themselves; and there has also been the question of foreign policy where it dealt with neutral countries.

    125
    I suspect very much that the Press Censor will hide himself behind the military authorities, exactly as the Home Secretary has stated that he has no authority, or very little, outside what the military and naval authorities allow. I expect that, but I would humbly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as Press Censor it surely is within his own personal jurisdiction to say why these subjects which I have named have really anything to do with the conduct of the war, or would be likely to affect it in any way. The Press censorship is really in danger of becoming an autocratic authority which will stifle all criticism—and nothing surely could be worse for a Government, even whilst carrying on a war, that there should be no criticism of its actions! I am told by one authority in the Lobby that the Press is practically terrorised in a very large number of cases by the Press Censor's Department. I know of news that the newspapers have been frightened to send up to the Press Office, whether it should be censored or not. I could give chapter and verse, and will do so later on, if necessary, and privately. Again, I should like to ask how it is that the French official reports, Governmental reports, are censored over here when they are published all over the world? It cannot help the Germans, yet the official report of the French Government is censored over here for the English newspapers. That also applies to the papers in Rome and Holland. Reports come from these papers. They are published broadcast over the world. Yet when they get here the blue pencil of the Press Censor is put through them. Enormous and inexplicable delay takes place on such an occasion in relation to the news from the Press Censor's office. Why news is held up for such a time is a puzzle! Let me quote a speech that Sir John French made some time in August. Sir John met the remnants of the Sussex Regiment during a halt in the retreat from Mons and he addressed them as follows:
    "I want to tell you how pleased I am with your work on the 29th inst. You cannot realise how valuable it was. In two or three days England will know of it—"
    Mark that!
    "The Empire will know of it, and will ring with your glory. I knew you in South Africa, and knew what you would do, and knew that you would distinguish yourselves. I am proud of you, and hope very soon to be able to give you a rest."
    That is a splendid speech to a very gallant regiment. Sir John French, did not think the report of such doings would help the enemy. That is plain, or he would not
    126
    have said what he did. The Germans have 400 prisoners of this regiment in their hands, and they must have known all about the regiment that had opposed them. Instead of three days—would the House believe it!—it was absolutely two months before England heard of that event. I venture most humbly to submit that by keeping facts like these quiet the Press Censor is doing enormous harm to recruiting. During the last two or three months I have been busy recruiting night after night in the open air, in cinemas, in theatres, and music halls, speaking to the men, and doing all I could. But the dreary lists of dead and wounded, and no accounts of the battles that have taken place, is bad. I am not speaking for one moment of any prognostication of what is likely to take place on the battlefield, but of what has taken place. These events do not receive that intelligent attention at the hands of the Press Department which they ought to receive. Of course, I am not blaming the Censor personally. One knows that it is impossible for him to supervise the office in person. I think the faults are largely due to the fact that his immediate subordinates do not work on a settled plan. Each seems to have a plan of his own, and in some cases they are most arbitrary in the stuff they censor and in the stuff that they leave alone. I have an article in my hand which I do not propose to read out, but I would like to hand it to the hon. Gentleman, and I would like to ask him to point out the reason why the Press Censor in his wisdom has blue pencilled certain sentences.
    Reference has been made to the execution of the spy Lody on Friday last. The news was not allowed to leak out until Wednesday midday, and it is difficult to conceive the reason why the news that Lody had been shot should not have been immediately telegraphed over the Empire. There are a great many spies who never believed we should shoot anybody. The Home Secretary said that up to a certain date no spies had been shot, and I think those spies in the country would be at any rate encouraged between Friday last and Wednesday to think that Lody had not been shot. I should like to have the opinion of the Press Censor, if he thinks fit and is able and willing to give me the information, as to why that particular fact was kept back? Of course I do not pretend that the Press are infallible; the Press have made and will make

    127
    mistakes. The Prime Minister himself made a mistake on one occasion when speaking at Penarth. The Prime Minister, as Chairman of the National Defence Committee, when speaking at Penarth, told us of the arrival of the Indian troops at Marseilles. The notice went over the world from the Press Censor that whatever the Press were to do with the Prime Minister's speech they should please delete the fact that the Indians arrived at Marseilles. I think that was an exercise of power by the Press Bureau over the Prime Minister which was hardly right or necessary. What I hoped and believed was that we should have had a Committee of experienced journalists and war correspondents skilled in war who might have been trusted, I think, to deal with these matters. I cannot imagine William Howard Russell, the "Times" correspondent, or Kingley, or some of these men of the past making mistakes in this direction. If the broad lines were given by the military authorities as to exactly what they wanted known or not wanted known, I am perfectly certain you could have left these skilled men to deal with the Press, instead of these amateurs who are not and cannot be used to the methods of modern journalism. Now and then newspapers send to the Press Bureau and ask as to whether a matter should or should not be known. The general attitude of the Press Bureau seems to be that of the nursery maid who said, "Whatever the baby is doing, tell it not," with the result that the Press has got very much discouraged and run risks they need not run if they had more confidence in the Bureau.
    Finally, I should like to know this: What are the pains and penalties attaching to the disobedience of the orders of the Press Bureau? Vague and varied threats are held over some of the newspapers if they dare do this or that, and I think the Press Censor will acknowledge that without these threats the Press have very loyally done their best under very difficult circumstances, to obey the orders of the Press Censor. I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree that splendid silence was kept whilst our troops were going across from Southampton to the ports upon the French coast at the commencement of this War. It was known to hundreds of people and probably to thousands of people, yet not in a single instance did the British Press give away the secret in any way. I could bring other instances
    128
    where the same loyalty is observed through weeks and months, and the Press Censor must be aware of facts at the present time known to the Press which they can be absolutely relied upon not to disclose. All that makes it all the more important that we should take this opportunity to have some little explanation from the Press Censor as to the way the Press censorship is managed and as to what he thinks of it at the present time. I do assure him that there is a great deal of public annoyance, if I may use the word, with the Press censorship. I cannot feel that the work is done with intelligent sympathy. I do not think the majority of the people in the Press Bureau understand the difficulties which journalism works under, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will pardon me for this very frank criticism of the methods of the Press Department.
    Colonel YATE: I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend and I should especially like to say how entirely I agree with what he has said as to the enormous amount of harm done to recruiting by the reticence caused by the censorship of the Press. Take one case. The records of the deeds and doings of our gallant men and their brave acts are suppressed, and I do hope and pray that the time has now come to put an end to the keeping back of all the details that come home from day to day. I trust that the Censor who is now here present will be able to give us an assurance upon that point, and that greater freedom will be allowed in this respect, and that we shall have full details of the gallant actions done at the front.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I myself cannot help wishing that this Debate might have been conducted under conditions that would have enabled me to give a fuller and more lengthy exposition of the objects and methods of the working of the Press Bureau than the somewhat short Debate raised upon the Gracious Speech from the Throne permits.
    Mr. HOGGE: You never gave us a chance.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Surely it is open to anybody to speak when I have finished, and I think the hon. Member might allow me to continue. The history of the Bureau is not a little useful in considering what are the functions it discharges. I think

    129
    myself it would be well if its functions were fairly defined, if its powers were clearly indicated, and if there were some more general knowledge as to the way in which it works than it is obvious exists at the present moment from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. It has always been my view that the real rule by which this office which I now hold should be guided is the consideration as to whether the matter that it is proposed for publication should be allowed to see the light tested by whether its publication could afford any assistance to the enemy, whether it could unduly depress our people, whether it could disclose movements and operations of our troops, or of our Fleet, or by any other means whatever, directly or indirectly, imperil the national safety. I also think that subject to one limitation, which I will mention in a moment, that this office ought not to stop criticism. In one sense I do not regard this office as a Government office at all, because I think if an office of this description were assumed to be the creature of any Government, bound to act under its direction in stopping any matter that the Government did not want published, that instead of being, as I think it is, an extremely useful and beneficent office it would become a very great danger to the State.
    Therefore criticism of the Government, or of Members of the Government, is not that which I have ever stopped, except where such criticism is of such a character as that it might destroy public confidence in the Government which at this moment is charged with the conduct of the War, or might in any way weaken the confidence of the people in the administration of affairs, or otherwise cause distress or disturbance amongst people in thinking their affairs were in a really serious state. I know that that means the criticism passed must be strictly limited, and within certain limitations that is true, but nothing could better illustrate what I mean than the article put forward by the hon. Member of which he made complaint. This is an article of criticism. It contains I think eighty lines, and out of these eighty lines only eleven have been struck out, and these eleven have been struck out simply because on the face of them it is plain that to allow these eleven lines to go through would enable our enemies, if they desired, to make quotations from English papers in their Press, and to use these as statements of fact with regard to matters now existing.
    130
    It is quite obvious that cannot be permitted. You cannot allow English newspapers to publish matters which could be reproduced in Germany on the authority of the English Press and enable them to be circulated in neutral countries, or in their own country, as statements detrimental to ours.
    The next complaint that I understood the hon. Gentleman to make was a complaint as to the delay that ensued in the publication of news. I say quite frankly my interest is and always has been to expedite, as far as I can, the publication of news at the earliest possible moment, and I say without any fear of contradiction that, as far as my office is concerned, apart from necessary delay that must be occasioned by censorship in transit, which is reduced to the minimum, there is no delay at all, and news is published at the very earliest possible moment. The illustration given was that of the "Nigel." It must be remembered that before any news is to be published with regard to the sinking of any one of our vessels it is absolutely essential it should be confirmed. The object of this office is to prevent the publication of unauthorised news, whether with regard to defeats or victories which would have the most deplorable and lamentable effect upon the community. It has got to be confirmed, and the only source of confirmation is the Admiralty, and a communication is made at once from our Office to the Admiralty immediately news of this kind comes through, and we cannot allow it until the Admiralty says in the circumstances it can be published, and this complaint of us is something for which we have no more responsibility than the hon. Member himself.
    Sir W. BULL: I only pointed out that where five or six newspapers got information that this ship was sunk in the presence of five or six hundred people in the morning, it is not allowed to be published until 12.30 at night—thirteen hours afterwards.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I will give the reason. As far as I can gather, the hon. Member seems to think that if the news is received by four or five newspapers it becomes true. May I point out that we have had news sent into us from every corner of the Kingdom, exact in detail, agreeing in particulars of time and place, recording the complete destruction of our Fleet and

