Sitting of 23 November 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Pack-Beresford Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed.

POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON).
Copy presented of Orders made by the Council of the County of Southampton, altering certain polling districts in the Fareham and New Forest parliamentary divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907.
Copy presented of Orders declaring certain areas to be infected with Wart Disease and an Infected Area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 (D.I.P., Nos. 129–142) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
Copy presented of Account of the sums received and paid in respect of Wages and Effects of Deceased Seamen in the year ended the 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 48.]
ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
Copy presented of Statements deposited with the Board of Trade under Section 7 (1) of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, during the year 1914. Parts A and B [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 49.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Order, dated 18th November, 1914, made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners under the Act, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) (Ireland) Order (No. 3), 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSION (RULES).
Copy presented of Rules (1914) made under Section 11 of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CONSOLIDATED FUND.
Abstract Account presented showing the Issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the financial year ended 31st March, 1914, for the Interest and Management of the Debt, for the Civil List, and for all other Issues in the financial year for services charged directly on the said Fund, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 50.]
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure of Universities and Colleges, Ireland (including the Fee Fund Grant), for the year ended 31st March, 1914, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR IN EUROPE.

    BRITISH AND AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects who were in Austria-Hungary at the commencement of

    753
    the War are still detained there; and how many Austro-Hungarian subjects are at present detained in this country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The number of British subjects still detained in Austria-Hungary is approximately 550, and the number of male Austro-Hungarian subjects detained in this country is approximately 4,000.

    BRITISH CONSULATES (GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN AGENTS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs how many Germans or Austrians represented this country as Consuls in foreign parts at the date of the commencement of the War; and whether complete and permanent arrangements have been made for transferring such duties to other nationals?
    Mr. ACLAND: There were, at the outbreak of War, six Germans and five Austrians holding appointments as unsalaried Consular officers. Their appointments were terminated early in August.

    SUGAR-CANE CROPS (INDIA).
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he has any figures to show that the area at present set aside for sugar-cane crops in India is less by nearly a million acres than it was twelve years ago; is there any peculiar condition of the soil of India which makes it improbable that India can compete successfully in the growth and manufacture of cane sugar with Java, Mauritius, or the West Indies; and, in view of the probable shortage of sugar all over the world as a result of the War, is the Government of India taking any steps to encourage the cultivation of cane sugar during the present winter or to increase the quantity of sugar obtainable from the date palm.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): In 1913–14 the area was 8 per cent. greater than twelve years previously. In the production of sugar India would seem to be at a disadvantage as regards climate, and in a less degree as regards soil, and general conditions of cultivation and manufacture. The present state of the
    754
    sugar industry is well known in India and the Agricultural Department is no doubt doing what it can to assist cultivation.

    ROYAL FLEET RESERVE.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to what is regarded as an injustice in the case of ex-quartermaster-sergeants of the Royal Fleet Reserve on completing their time for pension; whether he is aware that on joining the Reserve it is understood that if called up for service by Royal proclamation ex-quartermaster-sergeants will receive their former rank and allowance; that instead of this being the case they have been required to take a lower rank, that of colour-sergeant, while men who did not join the Reserve have been given their former rank on coming up for service, as also have ex-quartermaster-sergeants who joined the Reserve but have not reached the age of fifty; and can he make a statement on the subject?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I do not think I can add anything to the very full reply I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for North Islington on Monday last.

    DEVONPORT (TUG SERVICE).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any complaint has been received from the men employed in His Majesty's tugs at Devonport, either by the local officers or by the Admiralty direct, concerning the long hours these men have to work without receiving extra pay; and whether he can see his way to give these men an extra 1s. per day, seeing that they are kept on duty for long periods, in some cases 56 hours at a time, whether the tug is working or not, and so place them in a similar position to men working in the coaling service and to men working in tugs under the War Department, who get 1s. a day extra food allowance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Complaint has been made. There is provision for extra pay in certain circumstances at present; and in view of recent pressure, to which the men have loyally responded, the attention of dockyard officers has been specially called to these regulations, with a view to their adequate application at this time.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I brought this question to his notice some few weeks ago, he gave a very similar answer, and nothing has been done?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot recall the answer, but I am quite sure if it was similar to the answer I have given to-day the circumstances were similar. The attention of the officers has been called to the regulation.

    NAVAL AND MARINE BRIGADES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state what are the numbers, what the composition, and what the cost to the country of the Naval and Marine Brigades, a portion of which was recently employed at Antwerp in land service; and whether he can state how many officers and men of the original brigades are interned in Holland, giving the men's ratings?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The German Admiralty have not published the strength and composition of the Naval and Marine Brigades they are now employing in Belgium, and I see no reason why a similar reticence should not be practised here. I shall be happy to give the Noble Lord, as honorary colonel of one of the brigades, the fullest details of its composition. The names of all officers and men interned in Holland were published in the Press on the 26th of last month.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up a point? The "Times" issued a list on the 21st, which they called "Further List of Casualties." On the 18th the right hon. Gentleman said that the list was approximately 1,000. Is the further list in addition to the 1,000 on the 18th?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not concern myself with the issue of these lists, but I will make inquiries as to what is the full number. My impression is no; certainly not.

    ACTION OFF CHILIAN COAST.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two official statements referring to the action off the Chilian coast, issued by the Admiralty on the 5th and 6th November,
    756
    respectively, were intended to mean that the "Canopus" had already joined Admiral Cradock's flag, or that she had reached a point which would have enabled her, had Admiral Cradock so disposed, to join in the action; and whether the Admiralty had good reason to believe, before the news of the action reached them, that the "Canopus" had joined him by the time in question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must refer the Noble Lord to my answer of the 16th of this month to the hon. Member for Chertsey.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, looking to recent regulations, separation allowance to wives and dependants is conditional upon the allotment by the man of a certain minimum sum, in two cases from His Majesty's ships "Hogue" and "Aboukir," and now from His Majesty's ships "Good Hope" and "Monmouth," no allotment papers have apparently been received at the Admiralty, although there is a strong presumption that the men intended to provide fully for their wives in this way; whether he is aware that, in consequence of these allotment papers not having been received, the wives affected have had no separation allowance since the War began, and in some cases have been almost destitute; and whether the Admiralty will allow as much latitude as possible in this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards men killed before the 1st October, the date as from which separation allowances were payable, any allotment having been declared is paid at the end of the month in which the death took place. Concurrently with this, pensions to the widow and orphans, if any, have been awarded on the old scale. In the case of men killed since the 1st October, the allotment, if any, is treated similarly; the allowances are being continued in anticipation of the decision to pay them for six months after the notification of death; and in certain cases, widows' and orphans' pensions on the old scale had already been paid in advance for a period of three months. With regard to the "Hogue" and "Aboukir," so far as I know, all pensions or separation allowances payable, have been or will immediately be awarded. Claims arising from the loss of the "Good Hope" and "Monmouth"

    757
    are being dealt with with all expedition. In the absence of any allotment all that will be payable at the moment will be the widows' and orphans' pensions on the old scale. Should that scale be improved, of course the persons concerned will receive pensions on the revised scale. The question of continuing for twenty-six weeks allotment and allowance in such cases as those indicated in the question, i.e., where it would clearly have been very difficult, if not impossible to have made allotment, is receiving consideration.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will allotments be made in those cases where they have not yet been received on account of the men being drowned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have just said that those cases are being considered.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What has been done with regard to the Paymasters who have been unable to make a return of allotments to the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Paymasters have nothing to do with it. If the hon. Member means that allotments that should have been made in the ordinary way have not been received, I say that we are taking those cases into consideration.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the inconvenience, hardship, and poverty caused by the delay in the payment of separation allowances and allotments; and, in order to avoid these results, if he is prepared to establish a correspondence bureau in towns and districts under the control of the old age pensions committee and the officer, so that the wives and dependants may at once communicate with the Department affected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): As my hon. Friend is aware, this proposal has been sympathetically received by the War Office, but I understand that it may be within the scope of the committee on pensions and allowances.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is urgent, and it is with me a question whether or not the matter is within the terms of the reference to the committee. If the hon. Gentleman can assure me it will receive the attention of the committee I will not press it?
    Mr. BAKER: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is within the terms of reference to the committee, and I have no reason to doubt that they will look upon it as a matter of great urgency.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister, whether, in the event of a Committee being set up to inquire into and to recommend a just and adequate scale of pensions for injured soldiers and sailors, and of allowances to the dependants of those killed in the present War, he will consider the desirability of including within the scope of such inquiry the question as to whether the pensions of soldiers and sailors disabled, and the allowances of the widows of those killed in the South African and other wars should be revised and made to conform to such new scale as may be determined?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The House has approved the terms of reference of the Pensions and Grants Committee, which is now sitting. I fear I do not see my way to extend the terms of reference in the sense proposed.

    COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the case of partial incapacity (civil servant, His Majesty's dockyard) a weekly payment must not exceed the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he is earning, or able to earn, in some suitable employment or business after the accident but must bear such relation to the amount of that difference as in the circumstances of the case may appear proper; that a hired hammerman now employed in the Devonport dockyard is for this reason receiving no compensation pension for the months of August and September; that the man in question has been compelled to work overtime owing to the exigencies of war and thought he was doing right in so doing; and whether, in these circumstances, some exception can be made, as otherwise the position would be that a man is compelled to work overtime to save the Government paying him the pension or compensation to which he is by their own action entitled?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first portion of the question is in the affirmative, the procedure being in conformity

    759
    with the provisions of Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. As this procedure is statutory, I cannot hold out any hope of an exception being made in the case referred to in the latter part of the question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to inform the man of the fact, so that he would not be compelled to go on working overtime and have the amount deducted from his pension?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men had the the opportunity of coming under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under our scheme. The matter was fully stated to the men at the time?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the case. This occurs in time of War and, if the man is obliged to work overtime, he could not possibly have had placed before him whether he would come under one scheme or the other. Cannot something be done to relieve this poor man from being compelled to work overtime? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] It is very important to the man.

    ARMY AND NAVY COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any person or persons, by birth of German or Austrian nationality, have been given commissions in the Army or Navy since the declaration of War; if so, whether he will state his or their names and positions; and on what grounds and by whose recommendation he and they were appointed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Questions relating to the Army should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. I know of no such case in the Navy.
    Mr. CECIL: Or the Naval Brigade?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Or the Naval Brigade.

    OIL FUEL (BATTLESHIPS).
    Sir FRANCIS LOWEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fires which have occurred on battleships in action and of the probability of the risk of fire being increased by the adoption of oil fuel, the
    760
    Admiralty have considered or are prepared to consider the desirability of in future using, as far as possible, timber and other materials which have been rendered fire-resisting for the internal fittings of these ships; and whether their attention has been drawn to any of the processes which exist for attaining this object?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure the hon. Member that all possible steps are being taken to minimise the risks of fire.

MANUFACTURE OF DYES IN UNITED KINGDOM.

  STATE ENCOURAGEMENT.
  Mr. SHERWELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of the Government to assist financially and otherwise, in the organisation of the supply of aniline and other dyes; and, if so, whether the can give the House an assurance that no engagements will be entered into on behalf of the Government until the proposals and recommendations of the Haldane Committee are laid before this House?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Since the beginning of the War the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government has been given to the best means of averting the grave danger of stoppage of employment in the textile and other industries which depend upon a supply of colours owing to the interruption of imports from Germany. Emergency measures are already being taken to secure for the time being the continuity of supply of dye stuffs by encouraging the immediate development of existing sources in the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. In addition, however, the inquiries of the Government have led them to the conclusion that the excessive dependence of this country on a single foreign country for materials of such vital importance to industries in which millions of our workpeople are employed constitutes a permanent danger which can only be remedied by a combined national effort on a scale which requires and justifies an exceptional measure of State encouragement.

  761
  Accordingly the Board of Trade have entered into consultations with the principal interests concerned with a view to the elaboration of a scheme for the establishment of an undertaking for the production of synthetic dyes and colours. In the main it is hoped that the capital required will be forthcoming from the industries by which dyes and colours are mainly used, but the Treasury are prepared within certain limits, and subject to certain conditions, to afford financial support to a well-considered scheme which will be permanently under British control. I am not prepared at the moment to enter into fuller details, because several matters are still the subject of confidential negotiations, but further information will be made public as soon as practicable.
  As regards the last part of the question, I am authorised by the Lord Chancellor to say that in his view the Committee over which he presides was intended to bring together those possessing special knowledge and experience of various aspects of the problems of chemical industry arising out of the War, so as to promote an exchange of views and to give practical assistance to the Government in finding a solution, rather than for the purpose of presenting a formal report and recommendations on the very wide range of subjects within the purview of the Committee. In these circumstances, and in view of the very urgent nature of the practical difficulties which we have to meet, I think that my hon. Friend will see that it is not practicable to give the suggested undertaking.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Can the President of the Board of Trade say whether this House will have an opportunity of considering that further information before arrangements are completed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The steps which have to be taken are naturally of an urgent nature. If the House is not sitting I should certainly deprecate delaying the operations which are necessary in the interests of supply until the House meets again. The fullest information will be given to the public.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Are we to understand that the temporary needs which the right hon. Gentleman referred to cannot be met by the interim issuing of licences in the customary way?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My information is that they cannot be met in the interim in that way. The needs are very urgent.
  Mr. HEWINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the present stock of dyes will last?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it is in the public interest to say. Certainly they are not likely to last over next year.
  Mr. HEWINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the composition of the Committee that will consider this matter will be?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has been made fully public.
  Mr. BARNES: Will it be within the purview of the Committee to inquire or take steps to prevent the importation of German dyes after the War?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that is in the least necessary. I hope the steps that will be taken will be quite sufficient to enable English manufacturers to hold their own against German competition.

PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL MATCHES.
Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway companies still issue tickets below the usual price to persons wishing to travel to professional football matches?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the railway companies are not in any way curtailing their usual arrangements in connection with the issue of cheap tickets.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it possible for the Government, having taken over the railways, to put a stop to this, or charge those people double and give some of the money to war funds?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The subject can be reconsidered, but I would point out that

763
any change made with reference to this one sport cannot be restricted to that alone.
Colonel YATE: Will the Government put a tax on all those attending professional football who are not in uniform?
Mr. FIELD: Is it not the fact that the railways are at present commandeered by the Government, who have the power to do anything they wish with regard to rates?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should not like to say commandeered was an exact description.
Mr. FIELD: It is very near it.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are certainly to a great extent under Government control.
Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask whether the railway companies, under those circumstances and in view of the arrangements that have been made, have got the same free hands with regard to rates that they have had?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have interfered as little as possible with railway rates. The object of the arrangement, as the hon. Baronet knows, was to facilitate the transfer of troops and those connected with the combatant forces from place to place in the United Kingdom, and to provide an easy arrangement by which remuneration could be given to the railway companies for these purposes.
Sir F. FLANNERYrose—
Mr. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that we have got one hundred and forty-one questions on the Paper, I think hon. Members ought to control their thirst for information.

CLOSING OF PORTS (LANARKSHIRE COAL).
Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is taking action to secure special rates for the conveyance of Lanarkshire coal and iron, etc., by rail to Leith and other ports since the closing by the Admiralty of the ports of the Upper Forth; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question is now under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

SIEMENS COMPANIES.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any receiver or inspector has yet been appointed of any of the Siemens companies in this country; and, if not, will he say why this has not been done?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: An inspector was appointed some time ago under the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act in the cases of Siemens Brothers and Company, Limited, and Siemens Brothers Dynamo Works, Limited.

SUGAR SUPPLY (CORK AND KERRY).
Mr. FLAVINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say why the sugar over which the Government has control is not sold to merchants residing in Cork and Kerry; and whether he is aware that a charge of 1s. 6d. per bag is made by Messrs. Lyles over and above the standard price fixed by the Government where any sugars are offered to Cork or Kerry merchants?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that all firms purchasing direct from Messrs. Lyle and Sons have been supplied at the same prices as ex-refinery. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the details of the cases to which his question refers. I will have inquiry made into the matter.

LOCAL LOANS.
Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Local Government Board have authorised the Foots Cray urban district to raise a loan of £2,050 for the purpose of erecting council offices; whether the council applied to the Public Works Loan Board for the loan and received a reply that they were unable to lend owing to the limited amount of funds placed at their disposal; and, whether, in view of the desirability of creating means of employment at the present time, an arrangement can be made to meet such cases?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): After full consideration it has not been found possible to relax the existing restrictions on advances from the Local Loans Fund;

765
but in cases where serious unemployment exists in the building trade arrangements are being made for direct Exchequer loans to provide funds for housing and public works.

CIVIL SERVANTS (POSITION AFTER WAR).
Mr. HOGGEasked whether service marks will be awarded to applicants for Civil Service appointments after the War; and, if not, what steps are being taken to see that men now serving with the Colours shall lose nothing either in time or opportunity?
Mr. MONTAGU: The question referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the Treasury and of the Civil Service Commission. Regulations dealing with the matter will be issued at an early date.

CUSTOMS WATCHERS.
Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that there are numbers of outport Customs watchers whose wages are only 21s. per week and that, owing to the conditions of their employment, promotion is for most of them impossible; if he is aware that these men enter the service after, in many cases, having served in the Army or Navy, in respect of which service they are in receipt of small pensions ranging from 8d. per day; if he will say if this pension counts in fixing the present scale of wages, and, if not, is 21s. regarded as an adequate wage for any man in Home Government employment; if any improvement and, if so, what improvement has been made in the pay and prospects of these men since the Departmental Committee which heard evidence on their case in 1911–12; and, if no improvement has been made, will he undertake to make inquiry with a view to bringing the wages up to a decent living standard?
Mr. MONTAGU: The wages of Customs watchers at the outports are 21s. a week, and one-fourth of the class constitute an upper section, with wages rising to 24s. a week. In addition, two good conduct allowances of 1s. a week each are granted after five and ten years' service respectively. There is no promotion open to the class. These wages are paid irrespective of any pensions drawn in respect of previous service, and the emoluments of the men are considered
766
adequate for the simple duties they have to perform. Since the inquiry by the Committee of 1911–12 the following improvements have been granted, namely; the two good conduct allowances already mentioned, a time allowance for night duty under which six hours of such discount as seven, and an increase in the rate of overtime pay from 6d. to 7d. an hour.
Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of those who are now on 21s. a week can never get any more owing to the age at which they joined? Under these circumstances, is he still of opinion that 21s. is an adequate wage for these men?
Mr. MONTAGU: The work is of a very simple nature.
Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that men who have served the country in the Army or the Navy enter this service at about 40 years of age?
Mr. MONTAGU: One-fourth of the class get wages up to 24s.
Mr. BARNES: If they enter young enough—and these men do not.

PARCELS TO TROOPS (POSTAGE).
Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience and hardship caused in many cases to persons sending parcels to the front owing to the postage on the same, and that the wife of a man at the front only the other day was charged 1s. for a parcel containing a shirt and a pair of pants, sent at her husband's request; and can he see his way to meeting cases of this kind by a reduction in the postal rates?
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the cost of postage of parcels from the people in this country to their soldier friends on active service is as much, and in many cases more, than the value of the contents; that in order to have the cost of postage commensurate with the value of the articles it is necessary to send a parcel weighing about seven pounds; whether he is aware that, from many working-class homes, the dispatch of seven-pound parcels is not practicable; and whether he can see his way in the present abnormal circumstances to make some reduction in the postage?
Mr. NEVILLEasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to reduce the rates at present charged for the postage of parcels to the Expeditionary Force to the rates at present charged for the postage of inland parcels?
Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Postmaster-General if he will take into consideration a revision of the postage on parcels destined for our troops serving abroad, with special reference to a reduction in the minimum charge of 1s., in view of the fact that a large number of the parcels forwarded are under three pounds in weight to which the minimum of 1s. applies?
The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): In reply to these questions, I will read to the hon. Members the answer given by my right hon. Friend to similar questions on Monday last. I cannot agree that the present rates on parcels for the troops impose a serious check on the dispatch of comforts to the Army. The Post Office is at present dispatching about 12,000 parcels a night to the Army Base Post Office in France. Any reduction of postage which resulted in a material increase in this number would frustrate its own object by increasing the difficulties already experienced by the Army Post Office in disposing of the heavy mails with which it has to deal. These comprise not only the parcels above mentioned, but also from 250,000 to 300,000 outward letters and newspapers every day. I understand that the difficulties of providing adequate transport in France are already very serious.

IRISH MAIL (DELAY).
Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Postmaster-General whether he can explain the cause of the delay in delivering the Irish Mail to Members of the House during the present Session?
Captain NORTON: I understand the hon. Member's question has reference to the Irish Mail usually delivered about 6.10 p.m. There has been some delay in the delivery of this mail, owing to a restriction of mail van services necessitated by the War; but arrangements are being made which, I hope, will prevent any further inconvenience.

COLONIAL TROOPS (LETTERS).
Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider making arrangements by which facilities will be given to the correspondence of our Colonial troops by the franking of their letters, whether for this country or for the Colonies?
Captain NORTON: Correspondence sent to and from the Colonial troops in this country is subject to the same conditions as correspondence sent to and from Home troops. Any unpaid or short-paid Inland letter, which bears an indication that it was posted by a soldier, is charged on delivery at the single instead of the double rate. Colonial troops on active service on the Continent of Europe would be granted the concession of free postage on correspondence sent to this country which I announced in this House on the 31st August last. The question of the collection of charges on correspondence addressed to the Colonies, whether from this country or from abroad, is a matter for the Post Office of destination.

TELEGRAPHIC CODES.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether two of the four codes recently sanctioned under the censorship are American; whether one of them is duplicated in the German language and has a large circulation in Germany; and whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the use of a code of this character, seeing that there are recognised English codes equal or superior in value to those permitted; and (2) why, in selecting codes to be permitted under the censorship, he adopted codes prepared prior to 1903 which involved a greater cost of from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. in telegraphing to merchants and others above those codes prepared since 1903, under the provisions of the International Code Convention of that date, and of the technical or commercial advice he or the War Office took in the matter?
Captain NORTON: Two of the authorised codes are American. Editions are also published in French and Spanish, and one of them is duplicated in the German language. These codes are understood to be largely used in the United States and other neutral countries with which British traders, in whose interests they are authorised, desire to communicate. Another

769
of the authorised codes contains artifical groups of letters formed in accordance with the International Regulations of 1903, and I understand that this code is being used to a considerable extent. As mentioned in the reply to a similar question which the hon. Member asked on the 16th instant, the selection of the codes to be authorised was made on the advice of the Board of Trade. The question whether any other codes can be admitted is under consideration.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the hon. Member received deputations from the London, Manchester, and other Chambers of Commerce in reference to this matter?
Captain NORTON: I have no knowledge of that.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that the meaning of a code-word can be entirely changed by merely altering the position of the code-word?
Captain NORTON: The whole question has been thoroughly gone into by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. HUNTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that offers have been made by British companies trading in the United Kingdom with our Oversea Dominions to pay the whole cost of having their private codes supervised by a Government Censor, and that these offers have been declined, he can say why it is that the Government allows codes such as Lieberts, more foreign than British, to be used by the public?
Captain NORTON: As regards private codes, I fear I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question asked on the 16th instant by the hon. Member for the Brentford Division, namely, that the question of admitting private codes was carefully considered by the military authorities, who are primarily responsible for the censorship on telegrams, but that they are strongly opposed to the adoption of such codes. I do not think that the fact that a particular code is not British is a sufficient reason against its adoption, provided it is largely used in the neutral countries with which the British commercial community have dealings.
Mr. HUNT: If the Government find it necessary to prevent British companies from using a code under the supervision of
770
a Government official at no expense to the Government, is it not time they stopped all telegrams or cablegrams from going out of the country?
Captain NORTON: That is a representation which the hon. Gentleman must make to the military authorities.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH GERMANY.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINasked the Prime Minister whether it would now be possible, without injury to the public interests, to lay Papers in regard to the negotiations with Germany, prior to the present crisis, to which he referred at Cardiff?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Papers are being got together, and my right hon. Friend is considering whether it would be to the public interest that they should be published.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would be good enough to communicate with me when he comes to a decision?

RECRUITING.
Mr. GERSHOM STEWARTasked the Prime Minister the number of recruits enlisted since the commencement of the War in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?
Mr. HAYWARDasked whether the Government, in order to facilitate recruiting, will consider the advisability of taking effective steps to obtain and publish particulars of all men of military age and capacity in, and the number already recruited from, every county, county borough, or other appropriate area in the United Kingdom, and also the number required from each of such areas to make up the total number of recruits required according to the ratio the men available in each of such areas bears to the total number available in the United Kingdom, making allowance, if necessary, for men engaged on naval and military works and equipment?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that, no precise or trustworthy figures being available, the publication of the figures suggested at present would only lead to misleading deductions.
Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind—speaking for the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee—that it would help them if some of these facts were placed before the country?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether he will state, with reference to the recruiting inquiry circular to be issued presently to householders generally, if Civil servants may express their willingness to serve with the forces of the Crown if and when called upon; and, if so, whether they would be entitled to the full benefits of the Treasury Regulations governing enlistment with permission?
Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among Civil servants at hindrances placed in the way of enlistment; and whether he will arrange that those engaged in land valuation and occupations not specially affected by the War should be allowed to enlist and have their places kept open for them?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the written answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland, which will appear in to-morrow's Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]

ATROCITIES IN BELGIUM (BRITISH COMMISSION).
Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister when the British Commission appointed to investigate the question of atrocities committed by the German troops in Belgium is likely to issue a Report, whether interim or final?
The PRIME MINISTER: A considerable amount of evidence has now been taken, and the statements are about to be referred to a small Committee with a view to bringing out an Interim Report at an early date.

NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that exception has been taken in both Services to the appointment of the
772
Home Secretary on the Committee to deal with Pensions and Grants to the Officers and Men of the Naval and Military Forces; whether he is aware that the Services complain that there is no Member of Parliament representing the Services on that Committee, and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing on the Committee a Member who has served in the Army?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any grounds for the suggestion made by the Noble Lord in the first two branches of this question. I feel sure that the constitution of the Committee will command universal confidence. I may add that naval and military officers, if they choose, can present their case to the Committee by representatives.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question as to the desirability of a Member who has served in the Army being on the Committee?
The PRIME MINISTER: No; we cannot alter the constitution of a Committee that has been appointed by the House, and that is now sitting.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Services could not possibly know what was the composition of the Committee until the names were published?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Services can present their case to the Committee through representatives, which I think is really a more satisfactory way than any other.
Lord C. BERESFORD: What representatives does the right hon. Gentleman mean?
The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot speak for the Committee, but I am sure they will listen to evidence from anybody who seems to be worthy of attention.

ISLAND OF HERM.

  OCCUPATION BY BRITISH TROOPS.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister the name of the German company to whom the Crown leased the Channel island of Herm in 1889; the object of such tenancy and the nature of the business carried on by the company; what is the length of the term, the premium paid (if any), and the annual rent; was the

  773
  sub-lease of the mansion house and grounds granted with the consent of the Crown; the name of the sub-lessee and what are the restrictions which he and (or) the company impose upon British excursionists; whether he is aware of the purpose for which the company and (or) its tenant used the island, and what such purpose in fact was; what number of persons are employed in such undertaking; has there been any recent official Government survey of the island, and, if so, is there any reason to believe that the lessees have constructed any works of a military character or concrete bases upon which siege guns can be mounted to dominate the surrounding islands, the coast-line of France, or the adjacent channels; and, if not, whether he will have such survey and inspection made immediately, in view of the experience of Mauberge and elsewhere in France?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The name of the company is the the West Bank Liegnitz, Limited. I have no information as to the business carried on by the company. The lease is renewable every 21 years, at the tenant's option, on payment of a fine of £42. It has been in existence a great many years, and has passed through many hands. It was last renewed in 1905. The annual rent is £14. The consent of the Crown was not obtained for the sub-lease of the house and grounds, and does not appear to have been necessary. The sub-lessee is Prince Blucher von Wahlstatt. The public are only allowed to land by consent. In practice, a steamer is allowed to call once a week; a fee of sixpence a head is charged. Visitors are confined to one road. The island is used for farming and residential purposes. Twenty-five persons are employed, of whom twelve are British, and the rest alien enemies, four being males. The island was visited and thoroughly inspected immediately after the outbreak of War, and a further inspection is now being made by the military authorities. No military preparations have been discovered. The island is occupied by a detachment of British troops.

VIGILANCE COMMITTEES.
Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to legalise vigilance committees in
774
towns and districts, composed of older men not likely to be carried away by panic or excitement, in order to allay public anxiety concerning the danger to the State from alien enemies in our midst?
Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. Secrecy is the essence of the measures which are being taken by the military authorities and the police to deal with espionage, and I fear the existence of such committees as the Noble Lord suggests would tend to hamper rather than to assist their inquiries. Members of the public should communicate to the military or the police any definite grounds of suspicion that come to their knowledge, and they may rest assured that everything possible will be done to investigate them, and thus meet the danger.

FOREIGN RAID (INSTRUCTIONS TO CIVILIANS).
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to issue instructions to the civilian population as to the course of action to be taken in the event of a foreign raid?
Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland and I, acting on behalf of the Government, have been in communication on this matter with the Lords Lieutenant of certain counties in Scotland and England. The Lords Lieutenant have formed, or are now forming, emergency committees in all districts which could be regarded as exposed to possible raids. For the present, however, it is considered undesirable to make public the instructions which have been, or will be, issued.

GERMANY AND RUBBER.
Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has any information which would indicate that Germany's endeavours to secure rubber is associated with the acquisition of a rubber device for the protection of ships once offered to the Admiralty and subsequently acquired by a neutral country; and whether rubber has been or will be declared contraband?
Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I have no information as to the first part of the question. With regard to the second, rubber has already been declared contraband.

NATIONAL DEFENCE (VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS).
Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that numerous voluntary associations for the purpose of national defence have been formed by persons unsuitable from their age, physical defects, or otherwise for regular military service; and whether, in the event of the services of such associations becoming useful in the event of an invasion, they will be recognised by the Government as combatants?
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to extend official recognition to the Plymouth Defence Force, which is organised strictly on the principle that no man can be accepted as a member who is eligible for any other branch of His Majesty's fighting forces?
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to extend official recognition to the Plymouth Defence Force?
Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that many active men who are slightly over the recruiting age desire to fight in the event of invasion and are prepared to provide their own arms and any equipment which may be necessary to enable them to be recognised as combatants; and if the War Office will consider whether some uniform could be designed for a defence force which could be procured in readiness for such an event by men whose qualifications are considered adequate?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): As was explained in the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on Monday last to the hon. Member for Glasgow University, such voluntary associations should affiliate themselves to the Central Association Volunteer Training Corps under conditions a copy of which I will circulate with the Votes. The question whether these associations will
776
be recognised as combatant in the event of invasion is still under consideration.—[See Written Answers this date.]

GARRISON AND REGIMENTAL INSTITUTES.
Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the Army Order including the recommendations of the Committee on Garrison and Regimental Institutes will be promulgated; and whether the posts as inspectors will be filled from the War Office staff or advertised for?
Mr. BAKER: The Army Order will be issued shortly. The selection of inspectors will be made by the Central Board referred to in the Committee's report, and these officials will be properly qualified business men appointed from outside.
Mr. HOGGE: Will the posts be advertised?
Mr. BAKER: I think not, but I cannot say.

WOUNDED SOLDIERS (HOME JOURNEYS).
Mr. DENNISSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that wounded soldiers returned to their depot in this country from the front and sent to their homes to recuperate are only allowed their railway fare one way; and whether he will arrange that they shall be allowed their fares for returning as well as going?
Mr. BAKER: The rule is that wounded soldiers sent to their homes on sick furlough travel both ways at Government expense. If the hon. Member will furnish instances in which it has not been observed, I will inquire into them.
Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that wounded soldiers are discharged from the hospitals late in the afternoon and have to travel all night to their homes in this cold weather; and would it not be possible to arrange that the men shall be discharged early in the morning when they have a long distance to travel to their homes?
Mr. BAKER: I shall certainly see that, as far as possible, that is done.

APPRENTICES.
Mr. DENNISSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that young men who break their apprenticeship to join the Army for the duration of the War will not, in ordinary circumstances, be recognised after the War either by employers or trade unions as journeymen or tradesmen and are thus put under disability for the rest of their lives, that there are thousands of such cases, and that thousands of young men are held back from enlisting from this cause; and will he see if something can be done to remedy this difficulty?
Mr. TENNANT: I know of no power by which employers can be compelled to allow the resumption of an interrupted apprenticeship. It is known that in many cases they have voluntarily promised to permit the apprentice to resume and I believe that when the case is brought before them employers will be glad to follow this example.

ERECTION OF MILITARY HUTS.
Mr. WILKIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the erection of huts at Sutton Veney, a strike against the wages paid took place among the workmen employed, and a number of Engineers were lent to the contractor to take the place of the workmen; if so, will he state under what conditions these Engineers were lent; whether they received any wages; if so, the amount; and whether there was any alteration made in the contract price?
Mr. BAKER: Some difficulty did occur, and, in order that the completion of the huts might not be delayed skilled men among the troops had to be employed temporarily. They received the extra pay provided for such employment by the Royal Warrant for Pay. The matter has now been adjusted by a slight increase of pay. The work was not being done by contract, and there was consequently no question of alteration in the contract price.