    131
    the annihilation of a number of our capital vessels. If we had acted on the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, we should have published that news to the world, every word of which was a lie. The hon. Member will no doubt recollect the midnight hordes of phantoms dim which wandered through this country from Archangel to France, and then vanished into the mist. It is said that we have struck out denunciations of spy cases. It is no use asking me to defend such a circumstance unless you place the case before me. I am unaware that any denunciations of spy cases have been struck out, or any criticisms of the wounded. As to foreign policy, I have a word to say about that. Whenever a criticism is brought to my knowledge which deals fairly and temperately with any complaint relating to any one of our systems, either naval, military, or civil, it is not struck out. The people who have charge of the Press, and the people who read it, ought to know that what I am saying is true. With regard to foreign policy, I am absolutely amazed that the hon. Member opposite should think-that foreign policy is a matter, the discussion of which is not to be subject to censorship. Can the hon. Member be aware that time and again during these disputes articles have been published by papers without our authority which have grievously impaired our foreign relations with neutral Powers, and rendered most difficult the delicate task which has to be discharged by the Foreign Secretary.
    I wonder sometimes whether the hon. Member has the faintest realisation of the fact that we are at war, and that what we have to do is to strive by all the means in our power to prevent the Press being used as an organ for attack instead of defence. It is my deep and sincere regret that I have not been able to exercise a more severe and searching censorship over the criticisms of some newspapers which have dealt with foreign policy, and I make no apology for what has been done in that respect. With regard to frightening the Press, I should like to know what the hon. Member means. I believe there is no Government office, apart from ours, where complaints are heard hour after hour all through the day by letter, by telephone, or verbally, and which are as far as possible answered within twenty-four hours of their being received. The Press certainly have no fear of me any more than I have the least
    132
    fear of them. The next complaint is that we have censored the reports of the French official communications. Will the hon. Member tell me when?
    Sir W. BULL: I have not got the details.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: Then it is impossible for me to deal with the matter in this way.
    Sir W. BULL: I should have been doing harm if I had mentioned absolute details, and that is why I abstained from doing so.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If the mentioning of the matter that was cut out would do harm, it is obvious that I was right in cutting it out. The French official communication alleged to have been censored could have been brought down here, and it could have been handed over to me. I know one occasion when this was done, and my only regret is that it was not done more completely. A statement was made in one of the French official communications disclosing a most critical and important movement of our troops, and I greatly grieve to say that I was too late to effectively strike it out. I tried to do it, but I only partially succeeded. The consequence was that the matter slipped through, and one newspaper after another caught hold of this piece of information, enlarged it, inflamed and explained it, and this at the very moment when it was essential for the safety of our troops that it should not be disclosed. It had, however, been published, and I was powerless in the matter. I do not care what document it is, or from what authority it comes, if once it contains matter which, according to tire best of my judgment will imperil in the slightest degree the safety of our troops or our Fleet, I shall strike it out. The next complaint is with regard to something which General French said on 20th October, which did not come over here until 28th October. It was not submitted to me, and I do not suppose that it was received here until 28th October. That is not a matter that I had anything to do with.
    Surely the hon. Member cannot be aware of the way in which this Office works. Does he suppose that I sit there and form a military or a naval judgment and express my own views upon the delicate negotiations with foreign nations conducted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? As a matter of fact, as soon as a question of difficulty arises it is referred to the proper authority, and they

    133
    are asked whether for military or naval reasons this matter should not be allowed to go through. If they say it should not be allowed to go through, that is enough. It is no good appointing people to conduct a war if, when they give their judgment, you are not going to act upon it. The idea that I exercise an independent judgment is the most profound mistake that ever entered the mind of man. I do nothing of the kind. I sit there and to the very best of my power I try to execute the orders given by the Admiralty and the War Office, given in the belief that they are required for the proper conduct of our operations at sea and on land. The next complaint is that I censored the speech of the Prime Minister in regard to his reference to the landing of the Indian troops at Marseilles. The answer is quite obvious. I do not know whether hon. Members in the position of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment have the faintest idea of the risks our troops run at sea. Does the hon. Member opposite wish to disclose, so that it will be in the possession of the Germans, exactly where our transports are, and where they are going to?
    Sir W. BULL: I only used that as an illustration.
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: It was put forward in the shape of a complaint of the way I was doing my duty. The Prime Minister did make the statement that the Indian troops had landed at Marseilles when it was not accurate, because they had not landed. To have published that statement would have been to tell the Germans that our troops were in course of disembarkation at Marseilles. I could not stop that news completely, and it made no difference the news going out to Amercia. But so far as I could I stopped it all over Europe, and so far from regretting what I did, I regret that it was not within my power to expunge that passage from every newspaper. I do not know on what hon Members' eyes are fixed. Are they fixed on newspapers or newsboys selling news, or the people who are reading newspapers by their own fireside. Mine are not. My eyes, from first to last, are fixed upon our soldiers in the trenches and our sailors at sea, and if in the exercise of my discretion, used for their protection time and again, I interfere with the conduct of a newspaper, or strike out something which some other person might think ought to be left in, I comfort myself by thinking that when such interests are
    134
    at stake it makes but little difference that now and then I may err on the side of safety. It is suggested that there should be someone to supervise the Censor, and that my other duties prevent me from carrying out this work. I am there on an average thirteen hours a day. I come about ten in the morning and leave at any time from eleven to twelve o'clock at night. Someone suggested that we want constant supervision all the time, but the idea that this supervision is exercised in a slack manner, and that I only bestow upon the work the scanty remnants of time which I am able to take away from my duties as Law Officer is a profound mistake.
    With the generous assistance of the Attorney-General I have been able to leave the execution of our legal work to him, and I devote myself solely and unremittingly to this work. The hon. Member said that we had not got the right staff, and that we wanted trained journalists. Does he know that we have got them? In our military room we have two highly expert journalists, and in our cable censor room we have more of them. The idea that our censorship is exercised by ignorant people is a mistake which obsesses the minds of people who think they can express their patriotism by finding fault with the Press Bureau. I am asked what are the penalties. They are perfectly plain. If orders which are given for the safety of the State are broken the punishment is punishment by court-martial, and if the offence is one committed in complete ignorance without knowledge of the order, without any intent to disobey, the punishment is three months' imprisonment, and if committed with knowledge it may be imprisonment for life. These are the penalties, and they are sufficient authority for what I do, and I have sufficient power behind my hand to enable me to do my duty. I have never denied that the Press have helped in many ways to enable me to carry out my duty, and I do not deny that it might be serious if they disobeyed. But none the less, without their loyalty, it would be impossible that our work could be carried out as efficiently as it is. I confess that I do get a little impatient when I hear complaints of our office of such a trivial character as those which have been raised here this afternoon.
    I know that we are regarded as the enemy of the Press and the enemy of the public. We are neither. We are the only