PAYMENTS FOR GOODS (WAR OFFICE).
Mr. SHERWELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that payments for goods delivered to the
778
War Office in discharge of contracts are, in many cases, considerably delayed; and whether, in view of the inconvenience thereby caused to smaller contractors, who are required to pay cash for their raw material, he will take steps, to expedite payments for goods actually delivered?
Mr. BAKER: Everything possible is done to make prompt payment, but it may be that some isolated cases of delay have arisen from incompleteness of documents or other causes. If any such cases come to the knowledge of the hon. Member, I will gladly inquire into them.

BATTALION COLOURS.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the refusal of the War Office to sanction the presentation of Colours to battalions now being formed for the New Army is having a detrimental effect on recruiting; whether representations against this refusal have been made to the War Office by those who are assisting in recruiting in various parts of the United Kingdom; and whether he can now make any further statement on the subject?
Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in supposing that the War Office have refused Colours to the battalions of the New Armies now forming. When these battalions are trained and efficient units they will be entitled to have Colours just as much as any other Regular battalion of the Army.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether Colours were presented to the London Scottish by the late King Edward; if so, where and on what date was the presentation made; and whether these colours are now at the London Scottish headquarters, 59, Buckingham Gate?
Mr. TENNANT: To the first part of the question the answer is in the affirmative; to the second, at Windsor on the 19th day of June, 1909; and to the third, in the affirmative.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: With reference to the answer which the Under-Secretary for War has given to the question put by the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow about the presentation of Colours to battalions, may I ask if his

779
answer covers the case of a battalion being allowed to accept banners which have been made for them by the patriotism and good will of their fellow citizens?
Mr. TENNANT: My answer did not deal with that part of the question at all. I think the proper course to adopt would be what has been the universal practice in the past, for the War Office to have the proper Colours made for His Majesty to present them to the battalion.

MEDICAL SERVICE (NEW ARMIES).
Mr. HINDSasked the Under-Secretary for War what arrangements are being made for providing a medical service for the New Armies; and, pending the organisation of such a service, what provision is made for the treatment of troops in the new battalions or brigades?
Mr. TENNANT: The New Army will be provided with medical arrangements on the same basis as the Expeditionary Force. Large training establishments have been formed at which the subordinate personnel is being instructed in their active service duties. Pending the completion of these arrangements, the New Army is receiving medical attendance on exactly the same lines as the Regular Army in times of peace. Temporarily commissioned officers in the R.A.M.C. and locally employed civil practitioners have been engaged in sufficient numbers to meet all requirements, and nearly a hundred of the R.A.M.C. Reserve of Officers have been recalled to duty. So far there has been no difficulty in securing the services of a sufficient number of fully qualified medical men, and it is not anticipated that there will be any shortage in the immediate future. All the military hospitals in the country have been very greatly expanded and several large civil and private hospitals are working in conjunction with them. Up to the present there has been no lack of hospital accommodation.

WOUNDED SOLDIERS' RAILWAY FARES.
Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that wounded soldiers having returned from the front, and whose place of residence is
780
some distance from the barracks, and which necessitates a railway journey, such as from Borrowash to the Normanton barracks, Derby, are compelled to pay their own railway fare to and from home in order to visit the doctor at the barracks; whether this is in accordance with the instructions of the War Office; if so, will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs; and, if not, to ensure that men are given the facilities intended without difficulty?
Mr. BAKER: Travelling expenses incurred by soldiers on journeys made under orders are paid by the public. If the hon. Member will send me details of the case or cases which he has in mind, I will see that inquiries are made.

SIERRA LEONE GARRISON.
Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it will be possible to relieve the garrison at Sierra Leone, which is suffering greatly from the fact that leave is long overdue and that the admissions to the hospitals have unduly increased?
Mr. TENNANT: It has been found necessary to suspend the ordinary reliefs while a state of war exists. No report has been received from the General Officer Commanding that the condition of the garrison is unsatisfactory. I am obviously not in a position to give any pledge on this matter, but any representation from the station will of course receive every consideration.

FIELD-SERVICE POSTCARDS.
Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will consider the desirability of relaxing the restrictions imposed on the correspondence of those on active service, as at the present time in certain cases men are not permitted, even without giving addresses, to satisfy their relatives as to their well-being, such uncertainty accounting, to a considerable extent, for the present slow rate of recruiting?
Mr. TENNANT: Field-service postcards are served out to the men every week, and I am not aware that they are in any circumstances unable to send them. By the use of these a man can keep his relatives informed as to his health, even if he does not send letters.

ALDERSHOT COMMAND (TROOPS UNDER CANVAS).
Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the suspension of the contemplated move of troops within the Aldershot Command and to prevent further sickness, he will consider the expediency of ordering troops now under canvas at once into billets pending a decision as to future accommodation?
Mr. TENNANT: All troops who have been under canvas have been ordered into billets or barrack huts in Aldershot Command and are being accommodated accordingly.

MILITARY HOSPITALS AND RECRUITS.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether treatment in military hospitals is being refused to recruits in the New Army raised for service during the War who have been discharged for temporary incapacity due to accidents during training, while in similar cases such treatment is given to recruits in the Regular Army; and whether he will arrange that in future no distinction shall be made in this respect between the two classes of recruits?
Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that any distinction is being made between the different categories. The rule is that a discharged soldier who, on account of illness, is unable to proceed to his home will be maintained in hospital. If my hon. Friend knows of any specific cases and will let me know, inquiry will be made.

RECRUITING OFFICES, IRELAND.
Mr. COTTONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state how many recruiting stations have been established in each county in Ireland in connection with the Irish Brigade?
Mr. TENNANT: There are 120 recruiting offices open in Ireland. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate with the Votes details of the number in each county.—[See Written Answers this date.]

BRASSARDS.
Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Under-Secretary for War if the wearing of a brassard would insure that any person who takes part armed in the defence of his country would be regarded a combatant?
Mr. TENNANT: Subject to conditions which the hon. Member will find stated in Article 1 of the Annex to The Hague Convention of 18th October, 1907, the brassard does entitle any person wearing it to the status of a belligerent.
Mr. HUNT: Would the Germans take any notice of that if they came over here?
Mr. TENNANT: I imagine the German Government, being a party to The Hague Convention, should obey its instructions as much as any other belligerent Power.
Mr. HUNT: Is that not giving the people of this country a false security when the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Germans will do nothing of the sort?
Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid it is impossible for me or any other person to guarantee security such as the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would it not be greater security to allow the people to wear uniforms?
Mr. TENNANT: I should make no objection to uniforms being quickly obtained.

CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS FOR GUNS.
Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, with the object of allaying public apprehension, he will state whether a number of concrete foundations or constructions, ostensibly foundations for factories, building, tennis courts, or other structures, have been inspected in proximity to towns, ports, or forts in this country; whether there is any reason to suppose that these works have been constructed or maintained by evilly-disposed persons to assist invaders or for other military purposes; and whether any danger of this character has been adequately met?
Mr. TENNANT: A considerable number of reports impugning the ostensible purpose of concrete foundations for tennis

783
courts, etc., have been received by the military authorities, and, in all cases where the facts as reported warranted an inspection being made this has been carried out. I do not think it can be said as a general statement that these concrete beds where they exist have been constructed with a military purpose in view, but wherever there has been any reason to suspect this adequate precautions have been made.

WINTER ACCOMMODATION FOR TROOPS, ISLE OF WIGHT.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the camp of the 3rd Royal Warwickshire Regiment, at Parkhurst, Isle of Wight, is 18 inches deep in mud; how long it is intended to keep this battalion under canvas in a quagmire; and why the construction of huts for the winter accommodation of troops in the Isle of Wight was not commenced before October?
Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that the men of this battalion are now all in billets or in huts. I am inquiring into the point raised in the last part of the question.
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that no mattresses were issued to the troops of the 3rd Battalion Hampshire Regiment until November, 1914, and that the greater part of the regiment had to sleep on bare boards—for some weeks with only one blanket each—during the entire months of September and October; whether sufficient mattresses were, during the whole of this time, in store at Portsmouth; and, if so, why they were not issued; and why, if the mattresses were not in store, it was officially stated that they were, and every step was taken to prevent the military authorities in the Isle of Wight from purchasing new mattresses independently?
Mr. TENNANT: I have had inquiry made and am informed that the 3rd Battalion Hampshire Regiment were actually in possession of 875 mattresses from the 14th August, and that two blankets per man were authorised for issue on the 12th September and three on the 13th October. The statement contained in the last part of the question is not in accordance with the facts.
Mr. GWYNNE: Are they in the possession of the men or are they only authorised?
Mr. TENNANT: They are in their possession, to the numbers I have given.
Mr. GWYNNE: Were they in the stores?
Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware. I have given the figures—875 men—and two blankets were given to each.
Mr. GWYNNE: Were authorised?
Mr. TENNANT: And issued.

MILITARY CAMPS (LOCAL TRADERS AND SUPPLIES).
Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary for War if local traders living in districts where military camps are formed or in course of formation can be given an opportunity, through the ordinary system of contracts, of supplying troops quartered there with meat, bread, and forage, which is now sent direct from the Government supply depots?
Mr. H. BAKER: This is already allowed as far as is possible. But the necessity of turning over the large reserves held in the supply depots limits the use which can be made of local supply.

SOCKS FOR TROOPS.
Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Under-Secretary for War whether a better quality of socks can be supplied to His Majesty's Forces, as many complaints have been made that the quality hitherto in use shrinks and wears badly?
Mr. TENNANT: No complaints have been received from the troops regarding the wearing quality of the socks. The sock supplied is the best-quality woollen sock, and I am assured that in the case of woollen articles some shrinkage is unavoidable.

TERRITORIAL FORCE (RESERVE REGIMENTS).
Mr. HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the fact that, in the case of Territorial Reserve regiments, the men are often strangers

785
to their first regiments, and that in consequence many object to being sent abroad in drafts to join them, but are quite willing to sign on for service abroad with their own Reserve regiments under their own officers, he could say if it would be possible to have two lists, one consisting of those willing to go in drafts abroad to fill up other regiments, and the other consisting of those willing to sign on to go abroad if sent with their own Reserve regiment under their own officers?
Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid the hon. Member proceeds on a wrong assumption. The Imperial Service and Reserve Unit are not separate regiments, but parts of one whole, and the main object of the latter is to feed the former. It would be of no military advantage for men to agree to go abroad only with the Reserve Unit, as that unit will not normally go abroad.

EAST AFRICA.
Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he can make any statement with reference to the position in East Africa; if the settlers are comparatively secure from outrage and rapine; and if the Government have accepted the offer of the Uganda chiefs to supply 5,000 fighting men?
Mr. TENNANT: The Secretary of State for the Colonies has asked me to take this. I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statement made by the Secretary of State for India in another place on the 18th November as regards the military position in East Africa, except that so far as my information goes there is no reason whatever for apprehension as to the security of settlers. I have no information as to the offer of 5,000 fighting men from Uganda.

INOCULATION.
Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that on 18th November the inoculated soldiers in the 4th Cameron Regiment, at Bedford, were ordered to parade at headquarters, told by the lieutenant-colonel that unless inoculated they would not be allowed to go to the front, and ordered to give up their kit; that of forty men from two companies who paraded twenty
786
still refused inoculation; and that such action, if general throughout the Army, will not only deprive our forces at the front of many willing, strong, healthy, and efficient soldiers, but prevent thousands who conscientiously object to this treatment from joining the Army; and whether he will remove this deterrent by insuring recruits against official pressure to forego the liberty to refuse inoculation which the law gives them?
Mr. TENNANT: I have inquired into the statements contained in the question and am informed that it was made plain to the men that inoculation was not compulsory but that, where the military authorities had a possibility of choice, preference would be given to those who had been inoculated. A full battalion of inoculated men for the 4th Camerons was forthcoming, but to equip this number some equipment had to be given up by the men not selected. The War Office have consistently held that, while inoculation is not compulsory, it is highly desirable.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do I understand that the men who exercise this privilege the law gives them are deprived of the opportunity of serving?
Mr. TENNANT: No; my hon. Friend must not assume that at all. What I said is that it is desirable men should be inoculated, and where it is possible to get a whole battalion of inoculated men they will be taken in preference.

FROZEN, CHILLED, AND FRESH MEAT (PRICES).
Mr. FLAVINasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state the present contract price for frozen and chilled meat, and also fresh meat where either are substituted for Army use as also for Naval use?
Mr. BAKER: Contract prices are always treated as confidential. I regret therefore that I cannot give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.
Mr. FLAVINasked the Under-Secretary for War whether any tenders have been invited for the supply of fresh meat for Army and Navy use in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can state the prices of fresh meat as compared with chilled or frozen meat in Ireland?
Mr. BAKER: Tenders have been invited and contracts made for the supply of fresh meat to the troops stationed in Ireland. As I have just stated, contract prices are confidential.
Mr. FIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the quantity of frozen and chilled meat that has been recently destroyed in county Kerry as unfit for consumption; and, seeing that there is no refrigerating store at the depot, whether, in the interests of economy, he will provide native meat for the troops?
Mr. BAKER: I am not aware that any meat has been destroyed. Native meat is used, except on one day a week, when frozen meat is issued. This is for the purpose of turning over the reserves.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can state, without prejudice to our military interests, how many prisoners of war have been captured at the front; how many so captured have been brought to this country; and whether they are being interned in the same camps as those prisoners of war who were alien enemies found in this country?
Mr. TENNANT: I would prefer not to give precise information with regard to the first two parts of the question. In answer to the third part, the policy of the Government is to segregate prisoners of war, and effect is being given to this policy as circumstances permit.

COMMISSIONS IN ARMY AND NAVY.
Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether any person or persons, by birth of German or Austrian nationality, have been given commissions in the Army or Navy since the declaration of war; and, if so, whether he will state his or their names and positions, and on what grounds and by whose recommendation he or they were appointed.
Mr. TENNANT: No one has been accepted who is not a British subject either by birth or naturalisation. I cannot say with certainty that no candidate has not had in addition German or Austrian nationality.

DEPENDANTS OF SOLDIERS.
Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the many misapprehensions existing and the difficulty of getting information, he will consider the possibility of placing notices in every post office giving the names of persons to whom dependants of soldiers can apply for information as to their power to claim a separation allowance and the proper method of applying for it?
Mr. BAKER: Arrangements are being made on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the pension officers or police are to be entrusted with the duty of investigating the returns in which soldiers in making allotments to dependants answer the questions as to the means of the dependants and other questions; and if the dependants will have to wait till those investigations are completed before receiving their separation allowances?
Mr. BAKER: This duty has been laid on the pension officers.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Member answer the latter part of my question?
Mr. BAKER: In case of soldiers serving abroad the investigation would take place afterwards, but in the case of those serving at home I can see no reason to think there would be any long delay.

GERMAN ALIENS.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that numbers of Germans constantly come and go between New York and this country, and that on the last homeward trip of the "Lusitania" there were some forty or fifty German passengers, all of whom, after a perfunctory examination, were duly landed in Liverpool; and whether he will make arrangements for the more careful inspection of this traffic?
Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that the facts are as stated. Germans cannot land in the United Kingdom without express permission from a Secretary of State, which is very rarely given, and there were, in fact, no passengers of German nationality on

789
board the "Lusitania" when she last arrived in the United Kingdom. The examination of passengers at Liverpool is extremely careful and strict.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary if he can give any estimate as to the number of alien enemies still residing within twenty miles of the coast line, drawn from Devonport to Aberdeen, or whether he can give the House an assurance that this coast line has been absolutely cleared of alien enemies?
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member will be aware that from the North of Scotland down the East Coast, and along the South Coast as far as Dorsetshire, there is a ring of prohibited areas within the meaning of the Aliens Restriction Order. This ring extends inland to a distance of ten or twenty miles, and in some cases more. Within these areas alien enemies are prohibited from residing except with the special permit of the chief constables. Before granting any such permit the chief constables satisfy themselves that it may properly and safely be given, and all permits given are reported to the War Office. According to returns furnished by the police on or about the 7th of this month, it appears that the number of alien enemies residing in the prohibited areas from Aberdeen to Devonport are as follows: Aberdeenshire to Berwick (both inclusive), 35 males, 309 females; Northumberland to the Wash, 543 males, 838 females; from the Wash to the Thames Estuary, 54 males, 230 females; from the Thames Estuary to Dorsetshire, 136 males, 808 females; and in the prohibited area which includes Devonport and Plymouth, 3 males, 5 females. These figures added together give 771 males, 2,190 females.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: When they are removed to other parts of the country is any supervision kept over them?
Mr. McKENNA: They are all subject to the Aliens Restriction Act.