    135
    institution that stands between the Press and the untempered severity of Martial Law. If it were not for the office I hold, and if any newspaper published any matter that in the minds of the naval and military authorities in the slightest degree imperilled what they believed to be the safety of our forces on land or sea, they would have no defence. It is only in their interest that this office exists for the purpose of enabling them, when they have submitted their matter to us, to obtain from us a critical examination, and a sanction which will save them from the consequences of mistake. I say that the Press—notably that section represented by the pink coloured proof that was produced by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—when they criticise our work and complain of what we have done, failed to realise what is the true position. I say, further, that we have deserved well of the public. We have saved them from being depressed by the circulation of untrue statements with regard to disasters on land and sea. We have saved them from the sick reaction that would have followed on the news of victories published and proclaimed from one end of this country to the other that had no foundation in fact. And, even if we had not, as I believe we have, deserved well both of the Press and of the public, I believe that every single member of the staff that works with considerable devotion and diligence in that office would find their reward and satisfaction in this, that they have been able more than once to afford some protection to our great-hearted soldiers in their long thin wavering line of fight, and to our gallant sailors whose ceaseless vigilance keeps our shores inviolate.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The warning which the learned Solicitor-General gave in one of the closing paragraphs of his speech has thrown a significance on this discussion, and has given an importance to the necessity of debate upon this Press censorship which I myself had not suspected belonged to it before. He made that very significant and most impressive statement. It was never suggested to us by any responsible Minister on that Bench that by consenting to the establishment of the Press Bureau we were forfeiting the rights of freedom of publication in the Press which had belonged to us from time immemorial, and which I venture to tell the learned Solicitor-General is one of the privileges and possessions which even a Liberal
    136
    Government at a time of national crisis cannot lightly filch from the Press or the nation of this country. If the Solicitor-General tells us to-night that by consenting to the establishment and appointment of the Press censorship, the Press of this country rendered themselves liable to penalties on the arbitrary or capricious statement of the naval or military authorities—
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: If the hon. Member would like to know the true position I will tell him. It is not that. It is that by the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, and the Order in Council, the Press becomes subject to martial law, and not by virtue of the constitution of my office at all.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I am glad to have that explanation, although I think there is still room for comment on the prerogative that applies to the naval and military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Act. The very fact that this question has been raised to-night and that the Press of this country has been reminded that they are liable to penalties and risks that have never been so frankly stated before at least justifies a brief Debate tonight. Any debate on this question suffers always from two great disadvantages and disabilities. When we press home particular cases which want justifying, explaining and defending, we are always told by the representative of the Press Bureau, with the head of which I have always expressed my profound sympathy—I cannot conceive a more onerous or a more thankless task than that which the Solicitor-General has taken up in connection with ibis matter—that the Press Bureau itself is not responsible, but that the responsibility lies at the door either of the military or naval authorities. We in this House find ourselves helpless, because we can never get any proper justification of acts which in our judgment and thought require very strong justification or explanation. That is one of the disadvantages. The second disability under which we lie is that which gives a general cover or cloak to the action, justifiable or unjustifiable, of the Press Bureau by saying the whole of the action of the Press Bureau is dependent upon a general principle or upon several general principles.
    Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the exercise of the censorship was entirely subject to and dependent upon military considerations. The learned Solicitor-General to-night in his speech has gone a

    137
    little beyond that and he has suggested other categories, such as "information calculated to depress the mind of the people"—all of which are governing considerations in the exercise of the activities of the Press Bureau. I hope that last category will not be pressed too seriously in the exercise of the censorship, because I think I may remind the Solicitor-General that he may much more seriously depress the people of this country if they have a suspicion that disquieting news is being kept from them lest they should be depressed or disquieted. I do not think the temper and spirit of this country and the realisation by the people of the gravity of the issues that are at stake will lead them to take an unduly depressed view of any reverses so long as they feel that the Government are dealing with them fairly and squarely in this matter. Let me take one principle which both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General referred to, and said must be the determining and governing principle in the exercise of any Press censorship. Everything published must be subordinate to military considerations. If we could be assured that from the beginning or even in the most recent past in the exercise of this censorship publication had been prohibited owing wholly to military considerations, there would almost be an end of the Debate. But may I take a comparatively trivial illustration of a very recent date? Last week the Belgian headquarters report which had been published broadcast on the Continent was censored before being allowed publication in this country. I put it to the learned Solicitor-General: Can it be suggested for a single moment that a Belgian headquarters official military report which had already been published broadcast through France and Belgium required for military considerations the suppression of any part in this country? That is only one illustration, and a comparatively unimportant one, which shows that the general cover or cloak of military considerations does not explain or fully justify what sometimes seems capricious action on the part of the Press Censors in this country.
    May I take another point? There is a very considerable feeling of disappointment in the country, and it is a matter which I think has affected our recruiting efforts, that we have not had sufficient information or news given to us of the heroic conduct of our troops since the beginning of the War. I want to ask this question
    138
    quite frankly and plainly: Can it be suggested that a narrative of events which took place weeks ago could possibly prejudice any military interest at the present time? The other day the country was thrilled by a report of the action of the London Scottish. No one appraises the value of their action and valour more than I do, but that was only one solitary incident in a long series of most valorous and heroic actions during the last three months, and it is not fair to troops that have been passing through perfectly incalculable dangers and risks for three months to have their action and their heroism slurred over and ignored, while information of comparative recent date which does not stretch back more than a few days may be published broadcast through the length and breadth of this country for the benefit of those interested in the London Scottish. No representative of the Bench opposite, since these discussions were first raised in this House, has attempted to give any explanation to show how the publication days afterwards of a narrative of heroic efforts in the conduct of the War can supply information to the enemy. To suggest that to publish the names of places where a fight has taken place a few days ago would involve giving information to the enemy seems to me one of the most puerile defences that could be put forward. I grant that the learned Solicitor-General has not attempted a flimsy defence of that kind to-night.
    I wish to mention one other point. We have heard it lamented that the military and naval authorities of the country have not thought it well to allow certain accredited Press representatives to be at least within such contact with the conduct of the War as to allow them to publish in this country a more vivid appreciation of the facts of the War than unfortunately is now provided. It so happens that within the last few weeks one paper in this country—I will not mention its name, but it is a paper to which we are under a very great debt for the information it gives us from time to time—it so happens that one paper in this country has published intensely interesting narratives from the personal observation of its representative possessing, so it is claimed by the newspaper itself, a very important position in the Army. One paper has been allowed facilities at the front—unlimited facilities as is claimed. Why, I would ask, should there be any discrimination in this matter? Why should one journal or individual

    139
    receive facilities which are denied to other reresentatives of the Press? You should make your rule absolute and universal.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: So it is.
    Mr. SHERWELL: In this particular instance the statements printed at the head of the narrative itself are such as I have indicated, and the paper carefully explains to its readers that its Special Correspondent has received' exceptional facilities, while he, too, states that he has passports which have carried him everywhere on the field of battle. There is a very strong feeling—and I do not think it is altogether a surprising feeling on the part of many influential representatives of the Press—that there should not be this unfair discrimination in the interests of particular papers. I only want to close with the comment with which I began my speech. I think the Government may, or ought to, realise that the country is getting a little impatient of the arbitrariness—the powers of arbitrary action that are increasingly claimed by individual Members of the Government. I do not quarrel with the tone and emphasis of the learned Solicitor-General to-night, but I think that he and his colleagues will find out that if the country have a suspicion we are to have certain minor modern Napoleons claiming arbitrary powers, without consulting either this House or the people, they may find that they have sadly miscalculated the temper, spirit, and traditions of their own countrymen.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am not quite sure whether the subject to which I wish to refer concerns the Home Office entirely or only the Postmaster-General's Department, but I will put my point briefly as representatives of both Departments are present. In a manifesto issued by the Home Secretary, on 5th August, he said the Post Office had dismantled all private installations of wireless telegraphy, but he did not say whether any licences had been granted to private individuals to maintain such installations. In a subsequent manifesto it was laid down that no person should, without the written permission of the Postmaster-General, buy, sell, or have in his possession, any apparatus
    140
    for the transmission of messages by wireless telegraphy. It is clear from this that private ownership was apparently still contemplated and countenanced by the Government, and it would, under existing circumstances, be interesting to know—if there is any objection from the public point of view I will not pursue these remarks—it would be interesting to know whether any such licences for private wireless installations have been granted since the War broke out, and if so, how many have been granted to persons, whether naturalised or not, of alien origin. I will not press for further details, but I should like as a matter of principle to get this particular information in order that the public may be instructed upon a matter in which I believe it is very much interested. I would like also to refer to the case of a man called Falkenberg, or Falconer—an employé of Messrs. Siemens, a firm which was said by the Home Secretary to employ very few Germans. This man was charged with being in possession of wireless telegraphic apparatus and with having failed to register himself, he being an alien enemy. I will not delay the House by going into the details of this case, but I may remark that the man in the course of the hearing said he had applied for a commission in the Royal Engineers Wireless Corps, a most impertinent thing to do. He was remanded, and from that day to this no further information has been published with regard to this case. If the representative either of the Home Office or of the Post Office will give me any information on the subject I shall be greatly obliged.
    There is one other matter to which I would like to refer, and that is the matter of the use of coded messages in cabling. I will not go at length into the representation made by the mercantile community regarding the hardships they suffer, and the very serious extra expense to which they are put by these new regulations prohibiting the use of a code. All these matters are before the Post Office, which, no doubt, had its reasons for the action it has taken. Nevertheless, I would point out that this is an extremely serious matter for many houses of business. There seem to be little matters which, apart from the principle concerned, are rather pettifogging in character. For instance, why should "c.i.f." and "f.o.b.," which are A B C in the City, be each treated as three separate words; why are money payments made and never returned