GERMAN ALIENS.

  Birkbeck Bank.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether litigation over the distribution of the assets of the Birkbeck Bank has terminated; whether the Official Receiver will be in a position to declare a further dividend; and, if so, can he state when such distribution will be made to the bank's depositors?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The litigation with regard to the assets of the Birkbeck Bank has ended. There are still some further assets to be realised, and the Official Receiver hopes to be able to declare a final dividend of about 8d. in the £, making a total distribution of 16s. 8d. in the £, not later than next March.

  Labour Exchange Headquarters, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as announced at a meeting of the Edinburgh Town Council on Tuesday last, it is proposed to remove the headquarters of the Scottish and Northern Division of the Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance from Glasgow to Edinburgh; and, if so, on what grounds?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): It is the fact, as stated in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that it is proposed at an early date to remove the Divisional Office for Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance for the Scotland and Northern Division from Glasgow to Edinburgh. It was found that the existing premises in Glasgow were inadequate for the growing needs of the office. When the question of new premises came under review, it was decided, having regard to all the facts, and especially to the large and increasing volume of inter-communication between the Divisional Office and various Government Departments in Scotland, most of which are situated in Edinburgh, that it was desirable that this office should be situated in the same city, which is also geographically more central, in view of the fact that the Scottish and Northern Division includes the northern Counties of England as well as Scotland. Premises have accordingly been taken in Edinburgh, and are being rapidly adapted.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would it not be desirable that the central office of the Labour Exchanges should be in the centre of the industrial district?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have explained that it is not merely the Scottish industrial district but the North of England also, and that the convenience of inter-communication between the Government Departments and this office is a very important factor.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is not Glasgow as easily accessible to the industrial centres of the North of England as Edinburgh?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No. As my hon. Friend is aware Edinburgh is a shorter journey.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the desirability of allowing depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank to increase the maximum sum which, under the existing regulations, they are allowed to pay in each year?
  Captain NORTON: The existing limits for Savings Bank deposits are fixed by the Savings Bank Acts of 1891 and 1893, and it would not be possible to extend them without fresh legislation.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

  SCOTTISH COMMITTEE (RETORT).
  Mr. HOGGEasked when the separate Report of the Scottish Insurance Committee will be ready?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Report will be ready in about a month. The publication has been delayed through pressure of work at the Stationery Office owing to the War.

  Chicago Beef Trust (Income Tax).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked whether, with one exception, the companies comprising the Beef Trust of Chicago, operating in Smithfield Market and elsewhere in this country, have paid no Income Tax for a period of about ten years, although their aggregate overturn in this country is something like £20,000,000 per annum; whether this matter has been before the Solicitors' Department at Somerset House for over two years; and whether any proceedings have been taken against the companies in question; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am communicating with my hon. Friend on this subject.

  Board of Works Loans (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Irish Board of Works have refused and are refusing to grant new loans from the 1st
  792
  of this month, as evidenced by a large number of applicants who have been refused loans; if he is aware that the present attitude of the Board of Works is tantamount to shutting down altogether, as the giving of loans to farmers whose dwellings are insanitary or that have been injured by fire or storm would not cover over twenty applications; if he is aware that, if applications are not made immediately, the buildings that are required cannot be erected next summer; whether, in the interest of good economy, the Board of Works will not have improvement and progress checked both in town and country by the refusal of loans, more particularly as it receives in interest and repayments each year more than it advances in loans; and, seeing that a large number of persons are certain to be thrown out of employment by the action of the Board of Works, will he look into the matter with a view to the continuation of the loans?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is, I regret to say, one of the inevitable consequences of war that progress and development must be checked by the necessity of husbanding resources. The Treasury were influenced in their decision by an effort to avoid as long as possible the issue of Local Loans Stock.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: Would it not be possible for the Treasury to give special consideration to those cases where loans were under consideration before War broke out?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will consider that question.
  Mr. FIELDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, in consequence of the recent discontinuance of loans under the Land Act, hitherto issued through the Board of Warks, Ireland, the erection of hay, corn, and cattle sheds, barns, and other farm buildings have been stopped; whether he is aware that those concerned have sent a circular asking every Irish Member of Parliament to co-operate in having the loans continued; and whether, under these circumstances, he will favourably consider the applications?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for South Wexford on the 16th inst. and to the hon. Member for North Wexford on the 19th inst.
  Mr. FIELD: Is it not the fact that the repayments exceed the amount of the Grants? If this is so, why should not the Board of Works go on with the Grants? There is no loss of money; on the contrary, they are making money by the transaction.
  No answer was returned.
  Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly put his question down?

  Redistribution of Seats.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Government are still desirous of dealing with the question of redistribution of seats during the lifetime of the present Parliament; and, if so, whether they will take advantage of the present lull in party political warfare and immediately set up a boundary commission with a view of effecting such redistribution on an agreed basis before the dissolution of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is not, I think, an appropriate time for dealing with this or any other matter of domestic politics.

  School Meals.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education what means are taken to ensure that the increased Grants now made to local authorities for school meals are economically and efficiently administered; whether there is an organised inspection of school meals; and whether any complaints from parents or others have been received?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): Inspection of the arrangements for the provision of school meals is undertaken by the medical officers of the Board assisted by the inspectors of the elementary branch. Under the regulations for distributing the new Grants, one factor to be taken into account in determining the rate of Grant is the economical and efficient administration of the work. No complaints have been received from parents. One or two letters from other sources drew our attention to the fact that the Act has not been put into operation in certain areas, but so far as I know there are now no outstanding complaints.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can
  794
  make a statement concerning the provision of meals to school children; how many children received free meals in October of this year, and how many in the corresponding month of last year; and whether there is evidence that with the resumption of more steady employment, since the War began, there is a reduction in the demand for free meals for necessitous scholars?
  Mr. PEASE: The average number of children fed in each of the five weeks ending 31st October, 1914, was about 183,000. The corresponding figure for 1913 was about 40,000. Since the end of September the number of children fed each week has decreased from about 195,000 to about 157,000. I have no special information on the subject, but I think it may be assumed that the decrease is due to the cause suggested by the hon. Member.
  Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman visited any of these schools himself?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes; and I have been surprised at the remarkably good quality of the food supplied at these meals.

  Shops Act (London).
  Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the London County Council in December last in informing the traders of London that the closing requirements of the Shops Act should not be enforced from 1st to 24th December; and whether he will take immediate steps, in the interests of traders willing to obey the Act, to make it clear to the London County Council and other local authorities that they have no power either to suspend the closing during December or to deprive any shop assistant of their half-holidays during December other than the one prior to Christmas Day?
  Mr. McKENNA: I communicated with the London County Council on this matter last winter and pointed out the illegality of the course they had adopted. I do not think it can be necessary now to take any further action such as my hon. Friend suggests.

  Official Secrets Act.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether any and, if so, what action has been taken in the case of Mr. Budd, an employé of Messrs. Siemens, who was concerned in the charge under the Official Secrets Act brought against Mr. Tomlin, sub-post master of Eastchurch?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that no proceedings were taken against Mr. Budd because there was no evidence of his having committed any criminal offence. The charge against Mr. Tomlin was not proceeded with for a similar reason.

  Portishead Nautical School (Cruelty Charge).
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that James Baker, shoe-making instructor at the nautical school, Portishead, Somerset, was charged in July last with cruelty to the scholars, and that the council of the school held an inquiry, found that there was no foundation for this charge, and reinstated Baker; and, if so, will he say for what reason Baker was subsequently dismissed by order of the Home Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: Charges of improperly inflicting corporal punishment were made against the instructor in question in July last. They were inquired into by the managers of the school, who were of opinion that the punishments inflicted by this officer, though unauthorised, were not in fact excessive and thought that the case would be met by a severe censure and suspension of the officer for a month. When, however, the facts were reported to the Home Office further inquiry was made by the chief inspector, who reported that the instructor had punished the boys without authority and had shown himself unsuitable for his post, and that he could not fulfil his duties satisfactorily if he returned to work after his suspension. I therefore suggested to the managers that he ought not to be retained on the staff of the school, and the managers, falling in with this view, required him to resign and promised to endeavour to help him to other employment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    TRUSTS BILL.
    "To facilitate the execution of Trusts during the present War." Presented by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

  MEMORIAL TO FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ROBERTS.
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that His Majesty will give directions that a monument to be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Field-Marshal Earl Roberts, with an inscription expressing the admiration of this House for his illustrious military career and its gratitude for his devoted service to the State, and to assure His Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same."—[Mr. Herbert Samuel.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the House know to which sculptor the commission will be given for this monument? Will there be open competition, or will it be in the hands of a Committee with power to hand it over to some particular sculptor? I should like someone on the Front Bench to tell us whether a monument of this kind will be open for competition amongst the sculptors of this country, or whether the intention is to give it to some particular man whom the Government have in mind?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): We cannot say that.
  Mr. HOGGE: Shall we have the opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am asking my question through the Chair, and I am not asking the House generally. I wish to know whether the Government will give the House any opportunity of determining the nature of this monument before it is actually decided upon?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think this is a convenient moment. I can assure my hon. Friend that every opportunity will be given to secure the greatest possible unanimity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I should like to ask one or two questions of the Government. Last week I drew attention to the question of the export of tea to neutral countries, and I think the House is satisfied that some of it went to Germany. I am very glad the Government have taken steps to stop the export of tea. I think their action has given general satisfaction both throughout the trade and throughout the country. I wish them to go one step further and to carry out the order they have given with regard to tea also with regard to cocoa. The figures with regard to cocoa are as alarming as, if not more alarming than, they are with regard to tea. In September, 1913, the exports of cocoa to the neutral countries on the border of Germany amounted to 79,642 lbs. and in September this year to 189,369 lbs., the very great increase of 109,727 lbs. In October last year they amounted to 131,000 lbs., and in October this year to 1,238,000 lbs., an increase of 1,106,000 lbs. in one month sent to the same neutral countries to which the export of tea has been stopped. In six days of November there was an increase of 455,000 lbs. It appears to me that every argument that can be used for stopping the export of tea can also be used with regard to the export of cocoa. I am not sure, in fact, that the case is not very much stronger with regard to cocoa, because it is more of a food than tea, and I believe the Germans prefer it even more than they do tea.
  I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he could not possibly look into this matter and see whether the same rule could not apply to cocoa as to tea. I have heard that the right hon. Gentleman is himself a believer in the sustaining and invigorating power of cocoa. I do not know whether it is true or not, but it has

  829
  been stated that after a long and wearying Cabinet meeting, when some of his colleagues have been disposed to wander from the real point at issue, the right hon. Gentleman has taken it as a sign of weariness and has ordered that cups of cocoa should pass around the table. I do not know whether it is a fact or not, but I do know that the boast of one Minister has been that he is able to transact the responsible duties of his office for six days in the week with a cup of cocoa and a dry biscuit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I will give a clue to his name by saying that he is the healthiest looking Member on that bench at the present moment. I think, therefore, we may take it that there is ample proof, if we desire it, that cocoa is a sustaining beverage, and, as such, can be used. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that he will look into this matter without any undue delay.
  There is one other point to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the export of herrings to Germany. Before the War the export of herrings from Yarmouth to Germany was practically unknown, because Rotterdam having a seafaring population, they were able to get any herrings they required, but I am credibly informed that since the outbreak of war—all the Government have got to do is to inquire from the Customs agents, but they may take it from me that there is no doubt about it—that herrings have been sent nightly from Yarmouth to Harwich and then to Rotterdam up to the last few nights, when fishing has not been so good. I pledge myself also to the statement that large cargoes of herrings have gone from the North of Scotland to Norway, and are at the present moment being sold in that country. I would ask the Government especially to look into that matter, because I am speaking on the highest authority of the most influential fish curers throughout the whole country, whose names I would be very glad to give to the right hon. Gentleman. These are matters which might well be inquired into by the Government. This is almost the last opportunity we shall have before the House adjourns of drawing attention to such matters.
  There is one more point, and that is the question of how information is going to the enemy. I know that telegrams are censored, I know that letters may be opened, and I know that the Government regard as complete the steps that are being taken to prevent spies giving information to Germany.
  830
  I do not agree with them. I think they have made a great mistake, and that it is one weak point of our organisation. Some of us have made our protest, and we have left it there. I would, however, ask them to give their attention to this particular line of information going to Germany. The German foreign system has been carefully enough established, and the Government have been watching 200 paid spies in this country for five years. That is their own statement. It is conceivable, I think, that they have during that five years established a system of communication of information between this country and the enemy, outside entirely the ordinary postal and telegraph services. That is a reasonable assumption. My theory is that the most important information that is going at the present time is neither going by letter, signalling, nor by telegraph service, but is being taken across in person by spies. How is it done?
  I give the House a personal instance of which I can vouch. An acquaintance of mine, a naturalised German subject, whom personally I do not suspect, told me casually the other day that he had been abroad. I asked him where he had been. He said that he had been to Holland, and that he had spent a most interesting day in the German lines. I asked him what was his purpose in going there? He was going to get the other side of Louvain. He is a man in a big position in London and a householder here. He told me, after spending a day with the German officers in the German lines, what their version was. He has returned and is back in London. How is it done? A passport is obtained to Holland, and, when you get to Holland, you can get a fresh passport to go wherever you please. I would suggest in the first place that with regard to people going to Holland there should be very severe investigations and inquiries made before they are granted any passport. I do not think that you can be too careful who gets a passport to Holland.
  Mr. PERCY ALDEN: Might I ask if he is not a British subject?
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I said a naturalised British subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am very sorry if I have misled the House. He is a German who is a naturalised British subject. He is a well-known business man in London against whom I make no suggestion. If it is possible for a German who has become a naturalised British subject to cross over, spend a week-end in

  831
  the German lines, and to come back here, it is equally possible for anyone to do the same thing. I say it ought not to be possible under existing circumstances, and the greatest care should be taken to prevent the giving of passports to anyone who is likely to carry information to the enemy. I have no doubt that there is daily communication with the enemy in the way I have suggested, and I do strongly urge the Government to give this very vital matter their most earnest attention.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I wish to call the attention of the Under-Secretary for War to a matter which has arisen lately in many parts of England. Under the Defence of the Realm Act, which was passed through this House hurriedly last Session, power is given to the military authorities to acquire land for the erection of camps or military huts, and the military authorities can come along and take practically what land they like, giving, apparently, what compensation they choose. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the Under-Secretary is this, that where lands are taken compulsorily, and where portions of farms are taken largely to the detriment of the farmer carrying on his business, adequate compensation should be given. In answer to a question I put on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman told me that compensation was awarded by the War Office on expert opinion and advice; that they gave what they thought right, and that there was no provision made for any appeal. I think the House will generally feel that the military authorities should have a right to take land wherever they require it for military purposes, but I also think Members on both sides will agree that if a farmer does suffer heavy loss by having the best part of his farm carved out, he should be given proper compensation, and it should not be left entirely to the military authorities to pay what they may think to be right. There may be urgency in the matter of acquiring the land, but there need be none in settling the amount of compensation. I am not speaking without experience, because, in the Constituency which I have the honour to represent, there happens to live a large farmer whose land at Seaford has been compulsorily acquired, the best part of his farm being taken. He sent in a claim made out by a local valuer, but was told by the War Office
  832
  authorities that they could not entertain any claim on that basis, and he must put in a much smaller demand. It is not because that farm is situated in my Constituency and belonged to a supporter of mine that I raise the question. On the contrary, the farmer is the chairman of the local Radical party, but I feel that this is not the time to indulge in any party strife, and it is only fair, if this large farmer has been prejudicially affected, that the War Office should deal justly by him, and, if they are unable to come to an arrangement satisfactory to him, then I suggest they should submit to some appeal, either to the High Courts or to some other authority, who can judge whether or not the compensation offered is fair. It is not as if the War Office have taken the whole of the farm; they have only taken what suits their own purposes, and hon. Members know from experience that when farms are thus divided, the farmer may be seriously prejudiced by losing the best portion and having to carry on his business with the remainder. I hope the Under-Secretary will give instructions for this case to have further consideration.
  Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel), towards the end of his remarks, suggested a very interesting point to which I hope the Government will be able to give attention, and that fact makes me regret all the more that, in the earlier portion of his observations, he urged upon the Government a policy which I would earnestly ask them to approach with extreme caution. My right hon. Friend appears to be under the impression that the speech he made in this House a week ago, in which he gave some very incomplete figures in regard to the tea trade, led the Government suddenly to impose restrictions on the export of tea.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I did not say that. I only mentioned the coincidence.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am speaking in the memory of the House, and I think my right hon. Friend commenced his remarks to-day by flattering himself somewhat that the advice he gave to Ministers last Monday was taken. As a matter of fact it is not so. This matter has been very vigilantly watched by the Board of Trade, and I believe that a couple of days before my right hon. Friend made his interesting remarks in this House they had taken the action which had been made public since with regard to the export of tea.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not care who gets the credit.
  Mr. LOUGH: As a protest has been made in this House by my right hon. Friend I cannot allow it to pass without observation, and I will ask the Government to acquaint itself with the conditions of any great trade like this—be it tea, coffee, or cocoa—before it suddenly interferes with the export in the critical times through which we are passing. I am going to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to appoint a Committee of business men who have full knowledge with regard to these articles, and whose opinions might be taken before any further prohibition is decided upon with regard to the export of such articles from this country. I am sure such a Committee would be animated by exactly the same feeling as animates everybody in this House. It would not be desirous of giving the slightest assistance to the enemy. But I believe it would entertain another feeling, and that it would not be willing to do injury to ourselves with the idea that we are injuring the enemy, whereas, as a matter of fact, we are not touching the enemy at all. I may mention one point in illustration of that, and it is in relation to what has been said by my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) and to certain foolish articles which have appeared in certain papers with reference to tea.
  It has been suggested that tea is a great article of consumption in Germany. It is nothing of the kind. The German people only consume an ounce or two of tea per head in the year. I believe that physically it has a bad effect upon them, and that its extended use would injure rather than help them. It therefore is not taken to any very large extent by Germany. Of course, Germany import a few million pounds every year, but then they are a very vast population. Tea is, however, a tremendous article of consumption in this country. A great deal of British capital is invested in its production, and it so happens that this Empire has gradually become the great tea producers of the world. Tea is a vegetable which has to be disposed of in a few months from the time it is produced. Not only a vast amount of British capital, but a vast organisation of British labour is engaged in the trade. The Germans, with some forethought at the commencement of the War, thought it well to get in even their little supply of tea somewhat in advance, and so they
  834
  appeared to have gone to Holland and ordered large quantities there. At the time they got the largest quantities, the export of tea from this country was prohibited.
  My right hon. Friend speaks as if every pound of tea that goes from Holland to Germany is British tea. It is nothing of the kind. Holland itself is a great tea-producing country; it handles from forty to fifty millions of pounds of tea annually, and can supply all the war consumption asked for by Germany four or five times over without ever getting a single pound of tea from this country. Holland, therefore, can supply, from her own resources in Java, the small quantity of tea that may be required in Germany, and consequently the suggestion that tea imported by Germany must necessarily have come from this country is not well founded. It happens that this year, owing to the financial difficulties created in the East, Russia and other countries in Europe—big tea consuming countries—and especially Russia—were not able to get their tea supply from Calcutta or Colombo, and, as that tea had to be disposed of, vast quantities were sent to this country. I believe the action of the Board of Trade with regard to this matter was, to some extent, justified by the fact that the imports of tea were stopped from the 4th September till the 7th October, no vessels being able to leave the Hooghly because of the ravages of the "Emden," but then the career of the "Emden" was put an end to, and vast quantities of tea were sent to London which became the distributing centre for this great crop. That moment the Board of Trade issued their order on imperfect information. I quite agree that they should carefully watch matters and take wise action when necessary, but at this moment the Government stepped in and cast considerable difficulties in the way of the export of tea, even to our Ally Russia.
  I hope that the Government will hesitate before they go any further with the policy urged upon them by my right hon. Friend. There are important considerations to be borne in mind. There are, in London, large stocks of tea which cannot be consumed by the British people—large stocks of green tea, which is not even consumed in Germany—but the export of these stocks is, for the moment, forbidden, and we are not permitted to send tea to Russia by the Baltic ports. I do not want to criticise the Board of Trade, because my right hon. Friend

  835
  has given considerable attention to the matter and has received deputations of dealers who have laid the facts before him. I feel certain that the Board will take whatever action may be necessary for the protection of this country, but I would advise it not to accept figures which are hastily put forward by some of the baser journals and which have been quoted by my right hon. Friend. The situation with regard to cocoa is even worse than that in respect to tea. Many millions of pounds of cocoa are imported into this country every year, for export. I do not think it is an article of first importance to Germany, but large quantities of this commodity are brought into this country for distribution, and will be held up as a consequence of the recent order. I hope the Government will take wise action with regard to this matter of the prohibition of exports.
  As regards raw material, it is perfectly simple, but as regards other articles, I would ask them not to do anything to injure any trade built up at great cost and expense to this country. It is very important to keep things going and our working classes employed, and to get a return on the vast amount of British capital invested in this trade. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend, if he can take any action in this matter, to remember that there is another side to it, and that it is desirable to get some principle and to work steadily upon that principle. An exceedingly good way of dealing with matters of this kind would be for a general Committee of this House to be set up, on which I would put some business men. That is the difficulty under which some of the Committees appointed by my right hon. Friend suffer. Let us have a Committee of business men who know the facts and can put them before this House. We shall then avoid giving assistance to the enemy, and yet not injure those industries which I am sure nobody wants to injure.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office by whose authority a letter has recently been written by the War Office to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, informing that corporation that the War Office has now for some little time withheld the names and addresses of widows who have been made widows by this War, because, in the opinion of the War Office, it is no longer necessary for the £5 grant
  836
  to the widow and the £1 grant for each child, which has hitherto been given to all widows created by this War, should now be given. The reason given is that the separation allowance is now to be continued for twenty-six weeks. It was the practice in the Transvaal war always to send, when the widow was acquainted with the fact that she had been made a widow, £5 for the widow and £1 for each child. That practice has been continued through this War, and over 2,000 widows have received the sum of £5 and the further sum of £1 for each child.
  Now we are suddenly told—I only had the letter brought to me half an hour ago, or I would have given the hon. Gentleman notice that I was going to raise this question—that the War Office has for some little time been withholding the names and addresses of these widows because in their opinion this £5 grant need no longer be given. Whose policy is that? By whom has that been decided? Was this House ever informed at the time when we were told that these separation allowances were to be continued for twenty-six weeks? I am myself most grateful for that being done, but was the House ever told that it was to be a substitute for the £5 grant to the widow and the £1 to the child, or that the £5 and the £1 grant was to be knocked off in consideration of the separation allowance being continued? Let me give the House an instance of how very useful this £5 is to the widow when she is acquainted with the fact that she is a widow. Most of these widows at that time must look forward to the fact that they will have to remove to a cheaper house or obtain accommodation at a less rent than they are then paying. It is quite true that some of them use the £5 for mourning. Why should they not? Five pounds is a trifling sum for the widow to receive. I hope that the Government will not, in consideration of the fact that they are going to give—most rightly—twenty-six weeks' separation allowance to each widow, indulge in rather shabby little shifts, and thus deprive these poor widows of the grants of £5 and £1 which have hitherto been given.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): As the right hon. Gentleman stated, I have had no notice that he was going to raise this question. Perhaps he will allow me to make inquiries. I can assure him that the arguments he has put forward will receive the most careful consideration.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: As the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill opens up most matters for consideration, I would like to refer again to a subject I mentioned the other day, but, before doing so, I would say one word with regard to the observations of the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), who has performed again to-day exactly what he performed on one occasion when he held office—he has delivered a speech against a Motion which he wishes to support. If the facts enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman are facts, then the policy suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) will do no harm whatever. Of course, if the facts are not as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, then perhaps we may take the other view of the subject. The fact which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs has called attention is the rather peculiar one, that exports to neutral countries have increased enormously since the War began. That is a fact we are bound to take into consideration. What is the cause of it? The probability is that as imports into the countries which are already belligerents are absolutely prohibited, those countries are trying to use the facilities of neutral countries in order to get the articles they require. In these circumstances the Government is certainly entitled to take every care. As a matter of fact, it is advisable that the Government should err on the side of preventing sustenance going to the foes of this country. It is quite clear that if the Government had taken the advice of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) on other matters connected with belligerency we should have been in a very parlous condition to-day. I hope the Government will place just as much value and reliance on his advocacy in this matter as they did on his advocacy of another matter.
  Mr. LOUGH: What is that?
  Mr. WARD: The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean.
  Mr. LOUGH: I do not.
  Mr. WARD: I am referring to the speeches the right hon. Gentleman regularly delivers upon the absolute futility of spending money on the Navy for the protection of these shores.
  Mr. LOUGH: When did I make such a speech? I do not think my hon. Friend
  838
  can quote a single speech of mine in which such words as those occur. On the contrary, I have always advocated what I thought was a sufficient Fleet.
  Mr. WARD: It is charged against us that we have not adopted the right hon. Gentleman's idea of what is a sufficient Navy.
  Mr. LOUGH: That is a large question.
  Mr. WARD: Of course it is, and I am not going to discuss it now. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will advocate it on some future occasion. I wish to draw attention to the subject which I mentioned in the House on Friday last, namely, the method employed by the War Office at the present time in regard to their contracts. I do not suggest that the War Office are not doing everything they possibly can up to date, but there are, I suggest, some very ugly rumours going round. To-day one of the newspapers, the "Daily Chronicle," has put these rumours—I do not suggest the whole of them, but one phase of them—in black and white and in such a way that this House ought really to take the matter into consideration. No doubt it is almost necessary to give the Government a clean slate in the conduct of the War and in securing the material, but it is quite clear that unless they use that power as if there were the possibility of criticism, a very great deal of harm might be done. The "Daily Chronicle" to-day draws attention to the existence of a combine that is squeezing the War Office for higher prices when they are tendering for the War Office than for anyone else. It draws attention to a combination of some dozen or twenty firms who, whenever inquiries have been made as to the stability of those firms, or in any other way whatever, always give a reference to a firm called "W. B. and Co."—that is a company who are not contractors in the ordinary sense of the word, but a firm of Birmingham accountants, if the statement contained in the paper is accurate. All these firms from whom tenders are sought by the War Office refer to this company. Here is a letter received from one of the companies, some part of which I should like to read:—
  "Is it a fact that the War Office have definitely specified that in the building of huts for our troops, cut nails must be used, and not wire nails, as many hundreds of tons of Canadian wire nails are now in this Country, and with the splend d support that, that nation has given us surely Canada should not be penalised. Reverting to the question of corrugated iron mentioned in your statement, what explanation is possible of a

  839
  reply to at an inquiry for this material which says, 'Before quoting, please inform us whether the inquiry is for the Government or not?'"
  One can see from the figures that are given in answer to these inquiries that if the Government do require any material, then the price is added to by a whole list of firms whose names are given in this article in the "Daily Chronicle." In these circumstances something ought to be done to see if we cannot prevent such a scandal as occurred in the last war. I suggested on Friday that it was necessary that the War Office should perform as much of this work as possible under officers directly under their own discipline and control. The "Daily Chronicle" statement as to the War Office officers is rather ominous, remembering what happened in the South African campaign and the disgraceful condition of affairs that was made public property after the war. These names are really remarkable if the facts are as stated in this journal. If they are not as stated in this journal, then someone ought certainly to contradict them, and give the accurate information at once. For instance, it is stated here that the Director of Supplies is temporary Brigadier-General Sir C. W. King; Assistant Director of Supplies and Transport, Colonel A. Long, D.S.O.; Assistant Directors of Supplies, Colonel A. H. Thomas, C.B., D.S.O., Colonel H. G. Morgan, C.B., D.S.O., Lieutenant-Colonel R. Ford, D.S.O., and Lieutenant-Colonel F. M. Wilson. The comment on these names made by the "Daily Chronicle" is as follows:—
  "Colonel Thomas is an officer on retired pay. He was Director of Supplies during the war in South Africa. Colonel King was appointed Director of Supplies in 1903,"
  so that he must have also had, one would imagine, some connection with War Office supplies during the later stages of the South African war.
  "Colonel Long was Assistant Director of Supplies in 1901–2, and Assistant Director of Transport in South Africa during 1903–4. Colonel Ford had also experience in the Army Service Corps in the South African war. Colonel H. G. Morgan figured prominently as Director of Supplies during the South African war, and afterwards as Director of the Sales Department."
  In fact, if I remember aright, one of these men, who is now apparently put by the War Office in a position for the purpose of managing this affair and preventing the scandalous state of affairs which existed after the last South African war, is one of the chief participators in the ugly business that happened some twelve or thirteen
  840
  years ago. It does seem a most peculiar way of avoiding those blunders, and preventing such scandals occurring during this campaign, that you should put in charge the very man against whom complaints were then made. Of course, there may be points connected with this thing which do not appear on the surface, but, at any rate, there is no doubt that as one goes up and down the country at present one fears that there are certain elements which are using the patriotic fervour of the country and the absence of party criticism in this House for the purpose of doing exactly the thing which we protested never should occur again after the last war in which this country was engaged. While our men are defending the honour of the country with the greatest heroism abroad you find a remarkable aptitude on the part of the trader at home to get as much profit and business as he can out of the necessities of the State now that it is engaged in this struggle. A court martial with the possibility of suffering the sentence imposed upon Lody seems to be the only cure for such a condition of affairs as prevails at present. I admit it does not occur merely in this country. I understand it is the regular thing in all countries. I hope it is not the same in Germany, but in France I was informed that the woollen manufacturers, in the part of the country that is now over-run, the moment War was likely to be declared passed a resolution by which all Government orders for cloth for the soldiers were to be charged at, I think, 3s. 9d. per yard more than ordinary customers.
  So that apparently you have in all countries men who fasten upon the contract system to squeeze every penny they can out of the taxpayer the moment the country is in danger; and when one watches the heroism of our soldiers and sailors and the desperate efforts which they are making to maintain the honour of the country, to think that this should be going on, that thieves at home—really that is their only title—should be using the necessities of the State for getting as much as they possibly can out of the Exchequer is one of the most disgraceful things one can imagine, and I hope that on this occasion the Government will take warning in time. We are all patriotic now. We are prepared to give the Government every facility that they ask, and trust them. But do you imagine for a moment that directly that we get out of

  841
  our difficulties we shall not overhaul what they are doing now, and pass judgment as to whether they have taken proper precautions to defend the public interest in this matter or not? The best thing you could do even now would be to appoint some powerful Committee. The War may last another year, or it may last two years, and I should imagine that we have nearly passed the emergency part, and it is possible to reduce things to something like order instead of the chaos that has hitherto existed. We know that they were able to drive hard bargains with the Government during the last two or three months. The necessities of the situation made it almost impossible to devote care and attention to every detail, and the Government were bound to pay, whatever the cost; but there is no necessity for that now, and I hope, when we come to the end of this campaign, we shall not have the sordid story repeated relating to Government contracts that we had during the last campaign. I have given my warning two or three times because I know something of what is going on, and I feel sure that if only the two representatives of the War Office would report to Lord Kitchener the determination of this House to see that there shall be nothing of the corrupting influence in this business, he would take all necessary precautions to see that this country is not humiliated after this War, as it was so disgracefully humiliated after the last war.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. I brought this question before the House after the Soudan War, and there was no scoundrel hanged then. I saw men lose their lives by bayonets bending, by cutlasses breaking, and by rifles jamming, and I heartily agree that if anything of that sort occurs in this War it will be the duty of the House to try any contractor by court-martial, and let him suffer for losing the lives of our men. The real question I want to bring before the House is this: The Prime Minister promised us that the First Lord of the Admiralty would give us a full statement about the landing party at Antwerp. On both sides of the House questions have been asked, but we cannot get anything at all in the shape of information. I hope the fact will be brought to the Prime Minister's notice that he made us that promise.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Was there not an understanding that an Amendment should be moved to the Address?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: No, I do not think so. I think the Leader of the Opposition asked certain very pertinent questions, and the Prime Minister said, they would be fully answered by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think it is in the interest of the country, of the Naval Brigade, and of the Service generally, that a full statement should be made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be relevant to this Bill. This Bill only deals with the future. It does not deal with the past.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Has it not to do with money?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Money which is going to be spent in the future, not which has been spent in the past.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: They will have to find money for this Naval Brigade in the future. We want to know all about it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Any questions as to the future are relevant. Questions as to what happened in the past may be very proper to discuss but are not relevant on this Bill.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I see the point. I have made my remarks and I hope someone on that bench will tell the Prime Minister what I have said.
  Mr. FELL: The remarks of the light hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) are so erroneous that I should not like them to appear without being contradicted. As far as I gather, he said that in previous years there had been a very small export of herrings to Germany.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I said to Rotterdam.
  Mr. FELL: The right hon. Gentleman said the Germans caught their own herrings and did not require them from us. I am sure the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will bear out what I say, that the export of herrings to Germany has always been enormous.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I hope the hon. Member will not misrepresent me. I was not speaking of Germany, but of Holland.
  Mr. FELL: The export to Germany has been enormous in the past and has amounted to hundreds of thousands of barrels, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that a small portion of these