    141
    when they are due, for instance, when a message has not been sent; why are two codes only sanctioned of the many British codes, while the two foreign codes most in use are both sanctioned; why do not ten letters now count as one word; and why is an extra fee charged for coding the message? These are little matters, perhaps pin-pricks, which possibly the hon. Gentleman, upon consideration, may see his way to remedy. I have no wish to dwell upon them. I do urge that the mercantile community is put to very great expense, and that everything that can be done without trenching upon what is required and necessary in the present crisis should be done. As the preservation of all the means for carrying on our commerce during the War is one of the great vital interests in the present crisis, no subjects can be more worthy of the attention of the Post Office or the Home Office than those to which I have ventured to call attention.
    There is only one other matter to which for the moment I will refer very briefly, because the Attorney-General was good enough to give me an answer, and I thanked him for his courteous consideration of the representations I made on the subject in the House last Session, and acted upon his advice. One eminent firm of solicitors gave a legal opinion as regards the validity of a contract with an alien person, say, a German dwelling in this country and not naturalised. One eminent firm of solicitors, as the right hon. Gentleman will admit them to be, said:—
    "The contract is not void and the contracting person as bound to abide by the contract."
    Another firm of solicitors, equally eminent—indeed, the right hon. Gentleman would be impressed if I were to mention their name here, and he would say there is no more eminent firm—said:—
    "We can only say we do not agree with this opinion,"
    and they advised that the contract with the German alien is void by reason of the outbreak of War. Having taken the action advised by the right hon. Gentleman, and having contributed those fees to the revenues of the two firms of solicitors concerned, which is one of the advantages upon which he dwelt in taking this action, I am left exactly where I was before. This is not a personal matter, because it affects a great many persons, although it is a concrete case of which I can give him details. I should like to ask whether it is not possible, for the assistance of the commercial community, for the
    142
    Government to take some action in such wholly exceptional circumstances, seeing that the latest recorded cases are upwards of sixty years old.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that since he raised this matter some time back, some cases have arisen in the courts. I happen to know that some of them, also dealing with the subject of alien enemy, are coming before the Court of Appeal next week. I do not think it can be doubted that any uncertainty due to the antiquity of the decisions referred to has been completely removed by the decisions recently given.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am glad to hear that. There were one or two of the cases heard and reported which did not resolve my doubts, and did not give that general principle which I am so anxious to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman, as to which I think he remains obdurate and is not more likely to help me than he was before the House rose.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): On behalf of my right hon Friend I am authorised to say that since the 5th August, the date upon which my right hon. Friend made a statement, no single licence has been issued, and, furthermore, my right hon. Friend took steps to have all these private stations dismantled. All the aerials wore removed and the instruments were stopped. He took still further precautions and made arrangements whereby all these instruments were examined from time to time, so that there is no danger of any of these stations being reopened. Therefore the hon. Gentleman's mind may be at case with reference to any stations for which we, the Post Office, have given any licences. As to the stations to which licences were given in the time of peace, great care was taken and a certain fee was charged, therefore all those stations are absolutely known to us. As regards stations which may have been constructed surreptitiously, we have taken all the steps in our power, and every communication that has been made to us has been carefully investigated, but if the hon. Member knows of any special cases where he has reason to suspect that any surreptitious aerial station exists and will bring the matter to our knowledge, it shall be very carefully investigated.
    Sir J. D. REES: What I was particularly concerned with was whether the hon. Gentleman's Department had granted any licences for such installation since the war began.
    Captain NORTON: I said to begin with that my right hon. Friend had made a statement, I think here in the House on the 5th August, and that since that date no licence had been granted.
    Sir J. D. REES: That is the case?
    Captain NORTON: That is the case. With reference to the special case of Mr. Falconer in Siemens, I am not in a position to state what took place. I have no definite knowledge of that, but if the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will give him whatever information I am permitted to give him. With reference to the other matter he raised—the question of the cables—we are in no way concerned. That is purely a naval and military matter, and it has passed out of our hands. Whatever is being done in connection with cables is being done by the authority of the naval and military authorities, and we, the Post Office authorities, have nothing to do with that matter.
    Sir HAROLD ELVERSTON: I feel I should like to have some statement from the Government as to their policy in the matter of certain supplies to the men at the front. During the last few weeks we have all noticed and become familiar with certain appeals to the public generosity—I do not use the word "charity"—for the supply of various articles which I consider to be necessities and not in any way luxuries. For example, it was announced in the Press that Lord Kitchener had asked the Queen to appeal for a supply of 300,000 socks and 300,000 belts for the men. Then we had later the announcement that these socks and belts can be bought for about 2s. 6d. each in certain places. I want to know, in case this unofficial effort is only partially successful, does it mean that some of the men have to do without these useful articles? Does the War Office regard these things which are being begged from the public as necessities or as luxuries? Surely they are necessities. Would the nation be content to leave to voluntary effort the equipment of the mechanical instruments of war? Would the nation be content to leave to voluntary effort, say, the provision of rifles or of ammunition or of something of that kind? We know, of course, that they would not. Then I want
    144
    to know why they leave the equipment of the human instrument to this voluntary effort. Surely the human instrument is a greater factor than the mechanical instrument and yet one at the present time is wholly equipped by the nation and the other only partially.
    It comes to this once more, that the British soldier and sailor has always fought like a hero and has always been treated like a pauper. Only the other week we had from Sir John Jellicoe a telegram to Lady Jellicoe in which he said "An extra blanket and a thermos flask for each man would be very useful." Surely these men are at present the very life blood of the nation, and I am astonished that it should be necessary for Sir John Jellicoe to send such an appeal as that. Then we have Lord Roberts appealing for field glasses for the use of noncommissioned officers and men at the front. He makes a statement that he has already sent 14,000 pairs of glasses to the Army, and Sir John French has written to him that they are a very valuable asset to our men. If this is so, and surely we must take the opinion of such men as Lord Roberts and Sir John French as being quite final, I want to know again why is this left to voluntary effort? Is it a question of cost, or is it a question of the inability of the War Office to get these supplies? I cannot think for a minute that they are trying to shift part of the cost of this War on to certain private shoulders, but I am quite certain that it is not the wish of a single person in the House of Commons or the country that any of our men at the front to-day should be obliged to face extra hardships or should be in any way rendered less efficient for the sake of saving the State £100,000 or £1,000,000. Then I would point out one other thing. I can quite understand that the Government is anxious that private people should take a direct interest in this War, and that they will not want to damp off this feeling in any way. Then, by all means, let the public supply our men at the front with what may really be termed luxuries, but do not let them depend upon private generosity for what are real necessities.
    I should like to ask another question. Would it be really impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix a regular date for the introduction of the Budget into this House? This House is a demoralising and bewildering place so far as its business is concerned, but I feel

    145
    that, at any rate, we should have one definite fixture in our programme, and that is the date for the introduction of the Budget. During the last nine years the date has varied from 2nd April to 30th June. This year, for example, it was postponed in the first place because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a sore throat. Then it was postponed once more, because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) had a private political engagement in the country. Then, again, it was postponed because the Members of the Opposition wished to raise a Debate upon the Ulster question. Representatives of businesses who are directly interested in various dutiable articles have raised this point with the Government, because it is to them a great inconvenience that the question as to what the duties will be upon certain articles shall be left uncertain for months at a time. This is a question of very considerable importance to the business community, and I, for one, certainly think that the convenience of our traders should be considered as of greater importance than the convenience of any solitary Member of Parliament. Unfortunately, in the future we must expect that our Budgets will be a more important consideration to us than they have been in the past, and for that reason alone I think it is very desirable that the Government should, if possible, let the nation know when the Budget is going to be introduced, and that that date should be regarded as a fixture, no matter what may arise in the meantime.
    Mr. McKENNA: I would reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's speech if I were qualified to do it, but it related more particularly to the War Office than to my Department. I think, however, I could give him an explanation why requests are put forward for particular articles which appear to be of themselves necessaries to be given to the soldiers and sailors. There are two sides to the question. On the one side a great many people feel—I am sure my hon. Friend feels, and we all feel—that we should like to do something personally for the individual soldier. We want, if we can, to show our personal interest in the comfort and the satisfaction of the individual and to know that we are helping in some way. They naturally inquire what would be the article which the soldier would most like. There are a great many things which
    146
    may be regarded as necessary in one sense, such as a comforter or a hood, which are not ordinary articles served out to the soldier or sailor in any country in the world, and they cannot really be considered as necessaries. They perform a useful function and add to the comfort of the soldier, but they would not in ordinary circumstances be served out as part of his kit. That is the kind of article which it has been suggested should be given to the soldier. It does not increase his fighting capacity, but it adds a little to his comfort, and although it takes the form of an article of clothing it must not therefore be regarded as an article which would otherwise be given by the Admiralty or the War Office. I am not aware of the case as regards blankets, but there may have been some special difficulty in getting them. I will ask the representative of the War Office to consider that point. Upon the subject of the date of the Budget, I think I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Budget will be introduced quite early enough to please him or anyone else who has to pay the taxes.
    Mr. HOGGE: A great number of points arise out of the King's Speech which have not yet been spoken to, and the uselessness of raising them is emphasised by the fact that there is nobody now on the Front Bench who can reply to any of the questions which I want to raise. That is obviously not the fault of the men who are here, but of the method in which these Debates are conducted. For instance, today we have had to listen to abbreviated discussions started from the other side of the House with regard to important topics which have been put down on the Paper as Amendments, but which have never been pressed to a Division, and those of us who wish to raise points on these issues have been precluded from doing so from the fact that the Minister in charge of the particular question has so frequently risen after the first two speeches which have been made from the Opposition Benches, which are now so crowded, that those of us who desire to deal with points find it entirely useless, seeing that the Minister cannot reply a second time. But in spite of that, I want to deal with a number of these points, and I hope that such of the Ministers as are left will take copious notes and convey them to the respective heads of the Departments.
    With regard to the Press Bureau, I am extremely sorry that the Solicitor-General

    147
    is not in his place. He listened quite attentively to a speech made by a Member of the Opposition which was seconded in a few words. They were immediately replied to by the Solicitor-General, who made a great point of the fact that there had been no debate on this subject, and that there was really nothing to reply to. I want to ask the Solicitor-General for information on a very important point. I notice that the Press Bureau, which tells us nothing, although it is continually printing information, went out of its way a week or two ago to say that the opinions expressed in the leading columns of the "Times" newspaper did not express the views of His Majesty's Government. That seemed to me a most serious statement. I have not been able to recover from it yet, because, as a humble supporter of His Majesty's Government, I have been led to the assumption that, with the exception of that particular article to which the Press Bureau referred as not interpreting the views of the Government, the other articles express these views, and I have been perplexed since then to know whether I have been sitting on the right side or not. Why did the Press Bureau go out of its way to announce to the whole world that the "Times" did not in that particular article express the views of the Government? Does it mean that the "Times" newspaper has special facilities with the officials of the Press Bureau? Do they get information which other papers do not get? Is there any particular reason why that particular paper is chosen—why a paper which requires no puff should get it, and why a little paper like the "Daily Citizen" does not appear to get any information which requires a statement contradicting it?
    9.0. P.M.
    I wish to ask the Solicitor-General why it was that the Press Bureau prevented the distribution of all newspapers printed in Great Britain and Ireland on a particular date—why none of those papers were allowed to leave this island. I understand that on that occasion the offender was the "Times" newspaper. There appeared in that newspaper information the nature of which I do not know, but I am told that the Press Bureau considered it inadvisable that our enemies should have access to it, and on that account every newspaper was by the authorities refused permission to be sent out of the country. One
    148
    does not understand why the Government give these facilities to the "Times" newspaper. It is current rumour—it can be contradicted if it is not true; I am taking for the moment the line of argument so common this afternoon—that a certain well-known proprietor of that paper has actually been in the fighting line at the front. I do not know what he was doing there, unless he was seeing that his particular paper was being distributed at the front, because I understand that a special edition of one of these papers is now distributed at the front, and that this particular owner of the paper had that access to the trenches and the fighting line which is only given, apart from combatants, to those who have served on the Front Government Bench or the Front Opposition Bench.
    With regard to the information supplied from the Press Bureau I am sorry I did not hear the Solicitor-General's explanation. That is not my fault. I have waited in the House much longer than the Solicitor-General, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman can only give ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and if he prefers to reply before points are put, it is not the fault of Members, but the fault of Ministers. There are a great many points of interest with regard to the Press Bureau which one desires to raise, but which it is useless to raise in the absence of the official concerned, because there is no possibility of getting a reply. Therefore, one will require to resort to the Question Paper instead of Debate to put these particular points. I wish to say that one has been impressed to-day with the unreality of the note that has run through most of the speeches. We have had Amendments proposed in this House which have been dummy Amendments, inasmuch as they have not been pressed to a Division. These Amendments have made attacks upon certain Ministers. The question that has occurred to me has been: Who is really responsible for the state of affairs discussed to-day? I do not mind saying who, I think, is responsible. The Minister of War is responsible. Lord Kitchener is responsible—the man whom the newspapers called for when the present Lord Chancellor was acting as War Minister. Everybody was calling for the incomparable organiser who was to organise cosmos out of the chaos which would otherwise exist. Now, what do we find? I am sorry there is no representative of the War Office present. I do

    149
    not know whether I should have given notice that I was going to talk about this matter.
    Mr. GULLAND: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HOGGE: One of the Junior Whips says "Hear, hear," but I would retort—What is the use of telling any Minister you are going to raise a point if you do not get a chance of raising it? That is the point of view of the man who talks from below the Gangway. Let me take a case in point to illustrate what I mean. I do not want to go over the difficulties that have been encountered in regard to recruiting, the payment of soldiers, the payment of allowances, and that kind of thing. It is very easy for every one of us to bring a sufficient number of instances to prove the charges that have been made today. The one about which I want to put some questions is to me a very real one, and illustrates the principle at the present moment animating the War Office. I believe, on the invitation of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War, and with the co-operation of the Education Office, a committee was invited to meet together to consider one of the most important questions in connection with the leisure of the men who at the present moment are in our camps, and I would beg my hon. Friend the Junior Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) to bear in mind this fact, that there is a great distinction between the men who are joining our Army to-day and the men who join the Regular Army. The reason you are having all this criticism is simply this, that, if each one of us thinks of his particular circle of friends, there is not one of us who has not got some intimate relative in the King's Army. More people have joined the forces on this occasion than ever joined the Forces before. More homes in this country are represented in the Army than were ever represented before. These are our own flesh and blood. They have joined, not because they wish to be soldiers who desire to take up the Army as a profession, but because, for the time being, they are prepared to assist their country, and at the close of the War the bulk of these men will return to their different trades and professions in the country, and that is why one feels the distinction that is drawn between the treatment meted out to them in these circumstances and what one would reasonably expect.
    150
    These men are training very hard. There would be a great deal more complaints with regard to their treatment were it not for the fact that the bulk of those men are there because they want to be there, and they have made up their minds to say nothing about it. We know a great number of men who are undergoing undesirable conditions in camp and elsewhere who are not grousing at all, but who, if you meet them personally, will tell you the complaints which they have, and the way in which they think that their grievances could be remedied. At the same time, those men who are suffering those inconveniences are the last men to make an informal complaint, so that the criticisms which is made is a real criticism and not a pretended criticism. The Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener, acting in their own name, did formally call together a Committee to deal with the question of providing facilities for the men in our camps. In a great many of our camps at the present moment the men are under canvas. The nights are dark shortly before five o'clock. Five o'clock is an unreasonable time for the average man to go to bed. The only facility that the great number of those men have in their spare time in camp is the facility afforded by the candle in an ordinary camp lamp, and the newspapers which may be bought. As many men are sleeping fourteen and sixteen in a tent, one may imagine how much room there is for such kind of recreation which is possible. The Committee was to deal with that particular point. The Prime Minister was prepared, and Lord Kitchener was apparently prepared, to undertake the organisation of special facilities to deal with the leisure time of the men, between the end of their training each day and the time at which they had to go to bed.
    I was not on the Committee; I am never invited to be on these Committees. To that Committee were invited all sorts of representatives, including representatives from the War Office. The day on which that Committee met none of the War Office representatives turned up—they had not even the courtesy to attend—and the Committee has gone no further with its work. The Committee, I was going to say, has been disbanded, but it has not been disbanded, because it has never been really created. Lord Kitchener, the heaven-born organiser, who was selected by the newspapers of the country for the post which the Prime Minister previously

    151
    bad, having taken this duty on himself, hands it over to a particular officer—a general—to see it through. This general is asked to provide sufficient men to deal with the leisure time of the men in the camps, and when he has been on this particular work for a number of days, where does he go to get the men whom he wants? He applies to the Board of Education, over which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) so ably presides, and this Department was prepared to do the work. They had the men upon whom they could lay their fingers to do the work. They could provide the teachers and lecturers who were required to make the proper kind of provision for a whole lot of men who were very different from the average recruit. I do not suppose that at that moment this gentlemen had succeeded in capturing five teachers or lecturers of the 400 who were required. What is the meaning of it? Why should the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War invite the co-operation of a number of people, who unfortunately happened to be civilians, to deal with a question which, after all, is not a military question, but is one affecting the leisure time of those men? And the whole thing has been controlled by the War Office. Does it mean that the War Office does not want any civilian help? Does the War Office believe that it alone is capable of doing this work, and that all of us had far better hold our tongues and accept what is sent to us?
    Personally, I think that one of the greatest mistakes made in connection with this War was the appointment of Lord Kitchener to the place which he now holds. I do not think that we ought to have a soldier in that place. We have in the House of Commons here two junior representatives of the Government to deal with those questions. That was due to the fact that the Secretary of State for War used to sit in this House. Therefore it was less necessary that those who filled the other post should be such responsible men. But now, in the House of Commons, which is called together when it is convenient to the Government, and adjourned when the Government do not want us to come, the War Office is represented by two junior Ministers, neither of whom is able to speak with any great authority. I should like to say in passing that the Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Tennant), the Member for Berwickshire, in my opinion, has been the most efficient man at the War Office in
    152
    connection with the present War. There is no official at the War Office who answers one more quickly, and takes more trouble over the cases that one brings before him, than the Under-Secretary of State for War who sits in this House. But with regard to the Financial Secretary of State for War (Mr. Harold Baker), I confess that his defence of his position to-day in this House left me entirely cold. I never heard a lamer defence of the incompetence of the Department over which he presides than that which he offered to-day from that Front Bench. Where does the representative of the people, after all, come in? I happen, by the vote of my Constituents, to represent a Division of quite an important city. My Division has sent, I suppose, more soldiers per square yard to the Army than any other part of that particular city. These men have left their wives and children behind them. They expect those of us who represent them in Parliament to look after their interests. I think everybody will agree that it is only right to look after their interests. You come across some poor woman who says that she has not had her separation allowance. You are told this and that from those Front Benches on that point. All I have got to say about it is this, that I have never known a case paid up until one approaches the War Office about it. The celerity with which payments are made when the matter is brought before the War Office, and it is suggested that there might be a discussion about it in Parliament is really remarkable.
    We come across poor women who have had no separation allowance paid to them for six or seven weeks. A woman in this position may write to one of the Paymasters in Scotland, say, Perth. She can get no reply. She then writes to the Member of Parliament representing her place, and he probably writes to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in that particular instance. Generally he acknowledges the letter, but frequently takes no notice. Then the Paymasters-General, who, after all, are servants of this House, take absolutely no notice of the letters written by Members of this House. No Paymaster has ever responded to any letter of mine that I have written, conveying a complaint about wages which the woman was not able to convey for herself. I do not mind not being answered, and that does not worry me, but what I complain of is that this poor woman who cannot put her case for herself,