  843
  were now being sent to Holland or through Norway, and were reaching Germany in an indirect way. The export to Germany in the past has been enormous. This year it has ceased entirely, and a mere trifle of herrings have been sent to Holland and Norway this season. Only a fraction of the amount of herrings usually caught have been caught this year owing to the restrictions placed upon the trade. The pickled herring industry has absolutely ceased this season. It is pickled herrings only which are sent to Germany, and they are not being pickled at all this year. They are only smoking them for the markets of the Mediterranean which are still open.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Perhaps it will be convenient if I say a word or two on the topic raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel). We have been watching with great care the trade in herrings ever since the War broke out, and although I have no doubt that the constituents of the hon. Member (Mr. Fell) are most anxious not to supply the Germans with food, the fact remains that we have had two or three most suspicious cases of herrings passing from ports in Scotland, as well as in England, indirectly into Germany, and I am informed that there are at present three cases which are pending of prosecutions under the Trading with the Enemy Act. It would be improper to give any particulars as to these cases at present, but we have been watching the trade with great care. We found, when we had to investigate some of the cases which were most suspicious, that the export of herrings is going on rather more freely from this country to neutral countries than seemed to be at all necessary for the supply of those neutral countries, and without any objection from them I think it will be possible for us to put an end to that difficulty. Some little time ago we totally prohibited the export of herrings from this country to any countries abroad and in future we shall not allow them to go abroad without a licence specially granted. I hope my right hon. Friend will be satisfied on that point. We are controlling the traffic with much closer scrutiny than in the past because of the suspicions which have been raised. We have prohibited the export entirely. We are issuing licences in exceptional cases, and we shall only issue licences when we have absolute proof that the exports
  844
  are not to supply the enemy, nor to make up for stock already imported from neutral countries to the enemy.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the Government do that themselves, or will it be done by justices of the peace?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, no, it will be done by the Government themselves. The Government have absolute control. That is why we have found it necessary absolutely to prohibit the export. I think I ought to say a word or two on the subject of the prohibition of the export of tea, and the suggested prohibition of the export of cocoa. I think I should inform the House that there is a difference in the sources of supply of these two commodities. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind what are the supplies which are likely to reach Germany. I would point out that German supplies in the past have gone, not entirely, but to a large extent from countries over which we have no control. The goods supplied by the cocoa industry of Switzerland find a large consumption in Germany. There is a cocoa industry in Holland and Denmark, and in both cases the products are sold in normal times very largely in Germany. There has been undoubtedly a much greater purchasing of cocoa in Germany from these three sources than ever before in the history of the trade. We have had instances brought to our notice at the Board of Trade, not only of the ordinary purchases going on freely from Switzerland, but of wholesale commandeering immediately on the outbreak of the War of large quantities of cocoa in transit from Switzerland when passing through the strip of German territory just to the north of Basle. The cocoa trade is undoubtedly much more widespread than the sources from which tea is drawn. If we had prohibited the export of cocoa from this country, we have no evidence to show that we should in any degree have injured a single German cocoa drinker, whereas there have been heavy exports of cocoa from this country to neutral countries, almost exclusively, and, as far as we can ascertain up to the present—I do not commit myself as to the future—they have gone to those markets which would have been supplied from the neutral countries that have had their produce bought up at excessive prices by Germany and Austria. There has been a complete dislocation of trade, and owing to the high prices paid in Germany and Austria there have been

  845
  directed to these two consuming countries great quantities of cocoa that have in the past been produced in the neutral countries and disseminated over the northern countries of Europe, and to a smaller extent over the southern countries. If it becomes necessary to put a stop to this export trade, I am afraid we cannot take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough). It will not be possible for us to call into consultation before we take action those gentlemen interested in the business. We take the best means we can of obtaining information regarding the industry, and I can assure the House that if we see any sign of the cocoa industry in this country, either directly or indirectly, supplying the enemy, of which at present we have no evidence, we shall without the least hesitation put a stop at once to the export of cocoa from this country, and take such steps as are necessary to secure the conviction of those who have traded with the enemy.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the President of the Board of Trade, without desiring to criticise what he has done or is doing, and certainly with the desire that the disturbance of trade which is necessary owing to the War should not inflict any burdens that are not absolutely called for upon any traders in this country. In regard to cocoa, in the first place, I do not know what has been done, but it is quite possible that the Board of Trade have considered the question, though the President said nothing about it. He spoke of our comparatively smaller control over the cocoa trade than over the tea trade. I do not know whether he has considered what influence he can bring to bear on the sources of supply. Neither tea nor cocoa is grown in Holland or Sweden. Tea is largely grown in Java, and cocoa also is grown in the tropical possessions of other countries than our own. But I think it is quite possible that the Board of Trade or the Government might bring some influence to bear upon the supply of cocoa in its earlier and unmanufactured state. The second observation I make is that I conceive it would not be sufficient to prevent our cocoa going directly or even indirectly in the ordinary sense to the enemy. If we supply the vacuum in the neutral country created by the enemy's demand, we are enabling the neutral country to supply the enemy with more cocoa than they could otherwise. I think that point
  846
  is worth the attention of the Board of Trade, for it may be necessary, even though our cocoa is going to be consumed in the neutral country, to prohibit it because we should set free other cocoa. The other point I wish to bring to the attention of the Board of Trade is with regard to the prohibition of the import of sugar. Have they considered at all what their policy ought to be with regard to the importation of sugared goods? No doubt the importation of sugar was far the biggest thing. When the Government struck that blow they struck their biggest blow. Let us reinforce it with any minor restrictions we can usefully make. If the sugar goes from Austria or Germany to Switzerland to be used in manufactured goods which we then take in the form of chocolate, or whatever it may be, to that extent we defeat our own object in regard to prohibition. I do not ask any answer to these suggestions across the floor of the House, but I hope the President of the Board of Trade will give his attention to them and have them looked into.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: These prohibitions are not always exactly what they appear to be on the surface. They all play a part, and must of necessity play a part, in the conversations that take place with the representatives of other countries. It is most inconvenient for us to discuss thorn in full detail in the House of Commons. I have given a general invitation to all the trades affected by the prohibitions to communicate with us, and we shall be delighted to have private conferences with them on the subject.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman will see that I was not asking for greater latitude for the trade, but suggesting that there might be room for even greater vigilance on the part of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES: I wish to bring to the notice of the House what appears to be a very serious blunder on the part of the brigadier in command of some 5,000 or 6,000 soldiers who arrived in Louth last Thursday. The special constables of Louth district were called by the police between three and six o'clock Friday morning, and told to report themselves at the Town Hall at seven o'clock, bringing with them an axe and a saw, and sufficient food for the day. Some inquired the cause and were told they were required under a military order. On

  847
  assembling, they were instructed to proceed to Acthorpe Wood, and there to fell trees and cut stakes of a certain length. They went without anyone in charge and proceeded with the work until about eleven o'clock, when the estate steward came on the ground and told them to stop as he did pot wish to have the whole wood destroyed. They then sent one of their number into the town for instructions, but the brigadier in charge of military declined to see him, sending a message that he would come out to Acthorpe. After the return of this messenger they waited three hours and then came away in a body, saying they would be all hung together.
  Among their number were men whose shops had to be closed in their absence: builders, boot-shop managers, job-masters, drapers, jewellers, bakers, confectioners, butchers, grocers, milkmen, joiners, shoemakers, solicitors and auctioneers' clerks, a gardener, a saddler and a veterinary surgeon. Nothing was done with the stakes that were cut: they were simply piled in heaps and left there. Had it been a case of dire need, perhaps they would not have thought so much of it. They have, of course, given their oath to preserve order in the town, but not one of them was aware that they would be made conscripts. I wish to know if the military have any such authority over them, and, if not, will the Secretary of State for War take steps to punish the officer who issued the order? Is he aware that the unfortunate occurrence is likely to detrimentally affect recruiting in the district unless the matter is immediately put right? I wish to know if we can have an inquiry into the matter. I gave notice of the circumstances to the Under-Secretary, and I thought he would have been here.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: I wish to call the attention of the House, and particularly the Financial Secretary to the War Office, to a question in relation to recruiting. We all want young men to come forward to join as recruits, but I would point out that many of the regulations which are put for-word are preventing them. The regulation to which I wish to refer states that if a man has been married since 13th August he cannot get separation allowance for his wife. I have had a case brought to my notice recently of a man thirty-four years of age who has been twelve years in the Army, and who has two medals and seven bars. He was a widower, but got married at the end of August. He volunteered in
  848
  October, and when he asked for separation allowance he was told that he could not get it. He has taken his discharge. This matter has been talked of, and it is affecting recruiting. I hope the Secretary of State for War will look into the matter.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: There is one point I wish to raise, namely, whether the War Office and the Admiralty could not give our own contractors more facilities in getting access to supply the Army and Navy with various commodities. I know that a large firm in Scotland applied to the War Office for the addresses of the various camps in the country, and they were refused these addresses by the Brigadier-General of Supplies. I understand that they were refused for military reasons. I do not know why that excuse should have been given, because it would have been perfectly possible out of quite a number of newspapers and out of the questions that are put on the Question Paper in this House to discover the addresses of those camps. But the particular firm that I have in mind is a firm which manufactures an article of purely British manufacture, British margarine, and it is very anxious to supply this article in the various ways that are open to it. I raise the point because at the same time that this difficulty is occurring margarine is being supplied to ships of the British Navy from firms in Germany, and the way in which that occurs is this: A leading firm in Holland, which owns factories in Germany, supplies margarine to the only two firms in this country that supply our canteens with this particular commodity, and the only step that the Admiralty, for instance, has taken on this point is to get a guarantee from the Dutch firm that none of the margarine that is manufactured in their factories in Germany is supplied to the British Navy. That point has just been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham with regard to the supply of cocoa, only that the argument in that instance is the reverse of what it is here. Here you have a firm in Holland which has factories in Germany which are controlled by it, and it is actually being allowed at the present moment to supply margarine to the British Navy on the undertaking which it has given to the British Admiralty that none of the margarine actually supplied is coming from the factories in Germany!
  It seems to me that that is an absolutely ridiculous position. It is perfectly obvious

  849
  that if that firm is able to supply margarine which is manufactured in Holland it is doing so by turning over to other customers, who previously got the supply from Holland, the article made in Germany. Our manufacturers in this country, who are making great sacrifices in all sorts of ways, particularly in the matter of taxation, ought to have ready access to the large masses of men who are congregated together, whether in our camps or on our ships, for the supplying of an article of this kind. There is another point, with regard to the circular which was referred to in this House as to the overcharges that are being made in the various canteens in the country. We were told the other day that the circular was issued under a misapprehension, and the hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the War Office was not able to tell us, in reply to a question, what that misapprehension was. But it is a curious thing that a profit on a very ordinary commodity should have been put down by a responsible Army officer, under a misapprehension, at an excess of from 200 per cent. to 400 per cent. What was the misapprehension that caused that officer to issue that circular to the canteens? Everybody will agree that it cannot be other than a shame that the men in those camps should be charged extravagant prices for anything extra which they buy at those canteens. Those canteens are supplied by a very restricted system of contract. I mean by that that the contracts are in the hands of very few people, who tan do practically what they like. It may be all right, but I should like to know what was the misapprehension which led to the issue of the circular, and I should also like to have an assurance that the men in our camps are now being supplied in the canteens with those goods at reasonable prices.
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: Perhaps the House would wish me to reply now to some of the speeches that have been made by hon. Members. I will begin with the incident referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Davies). This is the first which I have heard of the matter. I shall arrange that inquiry shall be made and a communication sent to him on the subject. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has explained that I had no opportunity, when the question was raised, of explaining the nature of the misapprehension which led to the publication of the circular to which he has
  850
  referred. But I am informed that the misapprehension was purely arithmetical and that, by some accident, somebody who was not skilled in the calculation of percent ages drew up certain figures, and when the matter afterwards was investigated it was found that the statement as to percentages was not merely misleading, but was perfectly false. With regard to canteens generally, as my hon. Friend will be aware, a Central Board is to be set up which will bring about, I think, very considerable reform. There have been misgivings as to the state of canteens even in times of peace, but with all these new camps being formed and a large number of commanding officers finding it necessary to bring in contractors for this purpose, the difficulties have been complicated, and the Central Board, of which I informed my hon. Friend this afternoon, will have for inspectors fully qualified business men. This will bring about a very great improvement, and I should hope that such instances at the present moment—
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the competition for those posts be open?
  Mr. BAKER: No; I understand that they will be selected by the Board. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Rupert Gwynne) raised the question of the principles on which compensation should be given under the Defence of the Realm Act. He mentioned it, as I understood, rather by way of misgiving than by way of complaint, as to anything that actually occurred. No one can ever hope that both parties, the State on one side and the property owner on the other, will arrive at exactly the same figures. At the same time, after negotiations, a reasonable conclusion is often come to where the matter has been fully considered and there is every intention of dealing as fairly as possible between the taxpayer on the one hand and the property owner on the other.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Can the hon. Gentleman consider whether, in the event of an agreement not being come to, some civil tribunal could not act as arbitrator?
  Mr. BAKER: That is not provided by under the Act, and I am not in a position to give a promise at all in that respect. In reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) on the subject of Army contracts, I think that probably he would be the very first to admit that there was considerable vagueness in his speech, and that it did

  851
  not attain to the precise formulation—I will not say of charges—but even of fears for the future. So far as I am able to follow him, one of his grievances was that in some instances it is said that the War Office were perhaps paying rather more than a private purchaser had to pay. That I am sorry to say is a common incident even in times of peace. Everybody, I think, will agree that a Government Department, not merely the War Office, but any Government Department, has often to pay more than a private individual. I believe that even my hon. Friend, if he himself were Director of Contracts, could not altogether guard against that occuring from time to time in the course of the many thousands of contracts which have to be made in the present emergency. In reference to the particular case which is set up in a newspaper this morning, I had become aware of the article, but not sufficiently early to inquire into it, and if the hon. Member raises this matter on another occasion, I would be happy to give him an answer. The hon. Member has referred to rumours which are in existence, but in his comments on the Supplies staff of the War Office I thought that there, again, his vagueness was perhaps carried rather too far. The hon. Member almost seemed to suggest that anyone who is in the Army Service Corps, and had anything to do with the South African war, came immediately under suspicion. I should have thought that the matter should be put the other way. The Army Service Corps is an honourable body of men, and those who were fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to gain the experience that they could gain from the South African war are probably more and not less competent for avoiding such evils as did occur in connection with contracts at that time.
  The hon. Member went on, if I understood him rightly, to suggest that anyone against whom a complaint is made is to be treated as though he had been guilty of an offence. Very few of us could escape complaint some time or another, even private Members of this House, and I think that the hon. Member might well, especially in the present case, considering the very difficult and delicate nature of the subject, have been rather more precise as to the charges which he indicated. He spoke of rumours which he said were being widely circulated outside this House. I hope that if any hon. Member
  852
  knows anything definite he will communicate with me. I have been informed that there are these rumours. I have not officially or privately the slightest reason to suppose that there is any foundation for them in fact. I have, whenever they have been mentioned to me, asked for details, and when I have received such, which has been very seldom, I always entered into the matter and found that there was no such state of affairs as was alleged, and that the rumours were confused variations of something which had not happened, or that they were mixtures of various cases which set forth different transactions as though they were one. That these rumours do circulate I must accept on the word of the hon. Member and of other hon. Members who have referred to the matter. It is quite possible to suggest other causes for these rumours, but I do consider with the hon. Member that the question of contracts with the War Office or with any Government Department, and particularly in time of war, is a matter to be regarded with the utmost vigilance, and for that reason I do implore the hon. Member, or anybody else who considers that he knows something that is not negligible, and as to which he desires an investigation, to bring the matter before me without delay-so that an investigation may be made. At the same time I assure the House absolutely that I believe those rumours to be baseless, and I hope that when these suspicious stories are submitted to a sifting process it will be equally patent to other Members of the House also that they are baseless.
  The hon. Member suggested one way in which we might not merely avoid possible irregularities, but might even avoid rumour itself. That was the usual remedy, that we should appoint a Committee. When in doubt appoint a Committee. I should be very glad to have any help that could be given by anyone, but I would ask the House to remember that the Contracts Branch of the War Office is a machine that is very well organised in peace and which is served by great devotion and ability by the officials at the War Office. I believe that it has been reorganised to work well in war also. It is by no means composed solely of soldiers and of permanent civilians who were there before the War broke out. A vast quantity of expert civilian assistance has been brought in, which has been of the very greatest possible value to us, and I do think that, with this civilian assistance

  853
  already incorporated in that portion of the work, it might hinder the work very seriously indeed if you had an inquisitorial Committee standing over them and scrutinising every contract which they had to make; contracts which the House realises had to be made suddenly, and at the same time scrutinising every contract for the purpose of seeing whether by the adoption of some other method it might not have been possible to obtain a different kind of contract. I say we should welcome, and I am sure my Noble Friend the Secretary of State would welcome any real help that we could get in this matter, and if there is any practical suggestion in regard to any form of supervision which, without impeding the work of the War Office, will at the same time put an end to these baseless rumours which the hon. Member assures me are circulated, I think my Noble Friend, as certainly I should myself, would welcome it.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend said, that he is ready to inquire into all these contracts. I am not making any charge against anybody, but this I do say, that I do not think my hon. Friend would be in a position to deal with them, because he has not the experience to enable him to do so. It is not such an easy matter, and this I do know, in confirmation of what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward), that there is one firm which was condemned and mulcted in heavy damages in South Africa, and it is again supplying goods for this War.
  Mr. BAKER: Will the hon. Member tell me the name privately? I do not think it is the case.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Certainly, I have got your own letter from your Department admitting it.
  Mr. BAKER: The firm was never struck off the list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps it ought to have been."]
  Mr. HENDERSON: I will not debate it here. I have never, since I sat in this House, made any statement that the House has ever found to be untrue. There is no doubt whatever, as my hon. Friend said, that there are unpatriotic people in this country who are always anxious to make what they can out of the Government necessities in cases of this kind. I am not blaming my hon. Friend or the War Office, for it is difficult, very difficult—the competition amongst manufacturers being
  854
  so great—to get round them. The work calls for a much more highly-trained mind than the War Office possesses, to deal with it. The time to investigate these things is not after they have occurred; the time to stop them is before they can come into operation. We all remember the Egyptian war, and my hon. Friend will not deny that in bundles of hay bricks were discovered; everybody remembers that. I desire to speak of another subject: my hon. Friend was good enough on Thursday last, in answer to a question of mine with regard to the Territorials, to say that the Army Council were carefully considering the matter of the payment of railway fares to Territorials when allowed furlough to visit their friends in remote parts of the country. That is not a subject which ought to take more than half an hour's consideration. Either you are going to allow them, or you are not. Only the other week I got a letter which shows that what is going on is not the sort of thing likely to encourage men to join the Territorials. There are a great many Territorials at Bideford, in the extreme south of England, and many have come to that camp from the extreme north. To some of them four days furlough were given in order that they might pay a visit to their friends in the north, and they paid their own fare, 40s. After reaching their homes, and after they had been there a few hours, they received a telegram that they were to come back at once, and they returned, having paid 40s. for that short piece of amusement. I should be glad if these men, when they go to their homes for only a short time could be given free passes. I am not content to accept the statement that the matter is being considered, and I think you ought to refund the money paid in railway fares by these Territorials who are serving their country. It is not the way to encourage them to say to them, "Take four days' holiday and pay your own fares," and then immediately telegraph them to come back, no explanation being given of why they are recalled after they had been sent away for a few days' holiday. I would ask my hon. Friend, before the Debate closes, to tell me whether, since Thursday, the Army Council have studied this very difficult point?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I think a very emphatic protest should be made against the tone of the speech in which the Financial Secretary dealt with the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, who brought forward, so far as

  855
  newspaper evidence is concerned, specific cases of selling at higher prices to the Government than to private buyers. In reply to that, the Financial Secretary said that it was done in times of peace and that we must expect it to be done in time of war. The impression made upon my mind was that the hon. Gentleman practically said, that as it was done by contractors in time of peace it went on in time of war, and that it was customary to do it. I think there should be a most emphatic protest that such a statement should come from the Ministerial Benches. I have in my recollection a speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) in which he pointed out that there were Members of that House interested in firms which supplied armaments to the Government, and I submit that steps should be taken to see that no fictitious price is being got from the War Office in time of war. We know what occurred in the war in South Africa, and the swindling which was perpetrated in connection with the supplies there. I do not bring any charge against the Opposition now in charge of this work, but if they are only going upon the experience which they gained in South Africa, they are the very last people who should be in charge at the present time. I hope we shall have from the Ministerial Bench in regard to this matter some rather different statement from that which has been given by the Financial Secretary. There is a minor point to which I wish to call attention. I have had several letters sent to me from parents and from different camps in the New Army asking me to raise the question of an opportunity being given at Christmas for the young men to visit their families, their railway fares being paid. I hope that opportunity may be given to them.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The subject of Army contracts is, I think, one of the most interesting and profitable on which this House of Commons can spend a few minutes at the present juncture. I do not make any insinuation or charge against anyone myself, but I desire very largely to associate myself with the spirit and tone of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Stoke, because I think that if there is any subject that ought to be looked at dispassionately and in a businesslike way at the present moment it is this subject which the hon. Member for Stoke has brought forward. I was very sorry to hear the representative of the
  856
  War Office yesterday adopt the usual official attitude, which is practically this: that in his Department certain things are done in times of peace, and therefore it is quite right that they should go on doing the same things in time of war. Our difficulty is that at present we are very much muzzled, but that fact constitutes an argument why, on other occasions, there should be absolute freedom of speech in this House on subjects of this kind. So far as I know, the opinion of the man in the street and in commercial circles is that the War Office always did pay a great deal more for everything it buys than there is the slightest necessity for it to pay, that it always will continue to do so, and that as long, at all events, as it is represented in this House by the style of speech we have just listened to to-day, there is very little hope of any improvement. I happened to be personally interested in a firm in London before I became a Member of this House twelve years ago which had a contract with the War Department to send out to South Africa a large quantity of canned goods. They were ordered by a gentleman at the War Office who was shortly afterwards shot in South Africa. It was pointed out that the order was given subject to War Office conditions being complied with, and it could not be taken because it was for a large quantity to be supplied within a very short period. It appears that the War Office required that these goods, which are commercially packed, should be unpacked and put into different kinds of boxes at very great expense, and that is the reason why these articles, costing hundreds of thousands a year, and probably at the present moment is costing millions, are always sold to the War Office at 25 per cent. higher price than you can buy those goods for, if you are content to have them commercially packed. Why they should not be commercially packed I do not know, but I believe the answer is that the service wagons will only hold a certain number of those boxes if they are of a particular depth, width, and length. If the War Office want to get this particular class of goods cheaper at present they ought to alter the size of their wagons by a couple of inches, and then they would not have to pay 25 per cent. more for the goods. The difficulty about the matter is this: The hon. Member who represents the War Office told us just now that if any Member of the House can give him absolute facts, and satisfy

  857
  him, he was ready to do this, that, and the other. But it is of no use to mention rumours, because there may be nothing in them. In this Debate, and having regard to the fact that the Press is muzzled, I would like to put this question to the hon. Gentleman: Is it a fact that the Army is short of khaki cloth and is it a fact that the supply of that cloth is in the hands of one or two contractors, and is it a fact that they were offered large quantities of that cloth by other people, who were dismissed at once without even the discussion of the question of price because they did not happen to be those other people?
  Mr. BOOTH: No, no.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I was not asking the hon. Member for Pontefract, who knows about all things. It did not occur to me that a Gentleman of his enormous information and ability was in the House when I asked the question of the War Office. These rumours are current in every smoke-room in London and in every club. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] They are current also in the City about khaki cloth. I do not suggest that it is a fact about that cloth, or about the contractors, but what I do say is that it would be a very useful thing if somebody connected with the War Office would assure the House that there was no foundation whatever for such reports. The subject of the supply of all goods which the Army and the Navy want to-day, and will want for months to come, is an exceedingly difficult one. I have been of opinion for a long time that instead of this House wasting its time as it often does in lengthy discussions about matters of political controversy we should be very much better employed if every now and then we formed a Committee of the House to go into the expenditure and outlay of everyone of the spending Departments of the State. It is particularly necessary that this very important subject of the purchase and supply of articles for use by the Forces of the Crown should be scrutinised, and, if possible, organised upon a commercial basis. We passed through the panic of the Declaration of War, and in that great emergency any price probably was justified for those articles which were wanted, but now we have settled down to face the situation, and it is time that the business capacity was introduced into that Department, and that business measures were taken with regard to every detail connected with it.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I venture to express the hope that additional diligence will be displayed in connection with these contracts. Never before has so much money been spent in so short a space of time. My hon. Friend thinks that under such circumstances we must expect contractors to act as contractors. It is very unfortunate that it should be so. The additional diligence of which I have spoken is all the more necessary because since this War began we have had a great increase in the number of trusts and combines in this country. My hon. Friend, I am afraid, will find it impossible in a number of cases to do other than pay the price of the combine. Take the huts which are erected. In connection with them there will be required an enormous quantity of sanitary appliances, and he will only have in effect to go to one firm for those, because, although there are many manufacturers, they are all combined in one, and therefore the price he has to pay will not be a fair price but the combine price. I confess I hardly know myself what course to suggest for the War Office in order to protect themselves under those circumstances.
  Friends of my own who are builders and contractors have told me they find it impossible to protect themselves in time of peace, and I do not know, therefore, how my hon. Friend is to protect himself in time of war. I do know that the matter requires very serious consideration indeed by the War Office, and it has gone through my mind whether in such a matter as that, if necessary, it would not be found possible to apply that Act of Parliament which was recently passed and which gives the Government the right to take supplies at a fair price. At any rate I feel that at a time when we find ourselves compelled to put 8d. per lb. on tea, thereby reducing the wife's separation allowance from 12s. 6d. to 11s. 10d. at least, it is a very great pity that that 8d. should find its way into the pockets of middle-men, especially when we had it from the hon. Gentleman the other day, in answer to a question of mine, that some middle-men to his knowledge—I understood him to say—were making a profit out of the national emergency. I based my question on a statement made by the military correspondent of the "Times" newspaper, who is supposed to be a very well-informed man and is usually a very well-informed man. My hon. Friend reminds me and it is only fair to say that be was referring to county associations. I

  859
  am glad to think that at any rate there is no longer that screw loose, by reason of the fact that there is now greater co-operation between the War Office and those associations in order that middlemen may not be able to work off supplies to the associations.
  I should like to refer also to the question of canteens. We owe it to the good offices, if that is the correct term, of one firm of middle-men that we Members of Parliament have got knowledge of a remarkable incident that recently occurred at Alder-shot. The firm which recently came before the public in rather an unfortunate way with regard to canteen contracts, sent a circular to all Members of Parliament, and I take it, every Member has received it, suggesting that the Nation should again put itself in the hands of this firm with regard to canteen contracts, and in connection with those representations it sent to us a most remarkable circular which was issued by the General Officer Commanding at Aldershot with regard to canteen tenants. This was a solemn warning addressed to those tenants pointing out that they were over-charging to the extent of something like from 50 to 500 per cent. on the articles supplied in the canteen. I thought the matter was of such importance, despite the source through which it came, that I put a question to the War Office in the House about it the other day. I was very glad to be informed that the circular had been issued by the General Officer at Aldershot under a misapprehension, and that it had been withdrawn. It is a very remarkable thing that the General Officer Commanding at Aldershot should be so misinformed as to issue a circular accusing the canteen tenants of making those gross overcharges and that afterwards that circular was withdrawn. I hope it is not too much to ask my hon. Friend to kindly expand his answer to that question and to tell us the nature of the misapprehension?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have had all that already. A question has been asked and answered this afternoon.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am deeply sorry for raising it again, but it is incidents like that and other similar cases that have given rise to these rumours, not, I am afraid, always baseless, and which have been agitating the public mind and the newspapers at this time. If the War Office can give us any further assurance than they have given to-day with regard to
  860
  the expenditure of these enormous sums of money I am perfectly certain the House will welcome it.
  Mr. HORNE: I desire to refer to the position of some Civil servants who go into the Army. In the case of those who become privates, or non-commissioned officers, a deduction, I believe, is made from their salary of 7s. per week, and that is looked upon as very fair and general to meet the situation. In the case of commissioned officers, the rule, I believe, is to deduct the amount of the Army pay from the full amount of their civil pay, and the balance is the amount which is paid by the civil authority while they are acting in a military capacity. That sum is insufficient to meet the expenses of those gentlemen while they undertake military work. Their expenses in the Army are so much greater than they would be if they remained at home that they are unable to make sufficient provision for the families they leave behind. If this was only a case affecting Civil servants, I should not have ventured to intervene in this Debate, but I find that a large number of municipalities accept the same rules and conditions for their servants as those that obtain for the Civil servants of the Crown. I find that in consequence the country is debarred from the service of a large number of very capable young men who would be very willing to give their services, but who cannot do so because of the amount of the allowances which are given to them by their employers. I think it might be worth while for the Treasury to consider whether a more generous allowance might not be made to these men, so that we might be thereby able to get a large number of them to take commissions in the Army.
  I find in another place with which I have had to do that this rule has not been accepted, and that in the case of those who came forward and asked for permission to take up commissions it was calculated that those men would be saved, if they went into the Army, 2s. 6d. per day expenses or 17s. 6d. per week, and that in consequence they deduct from the civil pay or salary the sum of 17s. 6d., and with that exception the full salary is allowed to those men who also receive their military pay. That is a very fair and useful calculation, and a way to meet the difficulty. I have heard that there are suggestions for increasing the military pay of junior officers of the Army. That does not make the particular point I have raised,

  861
  because the more the military pay is increased, that will only, as matters stand now, mean the diminution of the civilian pay or the balance which is allowed to them.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I have received a great many complaints from firms in Scotland who have sent in estimates to the War Office with regard to various items, some for motors, others for flour, and such like, and in all cases their estimates have been rejected. I think it is quite possible that the reason for this rejection has been that their prices may have been higher. I am quite prepared to accept that statement although in some cases they have intimated to me that in order to keep their people employed they sent in estimates considerably below ordinary prices. Therefore, in many cases in the letters I have received they have been under the suspicion that their estimates have not been fairly considered. I am not going to say whether that is the case or not. But let me refer to a trade which I know something about—that is, the flour trade. I think I am correct in saying that there has not been a single contract placed among the flour merchants in the whole of the East of Scotland, with the result that, owing to the great reduction of the ordinary population, a large number of the mills there are working very short time, while many of the mills in London are working night and day, The general complaint in Scotland is that they have not the same chance of getting contracts that they would have if they lived nearer London. I had a case the other day in which a miller who did a very large trade in the East of Scotland found that the man next door to him, who had been a customer for many years, was actually receiving flour from Croydon for the supply of local families. It seems absurd to send flour from Croydon to Scotland. It is only fair to say that I went to the War Office to look into the matter, and their explanation is that all bakers of bread are supplied with flour from different depots, that there may be a large supply in one district on one day and in another district on another, and they could not possibly take into consideration local demands. I think that is a reasonable explanation. I submit, however, that special consideration should be given to men who tender from different parts of the country—because this applies to many parts—so that you may be able to equalise employment better than at present. I quite recognise the principle that
  862
  it is advisable that flour should be supplied from different depots, and that merchants should send to those depots. But I think special consideration should be given to such cases as those to which I have referred, so that you may not have to deal with a large amount of unemployment in one district, while in another district men are working excessive hours.
  There is another point with regard to contracts about which the greatest care should be exercised. There is not the slightest doubt that there is very grave suspicion around the whole question of Army contracts. I have reason to know, because I remember that many years ago a firm with which my own firm used to do business actually declined to tender to the Army because they had so many complaints which were absolutely unwarranted in fact, and they found that the reason was that there had been so much graft going on with regard to the contracts. They were asked afterwards why they did not tender, and they gave that as the reason. General Sir Evelyn Wood, who was at that time at the War Office, went to Aldershot and found that the whole of the charges made by this firm were absolutely true. I mention that to show that there is unfortunately associated with the Army in the matter of contracts very grave suspicion, and at times like the present the very greatest care should be exercised. I would even place contracts at a higher rate rather than that the War Office should be bound within too restricted limits. Sometimes a firm will send in a tender at a low price simply in order to keep another firm out.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why should not the taxpayer get the benefit?
  Mr. PRICE: The real object is to get the War Office to decide that tenders shall be invited only from given firms. I know cases, too, where men have gone on to the Exchange to buy oats and they have actually gone in khaki. That is absurd, as everybody knew perfectly well that they would not buy at the lowest possible price. It would be ten times better even to give a civilian a commission in such transactions. It is only fair to say quite frankly, however, that while we have reason to complain about certain matters in regard to contracts, so far as the food of the ordinary soldier is concerned, men from the front whom I have seen have all declared that the commissariat is working magnificently. Many of the men say that they are fed like fighting cocks. I