    153
    must naturally seek the man she thinks will do it for her, and no man with any heart could fail to render that service. I think we are entitled to some sort of reply. All this nonsense about the pressure of work and so forth, which is put forward as an excuse, is so much clotted nonsense. There is not a man in this House who could not meet any rush that is put upon his particular business. That kind of excuse is really trumpery. For instance, the War Office just now are putting on temporary clerks who are obtained through the Labour Exchanges in the City of London. Those men are working from 9 o'clock in the morning till 8, 9, or 10 o'clock at night, and ten hours on a Sunday, and later. Though there are heaps of clerks in London who want work, and who have responsibilities, yet those clerks are kept working even ten hours' overtime on Sunday at 10d. an hour. Why cannot they increase the number of clerks? The work those clerks do does not require any particular training; it is merely copying a simple form that must be got through, and anybody could do it who has any gumption, as we say North of the Tweed.
    There are a great many other points to which I might refer, and among them is an omission from the King's Gracious Speech to which I wish to call attention, and I think it is perhaps more important from many points of view than the questions to which I have just been referring. I hope some explanation will be given about that mysterious Committee that was called by the Prime Minister and Lord Kitchener for the provision of facilities for the soldiers. Although called, that Committee was practically countermanded by Lord Kitchener, who apparently does not want any help from civilians. I do not think it is fair for the Government to take all the time of the Session, and to say that if the question is important enough they will move the adjournment before the Government business and give us an opportunity to talk. The business may be very important, but it may be very inconvenient to have it discussed, and in that event the importance of it will diminish in correspondence to the inconvenience that it would be to the Government to have it discussed. Where does the private Member come in at all this Session? In fact, need he come here at all? Arrangements have already been made that this House should rise as soon as possible, perhaps at the end of next, week. Yet the Prime Minister
    154
    suggests that the Government should take all the time up to Christmas. They do not require all the time up to Christmas, if they are not meeting after the end of next week. By rising next week they are depriving private Members of the opportunity of raising a great number of points. If the House met for questions only it would not be an undesirable innovation. If we are not to have Debates, why should Members be deprived of the right of putting questions? I notice that there are already questions put down which ought to be answered in the ordinary way by the heads of Departments, but because we can not get the answers in that way we shall be inevitably driven up against the red-tape of the Government Departments, where the official seems to think that there is no other man on earth who could do his job.
    The omission from the Speech to which I refer is that there is no reference to the distress which is likely to arise as the result of this War, nor is there any reference to the provision to be made for distress. I believe that the Local Government Board have an Intelligence Department which is dealing with distress in the country, and the result of the investigation is practically that, so far as the country is concerned, the only portion of it where there is real distress—and after all that distress is not so much poverty as under-employment—is in the county of Lancashire, and in districts such as the Potteries, where you have specialised industries, and in certain restricted areas on the East Coast. Apart from those particular districts, there is no actual distress in the country which could be described otherwise than as underemployment. The reason of that is that, owing to the War, there has been such a number of special orders of all kinds up and down the country that industry is really doing extremely well, and in many parts of the country trade is actually booming. I think that everybody who has considered this question will agree that the real moment for provision to meet distress is when the War is over. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in the speeches they made yesterday, both gave utterance to a sentence which I hope will be prophetically true, and that is that the War will last a- much shorter time than most of us originally anticipated. If that is so, what I want to ask is if the Government are making arrangements,

    155
    and, if they are, will they tell us what arrangements, for dealing with that situation? At the close of the War you will have to re-absorb into the industries of the country over a million men who have joined the Army, and you will have immediately shut down the great factories which are working at special work, the necessity for which will immediately cease on the declaration of peace. There are no boards and no authorities for dealing with this question which are amenable to criticism in Parliament. Your Road Boards and your Development Commissioners and your Prince of Wales' Fund, and organisers of that kind can snap their fingers at this House of Commons and can do what they like with the money they raise. They can use it in any way they like to use it. Of course, you will have a certain pretence of popular election.
    The right hon. Gentleman who sits for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) said this afternoon that he is a member of the executive of the Prince of Wales' Fund. I do not know who put him there unless it is the hon. and gallant Member who is now on service at the front, who was Chairman of that Committee and who presided with distinction and ability over the Member for the City of London and the Member for the Strand and other summary gentlemen whom he elected before he left for the front. That is all pretence. That is really all humbug.
    That is a continuation of the policy which I am trying to criticise now in these irrelevant remarks, namely, that no Department which I know of wants any help, and none of them at all believes that anybody else can do their job except themselves. What provision is being made for this state, this potential state, of unemployment? We were told this afternoon that eight or nine hundred thousand pounds of the money contributed to the Prince of Wales' Fund has been spent already in paying money which the War Office ought to have paid. Thus the people of this country have been contributing out of their munificence to do what the War Office and the Government, which have been grappling with the situation, ought to have done themselves. If that kind of thing exists, what confidence can anybody have that the Government are really making provision for dealing with the most serious situation which will arise after the War, namely, the question of the provision for
    156
    unemployment? When, for instance, are we to be called together again? I suppose we may meet only for a fortnight on the present occasion, and I presume—and I think there is something to be said for it—that we shall not be called together again until something is required by the Government, until they want more money. The suggestion has been made that we may not be called together again until February, and then I presume the Government will again take all the time of the House from Christmas, which is the close of this year, until the close of the Session. Where do we come in? Do we come in at all? My hon. Friend suggests we are getting our opportunity now, but I have had to wait until nine o'clock to get it. It does seem to me that the Government ought to realise that the private Member exists and has his rights.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member has been addressing the House for thirty-five minutes, and, as other hon. Members may desire to speak, I would call his attention to the fact that he has said the same thing several times over.
    Mr. HOGGE: I usually bow, Sir, to your ruling with great grace, but I very respectfully suggest that, with the exception of my reference to private Members, I did not touch on any one topic twice. If I have done so I promise I shall not touch upon it thrice. I address myself to a question which I have not yet raised, and which I desire to raise in connection with the King's Speech, and that is what is going to happen to certain domestic policies to which the Government are pledged and which we have not heard of in the King's Speech. I do not want to raise controversial points, but I want to know where we are. This is one of the illustrations of the way in which we are treated and of the way in which we are not given information. For instance, we are meeting in the Fifth Session of this Parliament. We have on the stocks a Bill in which a great many of us are interested, namely, the Plural Voting Bill. There is no mention made of it in the King's Speech, and I can quite understand why. I can understand that it is desirable and necessary, and, as far as we are concerned, we are perfectly willing to see that done, that there should be what is called a "truce of God" with regard to those political controversies while the War lasts. At the same time, is any responsible Minister I going to tell us what we are going to do

    157
    this year. This is the last possible year in which this Bill can be passed. If we lose this Bill this Session and nothing happens with regard to the prolongation of the Session and of the Parliament, and if there is an election, what is our position with regard to that measure to which we are pledged? I suppose if the Plural Voting Bill is not mentioned in the King's Speech as a point of domestic legislation it will be a point for the Leaders of the Opposition to say that it is unfair to discuss it at all this Session, because no mention has been made of it in the King's Speech. I do not know whether the Junior Lord of the Treasury, who is to reply to this speech, can speak with any authority on this point. But I can assure him it is one in which the House is very gravely concerned, and on which a great many of my colleagues desire to make speeches in order to ascertain the decision of the Government. I agree, after all, that this kind of speech is not very useful, but I have made it for one simple reason, namely, that I do think we ought to receive as private Members a little more attention from the Front Bench. All the attention to-day has been given to the Opposition. They put down three specific Amendments on the Paper and they have got in their questions, which I again emphasise were dummy questions which they did not intend to raise, and which, when they did raise, were directed against the wrong man, Lord Kitchener being responsible for every one of the questions raised, and if there is any bad administration it is the fault of this heaven born organiser who was put in on the cry of the Tory Press and Opposition to look after the affairs of the day. It is because of that I felt it my duty to make the speech I have made.
    Mr. KING: I must not allow the very brilliant speech to which we have just listened to pass without a word of concurrence, complete concurrence, with all the sentiments that it has so eloquently expressed. I thank the hon. Member for having referred especially to one matter which I am sure is very much upon the mind of active politicians at the present time, I mean the Plural Voting Bill. I will only say this about this subject, that last Session, after the War period began, the Prime Minister enunciated this doctrine, that no interest which was looking forward to legislation being passed under the Parliament Act was to be prejudiced by the outbreak of war, and I understood—
    158
    at any rate, my reason would make me conclude—that that pledge applied also to the Plural Voting Bill. Therefore, although there is no reference to it in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, I have every hope and confidence that it will appear later on in the Session.
    I very much congratulate my hon. Friend upon having, perhaps in language a little stronger than I should have ventured upon, referred to the very anomalous position of the Secretary of State for War. Lord Kitchener is a man to whom, this country owes a very great deal, for whom in his special way we have the profoundest admiration, and for whose services we feel truly grateful; but I must say that as soon as his appointment was announced I felt that it must inevitably bring with it certain disadvantages. Lord Kitchener has done an enormous amount of work in our Empire, but very little here at home; he certainly has had no experience whatever of the temper of Parliament, or of the democratic temper of the people of this Kingdom. I feel quite sure that some of the difficulties—which have been serious—in connection with the War are due to the fact that we have Lord Kitchener at the War Office. It is quite obvious that he is determined that there shall be as little information as possible given to the public. That might be quite intelligible in India or in Egypt, but it is not an intelligible position to take up in the British Isles. Many steps, or changes of policy have been initiated—as in connection with the internment of aliens—in connection with which the accompaniment of a few words of explanation such as we have had to-day would have swept away at once a large amount of doubt, hesitation, anxiety, and even alarm, which these steps in policy, which I believe have been quite right and reasonable, but quite unintelligible to the public at large, have aroused. If we had had a few words of explanation at the time we should have had a great deal more confidence and a great deal less of the alarm, anxiety and criticism which have been really rather painful at times.
    I wish to refer to one other question which really illustrates the point I have been trying to make. I refer to the difficulty which has been caused in a number of places by the various restrictions in connection with the opening and closing of public-houses. I believe myself that the principle of restricting the hours of sale of intoxicating liquors is a sound one.

    159
    It has been absolutely necessary, and in most places accompanied by very little difficulty, but there have been cases of contrast as between different districts, public-houses having been allowed to remain open in some districts very much later than in others, apparently without any reason. If more consideration had been paid to public opinion and to the views and judgment of local authorities in this matter there would have been a great deal less difficulty. I hope that an the various orders which will be made it will not be only military considerations that will be taken into account, but generally the feeling of the public, and, as far as possible, the public interest. I will conclude with one sentiment which I do not think has been sufficiently expressed in this Debate, and that is the feeling of admiration and gratitude which we have for the Government as a whole for the way in which they have been carrying on the work of the country under very arduous and unprecedented circumstances. After a very trying and arduous Session, just at the moment when the holidays seemed an absolute necessity for the Cabinet and other Ministers, they were plunged into a crisis and time of strain, anxiety and overwork, quite without parallel. In spite of this and the great strain that the crisis must have brought, they have carried through the work of the country in a most admirable way, and I am sure that I am expressing the opinion of all parts of the House when I say that we are grateful to the Ministers for their services to the country in this crisis.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) spoke of the problem that is likely to arise after the War, when a million or so of men will be thrown on a restricted labour market. I think that that danger is before the eyes of men who would be likely to enlist, and it seems to me that one thing that the Government might do to increase recruiting is to undertake to pay for a few months, six or twelve, after the declaration of peace, the sums that have been paid to men as soldiers, so that the men would not be confronted with the fear with which they are confronted to-day, that immediately the War is over, before they can find a job, they will be thrown on the scrap-heap. I believe, very strongly, that the rectification of such matters as these is the right way to provide the men required for the defence of the realm. I am par
    160
    ticulary glad to have heard speeches from all parts of the House pointing to the disabilities under which soldiers suffer as the barrier to recruitment. I have taken up the position myself that the first thing to do, before asking other men to fight for us, is to see that they get proper conditions of employment, and that their wives and other dependants are properly safeguarded from penury by the State.
    There is one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is the wholly unsatisfactory reply given by the Financial Secretary to the War Office in the matter of the police surveillance over the wives of soldiers. He suggested that it was the customary thing to make the payment or pension dependent upon good conduct. It may be customary to make payment for services rendered or a pension dependent on the good conduct of the man who receives it, but I know of no precedent of making the payment to a man dependent upon what the police may consider to be or not to be the good conduct of the wife. This is an amount paid by the State as part of the wage of the soldier. That is what it amounts to; and he has no right to be debarred from the receipt of it because the police may think that his wife is not conducting herself in a fit and proper manner. I think that the soldier has reason for deep resentment when it is known to him after he has gone to the front that the police will be taking into consideration the method of the livelihood of his wife. I think it is an insult to the soldiers, and I think such an Order ought not to have been issued by the Home Office at the direction of the Army Council. I hope it will be withdrawn.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): There is one question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh in which my Department is concerned, and to which perhaps I shall endeavour to give a reply. If my hon. Friend had been good enough to give notice of his intention to raise this question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would, I feel sure, have been here to listen to what he had to say, and to reply. The question which my hon. Friend raised related to employment in this country at the close of the War. He said, and said rightly, that at the present time the amount of unemployment in the country as a whole was not great. Indeed, I am glad to be

    161
    able to say that it is only slightly more than it was at this time last year. My hon. Friend made certain exceptions, local and otherwise, in his statement, and in these I can concur. But his object in speaking was to ascertain whether the Government had at all considered what was to happen in the event of a large number of men returning home from the War, when the manufacture of munitions of war had ceased, and when a large amount of employment directly arising out of the War had come to an end. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that no sooner had the War broken out than the Local Government Board at once made inquiries of local authorities in all parts of the country as to the schemes of public work which they were prepared to put in hand. I am only able to speak for England and Wales in this matter, but I believe I am correct in saying that similar inquiries were made in the case of local authorities in Scotland. A very large amount of information was collected under that head.
    It would, of course, be unwise on the part of the local authorities at the present time—the state of employment being what it is—to press on public works of that character; and I am sure that my hon. Friend does not desire that anything of the kind should be done, but that so far as possible such public works, unless there is some local and immediate necessity for them, should be conserved for the time that the troops have returned from the War. I do not mean to imply for a single moment that the ordinary work which the municipalities are now carrying on should not proceed, provided there is a certain amount of labour in connection with that work. Not only have inquiries been made of the local authorities, but there are as well certain schemes of a general character which have been under consideration. The Development Commissioners have had schemes under consideration. I can assure my hon. Friend that the question which he has so properly raised in the course of the Debate on the Address has been carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. So far as the Local Government Board is concerned the question is not being in any way lost sight of. The Department with which I am connected have their eyes open to the future, and so far as possible preparations will be made for the eventuality that he has put.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I did not intend to speak but for the speech which
    162
    the right hon. Gentleman has delivered. As I am a Member of the Local Representative Committee dealing with unemployment I am bound to say that I think his speech rather unsatisfactory, and for this reason: It is not any use the Local Government Board sending instructions to the local authorities and asking them to prepare great schemes, such as road-making and other gigantic schemes, the cost of which will be upon their rates, and to hold these schemes over until the time when the troops return, without they know for certain what proportion of the cost the Government is prepared to pay. That is really the trouble with the local authorities. You cannot very well move them to action until they know from the Government whether the Development Commissioners or the Road Board are prepared to make them Grants towards the making of new roads and other public works, I quite agree with him when he says that he hopes the local authorities will not stop going on with pressing work. They are not doing that. But I know that some local authorities are considering schemes that, owing to the height of their rates, it is quite impossible for them to proceed without they know from the Local Government Board what they are going to do. I should advise the Local Government Board to consider that point, and advise the local authorities what proportion of the cost they are prepared to pay.
    I should like to raise another point. I am sorry Ministers are not present, and especially the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I entirely demur to the criticisms which have been cast upon him by the Member for East Edinburgh. I am bound to say that his praise of his Scottish colleagues was not fair to the Financial Secretary. I can speak from experience. I say advisedly that the Financial Secretary—and all those who have corresponded with him about such cases as he referred to, that is to say, the non-payment of separation allowance and allotment, will be able to bear me out—has given great consideration to the matter. So far as I am concerned personally, I have presented a very large number of cases to the War Office, and in every case the Financial Secretary to the War Office had dealt very promptly with them, and the people have got their money. [An HON. MEMBER: "They would not have got it if you had not written."] The mistake which the hon. Member for

    163
    East Edinburgh made was that he wrote to the Paymaster-General, or the Paymaster in the Division of Perth, when he should have written to the War Office.
    Mr. HOGGE: Oh, no I did not.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member had written to the War Office I am quite certain that they would have attended to him. But the point I wanted to raise was this: I am glad to see the Chief Whip present; I should like him to present it to the War Office or the Prime Minister: that is the need which we feel in our large centres that there should be an important change dealing with the non-payment of the separation allowance and allotments. I live in my Constituency, and that is an advantage. I am easy of access to the people. I have had a very large number of women coming to me who have not received their separation allowance. In every case where I have written to the War Office on their behalf I have received, as I said, very much attention, and these people have had their separation allowances. What I want to suggest to the Government is this, and it is a practical suggestion for getting over this difficulty. It is a crying difficulty, and it is not easy to do what the Financial Secretary suggested, that is to say, if the women do not receive their separation allowance or allotment they should write to the paymaster of the regiment to which the husband belonged. There are thousands of cases of these poor women who are incapable of doing that. That is really the trouble, and in large towns they come to everybody to write letters for them to the War Office. I have found that in almost every case I have dealt with there were mistakes in the papers, or the papers were mislaid or miscarried. In other cases there were removals, and in many cases, as the Financial Secretary said, there was no proper and correct information in the attestation papers.
    10.0 P.M.
    I suggest that the War Office should authorise in every constituency and in large towns and counties where the counties are divided into eight or ten divisions, and in some cases eighteen divisions, the committees dealing with old age pensions and dependants, to constitute what I would call an official correspondent with the War Office on behalf of those people in every such centre. These women should be able to go to that correspondent
    164
    instead of searching here and there for some one to write for them to the War Office. In the towns I am speaking of we have excellent persons, quite independent and impartial, In the officers of the old age pensions committee, and I urge upon the Government the necessity of asking these men with proper payment for the extra work to become responsible, and that women who are not paid separation allowances should have the right to approach these men and ask them to write to the War Office as to why these separation allowances are not paid. The other point I should like to make is this: I think the War Office ought really to pay the monthly allotments which they promised to pay weekly, along with the allowance the Government themselves are giving. I believe if this were done, and these correspondents appointed in our several districts, the complaints now rightly made and the discontent and poverty created through women not receiving their separation allowances would be done away with, and general satisfaction would be given to the dependants of the men. I was very much surprised at the statement made by the right hon. Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) with regard to the large amount of money that is being paid out of the Prince of Wales Fund and handed over to organisations not representative of the people or the public. I refer to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. To hand over between £800,000 or £900,000 to an organisation which is not elected by responsible people, and which is self-constituted, seems to me to be a very serious matter indeed and one that requires very much attention on the part of the Government.
    I agree with a very large number of the criticisms passed by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) on the people that represent that organisation. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is not here just now. I was very much surprised that he should criticise it so severely because he is a member of the executive of the Prince of Wales' Fund, and it was the Prince of Wales' Fund that brought those people into existence. If it had not been for the Prince of Wales' Fund handing over these large sums to these people, they would not have power to spend this money in the way they are doing. I believe if this public money is to be spent, it should be spent through the representatives of the people and our

    165
    local bodies. Why not make the old age pensions committees responsible for the spending of this money? In any case, if I were a member of the executive committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund, I should feel it my duty to bring the matter before them and try and stop it there, rather than come to the House of Commons, which is only responsible in an indirect way. I should like to press upon the Chief Whip the points which I have made with regard to the correspondents. It is a very important point to those people. I found that there were weeks and weeks when women got no money, and many women do not know where to go to seek for information. They cannot write to the War Office themselves, and I say the Government should constitute somebody who should become responsible for the correspondence with the War Office, and I believe by that means you would mitigate a great deal of the hardships of which we now hear.
    There is one other point. I disagree to a large extent with what has been said about recruiting. I have had some experience of recruiting myself inside a recruiting office, and here again I say, and I am glad to say it, that the men do not consider themselves. The men I have seen leave their work, where some of them were earning £6 or £7 a week, and they enlist absolutely from, a sense of duty. Within ten days I myself swore in between 700 and 800 men, all of them who had been well paid at their work. Not a single one of these men but came to enlist from a pure sense of duty at the present juncture for their country, and the hardest thing I had to do was to tell some of them that a telegram had come from the War Office to stop recruiting. From 150 to 200 men were standing in the hall of the office where I was when that telegram came, and it was a most difficult thing to persuade these men that the War Office were not able to take them on. That stopped recruiting for the time being in the North of England, where recruiting was booming at the time. It was due to the War Office that recruiting was stopped, and it is only now again that men are coming in much quicker than for some days past. On the other hand I am bound to say that the delays in the payments to their wives no doubt has had some effect upon those who remain behind. These things spread rapidly through a town, and it is said that Mrs. So-and-So is living in poverty without
    166
    assistance in the way of her allotment or separation allowance. The Government having given larger separation allowances, much larger than they have ever had before and larger than during the Boer War, when there was nothing in comparison to what is being paid at the present time. I press upon the Government the points which I have made, and I think if they will turn them into practical effect we shall have a better state of things and much of the arrears will be cleared off.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Resolved, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn until Monday next."
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Have the Government made any alterations in their programme of business?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Yes. On Monday the Prime Minister will move a Vote of Credit and a Supplementary Army Estimate. On Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his Financial Statement.
  Whereupon ME. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn:"—
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes after Ten o'clock till Monday next, 16th November.

WAR IN EUROPE.
  BRITISH CASUALTIES IN WESTERN AREA.
  BRITISH CASUALTIES IN WESTERN AREA.
  RECRUITS FOR NEW ARMIES (RELIGIONS AND DENOMINATIONS).
  RECRUITS FOR NEW ARMIES (RELIGIONS AND DENOMINATIONS).
  GUNNERY ALLOWANCE (BOATSWAINS).
  GUNNERY ALLOWANCE (BOATSWAINS).
  PEACE COMMISSION TREATY WITH UNITED STATES.
  PEACE COMMISSION TREATY WITH UNITED STATES.
  LUDGERSHALL WATERWORKS.
  LUDGERSHALL WATERWORKS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  PETITIONS PRESENTED.
  PETITIONS PRESENTED.
  THURSDAY.
  THURSDAY.

PACK-BERESFORD DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, in relation to the Pack-Beresford Divorce Bill—a Bill which Was before this House last session and was disposed of here, and as to which, by agreement with the other House, the proceedings were suspended—I have to acquaint your Lordships that, pursuant to the Resolutions of August 6 and 7 last, the Bill had been lodged in the Private Bill Office, together with the proper declaration of the Agent; and now, in accordance with the Standing Orders and the usual practice, I present the Bill and move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a.
Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH rose to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the speculation in military supplies and of the inadvisable competition between all purchases of such supplies, the Government would consider the desirability of immediately fixing a flat rate for all articles which are required as war outfit of the Naval or Military Forces of the Crown.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question which I ask is one which County Associations consider of importance. There is no doubt a great deal of speculation in providing these supplies, and as the County Associations have now a good many additional duties thrown upon their shoulders in the way of providing various articles that are necessary, it is of great importance to them that they should be able to get these supplies at a reasonable price. There were certain articles which in the original scheme were to be provided by the Army Council, but owing to pressure the Army Council has not been able to provide them, and it has been left to the County Associations to secure the articles necessary. We are acting, of course, under the impression that as the Territorial Force is now a recognised part of the fighting Forces of the Crown, they are entitled, when they are sent abroad, to have the same supplies provided for them as are provided for the Regular Army. Therefore certain articles not considered necessary in the first instance have now been supplied to them. Again, the Generals in command of Divisions usually have their own idea of what articles are necessary for the troops under their command. Those, again, we have to provide; and additional provision has to be made by the County Associations for what commanding officers consider necessary.
What happens is this. There is enormous competition for everything that is necessary, and the result is that it is the poor Territorial Associations which usually suffer. There was an instance quoted the other day in The Times in connection with a particular article of which a good many thousands were required. The normal price of this article was 3s. 6d. A quantity were offered to the War Office at 4s. 5d. and refused, but they were eventually planted on the County Associations at 6s. 11 d. I am sure the House will agree that that is too much profit to be made and too great an advantage to be taken of he emergency under which we are now
56
labouring. Therefore the Association which I represent passed a resolution the other day in the terms of my Question, asking the Government to consider the desirability of fixing a flat rate for all articles which are required as war oufit of the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown. I also beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will lay on the Table the Interim Report on Canteens and Regimental Institutes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and gallant friend the Secretary of State for War, who is unable to be present to-day, has asked me to answer the noble Earl's Questions and state his views. The Secretary of State is substantially in accord with the noble Earl. The principle underlying this Question has, been adopted and is being followed where possible so far as military outfit is concerned, and that relates to the whole of the Forces of the Crown, including the Territorial Force. For instance, arrangements have been made whereby the sale price of revolvers is limited to a 10 per cent. advance on peace prices. Something must be allowed for the pressure of production, and 10 per cent. has been thought reasonable. Again, negotiations are in progress with the Wholesale Clothing Manufacturers' Federation with a view to ascertaining how far a flat rate could be adopted for the manufacture of Army clothing, and agreements in this sense, covering the supplies of clothing to the whole of His Majesty's Military Forces, will probably be concluded if the Secretary of State is able to satisfy himself that by such an arrangement the supply of the necessary quantities would not be prejudiced in any way. Further steps in this direction will be taken. In reply to the noble Earl's second Question, I place on the Table the Interim Report of the Committee on Garrison and Regimental Institutes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that there is no business on the Paper for Monday next, and therefore I propose that the House should adjourn until Tuesday, if that suits noble Lords opposite.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till 'To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.