  863
  know that in many cases our own soldiers have actually passed rations down the ranks in order to feed the French soldiers on their left and right. That shows a magnificent condition of organisation. Therefore I wish to express on behalf of many men whom I have seen from the front their hearty satisfaction with the way in which the commissariat has been worked.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not desire to do more than give notice to the Government that I propose on a future stage of this Bill to put a few questions in regard to the treatment of the sick and wounded. I wish to make it quite clear that I am not anxious to make criticisms or to raise difficulties; but there are one or two matters in reference to which I think it will be desirable to have public explanations. I do not think it would be fair or useful to put these questions without notice. Therefore I thought it right to mention now that I propose to put them on a future occasion.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I feel somewhat nervous in addressing the House, not being very certain of my position, and feeling upon me the lynx eye of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). But I have my doubts whether the common informer will turn up on this occasion. I rise to bring forward a question which seems to me to be of the utmost importance. We have been told over and over again that there is very little risk of a German raid on this country. Certainly the chances are very small indeed, but even if there be only one chance in a hundred, I think the country ought to be prepared in every way to meet that raid. I know that the troops are there, and the Navy is there. The question is whether the people as a whole know exactly what they ought to do if the Germans land in this country. We have seen over and over again advice to civilians as to what they should do, given by people who have no real position to give that advice. They have learnt their lessons in Belgium or France. Public people of different description have advised civilians as to the handing in of arms or as to the different ways in which the triumphant soldiery of the Fatherland ought to be treated. It must be that the mayors of various towns in the country have applied to the Government for information as to what advice they should give to their
  864
  people in the event of such a raid. Has the Government told these mayors what they are to do? Has there been any sort of information given to the public as a whole as to whether or not they should fight, whether they should lie down and let the Germans walk over them, or whether they should make the best possible stand for their country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What would you do?"] I should obey orders. I know that there are many people in this country, not only men but women also, who would certainly use every weapon in their possession in order to defend their country. I am glad to hear, although it is only a rumour, that one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench has actually been arming his tenantry with shot guns and buck shot. That seems to me to be the right spirit in which any such invasion ought to be met. But it is the duty of the Government, not merely to arm their tenantry, but to give the country as a whole a clear lead on this subject.
  In the event of a raid, are we to take it lying down, or are we to take it fighting? We know from the history of the last few months what happens to a country that takes it fighting, as the Belgians took it. We know the massacres that they suffered. But we know also that many of those massacres have taken place in villages where no armed defence whatsoever was offered. We read yesterday of the butchery in Andenne, and we have read accounts from Vise and elsewhere, all going to show that it makes very little difference so far as the punishment is concerned whether armed resistance is offered or not by the civil population: they are butchered all the same. I should be ashamed of my countrymen and my countrywomen if, should the Germans come to this country, they did not put up as good a defence for their country as the Belgian civilians did in Belgium. The risks are great. Brutality is horrible. But the risks are bound to be great in war, and the brutality of war is never confined to a semi-civilised struggle between people in uniform. All war is butchery and murder. You cannot make it civilised and decent. All you can do is to try to put an end to war altogether. To do that every man and woman in this country would have to fight if an invader landed on our shores. Therefore I beg the Government, at the earliest possible moment, to give a clear indication to the people of this country that, if the Germans land,

  865
  they are not expected to hand in their weapons to the nearest parish council office; that they are not expected to be only polite and civil to the conquering Germans; that they are not expected to give information to the Germans as to the movements of British troops in their neighbourhood, or to refuse information to the British troops as to the movements of German troops in their neighbourhood; that they are expected to shoot at the Germans from behind hedges and doors; and that they are not to be considered a disgrace to civilisation and society if they defend in every way possible or impossible their hearths and their womenkind from the invader. That seems to me to be the duty of a Government that is going to fight this War through. Give the people a clear lead and they will take up the challenge. The people will act on the advice of the Government, and, directly you have such a rising of men and women, you will find that a raid, whether it be 50,000 or 100,000 strong, will be, in the words of Mr. Wells, "not fought, but lynched."
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I hope that before this Debate closes the Government will give a reply on the very important matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir II. Dalziel). The right hon. Gentleman stated that it had come to his knowledge that passports were issued in this country to naturalised Germans in order that they might be enabled to go to neutral countries; and he pointed out, with what appeared to me to be unanswerable force, that this was a certain method of enabling such a naturalised German, if he thought fit, to convey information to the enemy. I should like a reassuring statement from the Government on this point. We have passed an Act of Parliament—the Defence of the Realm Act—under which regulations have been made forbidding in the most stringent terms, as is right and proper, the conveying of information to the enemy. Notwithstanding these regulations, there is grave reason to believe that in many cases information is being conveyed to the enemy by methods which are so effectively assisted that so far the authorities have been unable to discover them. In my judgment, a naturalised German is at least as bad as one not naturalised. [An HON. MEMBER: "Worse!"] Probably worse, because he may be a traitor as well as being a German. I ask could any method be easier than for a naturalised
  866
  German to go and get—[Laughter.] The subject may be one for amusement by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but, to my mind, it is no laughing matter. Could anything be easier than for a naturalised German to get this passport and then to go forward and so convey most vital information to the enemy? I should like to ask the Treasury Bench, when a naturalised Austrian applies to the Foreign Office for a passport to go to a neutral country, what inquiry is made? Is there a full and searching inquiry into this so-called British subject, as to what were his antecedents, as to what are his motives in going to Holland, and whether he is a proper person to be entrusted with a passport? I hope we shall have some reassuring statement, and that, at any rate, the Government will be able to tell us that they are doing all they possibly can in cases of this sort, and in all similar cases, to prevent information which may be of vital importance going from this country to the enemy.
  Mr. BOOTH: A question was put by one of the hon. Members for Liverpool which seemed to indicate to the House that in every smoking-room in his constituency—
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I did not say so.
  Mr. BOOTH: I say it seemed to indicate that in every smoking-room in this country, as well as in the City of London, there was much complaint in regard to the contracts relating to khaki. The hon. Member asked whether it was a fact that one or two firms monopolised the manufacture of khaki for the country, with consequent great disaster to the State.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member has entirely mistaken what I said in almost every detail.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am within the recollection of the House. The hon. Member asked whether the supply of khaki to the Government was not in the hands of one or two firms? The hon. Member does not dispute that. I can only say that if he had made the slightest inquiry in the trade he never would have put that question in the House. Khaki is being manufactured for the Government all over the West Riding. The hon. Member must except the smoking rooms of the whole of Yorkshire from those he mentioned to the House. Neither I nor my firm, nor any of my constituents—so far as I know—are occupied with the supply of khaki to the Government. But I happen to be a West Riding Member. My business is there. I have made it my

  867
  particular duty whenever I could talk with men on War Office work. I have spoken to men who have got orders. I have spoken to men who have been disappointed in not getting orders. I have spoken to men of whom it has been said that they are getting more than their share of orders, and to men who complain that they have not got sufficient. But they one and all agree in this: that the buying is keen and straight, and that no Government in the world in any of its supplies ever got better terms, better service, and better quality than the present War Office are getting in the supply of khaki clothing.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My hon. Friend has already given the official answer upon the subject of contracts, and really, perhaps, the hon. Member will agree that no further remarks from me are desirable at this moment. I would only like to say one word: We have had a statement from the hon. Member for Edinburgh as to how a particular firm did not compete for War Office contracts, because they are so much afraid that they may be tarred with the tar or mud that is going about. Therefore, although perfectly honest men, the man concerned did not enter the lists. The hon. Member is very desirous that we should do our best to remove the suspicions that exist in this matter. I would merely say that, in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there is no ground for these suspicions. I would make this appeal to my hon. Friends: that they should inform all and sundry that on this subject of contracts the War Office is most anxious to eliminate any man competing of whom they have the slightest suspicion. The War Office are most desirous that rumours of suspicions should be scotched at the earliest possible moment. Hon. Members would assist the War Office considerably if they informed all they can that all War Office dealings are most proper and above board, and that we are doing everything in our power to keep out of the list of contractors those against whom we have the slightest suspicion.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: And can we tell them also that they need not expect more from the Government than from a private person?
  Mr. TENNANT: I know it is said that what is suggested there is the case; but what I would like to impress upon the
  868
  House is this: that I do not really believe there is ground for that statement. I am constantly being asked the question in this House: "Why was the Government so niggardly?" An hon. Member below the gangway, who is not here for the moment, asked me what we were going to do about compensation, or a kindred subject, and he suggested that it was very undesirable that the War Office should be the judge of the amount that they should give for compensation to those whose premises or land they had occupied under the Defence of the Realm Act. That is practically a charge that we are not likely to give full value. On the other side, hon. Members say that we are giving too much; and altogether it is not an easy matter to find oneself in the right. I welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood), whom I understand from all quarters—yes, the hon. and gallant Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—who has been doing splendid work during the last three months for his country. We all welcome him. He has the root of the matter in him. In the speech he made he showed a proper spirit. As regards his question as to what the civilian population should do in the event of invasion. I must say this on behalf of the War Office: that it is our first duty—and we have a Navy for the purpose—to prevent it. In the event of an invasion taking place our duty would be to drive the invaders into the sea as fast as we can, and I hope we shall be enabled to do so. But in respect to the action of the civil population in the event of anything of the kind occurring, I would refer the House to the answer given this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He answered a question addressed to the Prime Minister, and in reply he said:—
  "My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland and I, acting on behalf of the Government, have been in communication on this matter with the lord lieutenant of certain counties hi Scotland and England. The lords lieutenant have formed, or are now forming, Emergency Committees in all districts which could be regarded as exposed to possible raids. For the present, however, it is considered undesirable to make public the instructions which have been, or will be, issued."
  So that emergency committees are being formed in view of any danger of invasion, and instructions are being issued to the emergency committees, I think the House will agree that it would not be desirable to make public the instructions which are or will be issued. With regard to the question of passports, I am afraid that it is a Foreign Office matter to which I am

  869
  unable to give an answer, but I will represent what has been said by the hon. Member for York in the proper quarter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, be now read a second time."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: There are one or two questions which I should like to raise upon this Bill. First of all, I should like to ask why it is that the exemptions which were promised to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General last Thursday or Friday with regard to the Super-tax, are not in the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman dealt with a case that might arise of an income not being as great in any given year as the return. He said that he would re-insert, with certain modifications, Clause 133 of the Act of 1842. He proceeded to deal with the Super-tax and he said that he would take similar steps in regard to the Incime Tax, always provided that the less income must be one-third of the total income. Though the promise with regard to ordinary Income Tax has been fulfilled I find there is nothing whatever in the Bill relating to Super-tax. I have heard it mentioned that the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not necessary to put it into the Bill, because the collectors of Inland Revenue will have instructions to give this abatement should the circumstances arise. That is a very novel proceeding for any Government, most of all for a Government composed of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have always held that the House of Commons should have control over finance, and that a financial measure enacted by the House of Commons should be effective. The Attorney-General is proposing to override an Act of Parliament, and that is a thing which cannot be allowed for a moment. Therefore I wish to put in an Amendment which would include the Super-tax for exemption in a similar way to the Income Tax.
  A very important question arises upon Clause 13. The Financial Secretary will
  870
  remember that on Friday on the Resolution being read from the Chair I asked what was the effect of that Resolution. I had not a copy of the Resolution with me at that time, and the hon. Gentleman informed me that my suspicions were correct, and that the Resolution did authorise—and I am glad that certain hon. Members are present on the opposite side because unless they have made a very careful study of the Resolution they would not know what was in it—that that Resolution did authorise the Government to raise any sum of money they liked without the authority of this House. The hon. Member said that the Clause probably would not be so bad as that. I have a copy of the Clause, and though on the face of it it might be held by anyone who reads it not very carefully through that the amount which could be borrowed was limited by the War Loan Act of 1914, if you look at the War Loan Act of 1914, and study the Clause carefully of that Act, you will find that this Clause actually gives power to the Government to raise any sum of money they like by way of loan, without the authority of the House of Commons.
  I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition and others will say upon this matter, but I must say that though I have hitherto given a loyal support to the Government, and have raised no objection to any of their measures, I cannot allow any Government to come down to the House of Commons and to take power in this way. The Clause is so drafted that unless you are very very careful and read it up with the Act of 1914, and are suspicious by nature, that it would be considered all right. The ordinary innocent Member of Parliament would look at this and say that it was all right, but it is not so. My hon. Friend for one of the Divisions of Middlesex was taken in by it. He said, "Oh, you are wrong. It limits the amount to the amount authorised by the War Loan Act of 1914." That is apparently what it does, but it does nothing of the sort. It allows them to raise any amount of money they like by loan up to £1,000,000,000 or £2,000,000,000 without coming to this House. Such a thing was never known in this House before, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite admits it, and he admitted it last Friday. I say that no Government or the House of Commons should allow such a thing to pass. It is not necessary at the present moment, when the Government have no opposition from this side of the House to their financial measures.

  871
  It is not treating the Opposition with courtesy, when they have been so kind and have abrogated their powers of opposition, and have accepted everything the Government has done; it is not treating them fairly that the Government should come down and in rather a surreptitious way try to obtain vast powers of this sort. I am surprised that the Government should have done it, when we know that only a short time ago they said that so important was the interest of the House of Commons in retaining control over finance that even the House of Lords should have nothing to do with it. Now they come and say, "The Government can do anything they like without consulting the House of Commons. At a time when we have borrowed £350,000,000 we ought to be allowed to borrow any amount we like." That is a power the House of Commons has always refused to give to any Government. I did not intend to speak so warmly upon this subject, but I do not think that we are being treated well in return for the support we have given to the Government when Clauses of this sort are being put into the Bill, and I shall certainly, when the Question is put, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," vote against it if I can get anyone to tell with me.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: It has been indeed a unique experience in the House of Commons to find all the usual forms of criticism of a Government's financial proposals abandoned, and the whole House, irrespective of party, prepared to make all necessary financial sacrifices to provide the money needed by the Government to-day for the successful prosecution of this War. To have the sum of £535,000,000, either to raise or to borrow in one year, is indeed stupendous, especially when our national income is supposed not to exceed £2,300,000,000 a year. We have a deficit of £339,000,000. I believe that in all quarters of the House the determination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whilst we must resort to a large extent to borrowing powers, yet that, on the other hand, it is our duty in the interests of sound finance and the best interests of the nation that we should largely impose taxation, even if the current financial year is approved of everywhere, but the question is as to how those financial provisions can be most justly and equitably made in the interests of the whole body of the taxpayers in this country.
  872
  I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in his statement the other day as to the great variation in the financial effect of this terrible War upon the various districts of the United Kingdom. In Northumberland the whole of the collieries in that county depend upon export trade to the Continent of Europe, and I do not hesitate to say today that they are losing most heavily, whilst, on the other hand, the steam coal collieries of South Wales are reaping a rich harvest. On the one hand, we have the cotton trade in the same unsatisfactory position, whilst, on the other hand, the various woollen manufactures in Yorkshire are working night and day, and, I have no doubt, reaping a harvest. The important question the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to consider is how nearly he can go in the levying of this new taxation to give effect to that sound principle of the equal incidence of taxation. It certainly cannot be contended for one moment that the coal owners of Northumberland are in the same position to pay an equal amount with the owners of the steam coal collieries of South Wales, or that the cotton traders of Lancashire can pay with equal ease the same imposition of taxation as can readily be borne by the woollen manufacturers of Yorkshire.
  If I might venture, with all humility, to make a suggestion to the Government it would be this: that they should levy their new taxes in the simplest possible way. With regard to both Income Tax and Super-tax, up to the 31st March next, the ordinary assessments have, I believe, been agreed upon. Why should they not allow these assessments to stand both for Income Tax and Super-tax, and become payable as provided by law on 1st January next, and then turn their attention, as a separate question, to the special War Taxes which they are going to impose upon us for the last four months of the present financial year. Why should not we adopt the principle and simplify the whole financial situation by determining that these special War Taxes shall be imposed upon the actual income of the year on the taxpayers of this country. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that that would cause delay in getting in these new taxes. There is to be delay in getting in the new taxes. What is it that is proposed at the present time? As I understand it, the Income Tax as assessed is to be paid in January, but

  873
  we are always to be enabled to make a reclaim if the income of this current year is less than the average of the three years past, including the current year. Then, with regard to the Super-tax.
  Bearing in mind that the only right principle of taxation is that every man should be taxed according to his ability to pay, and that there should be an equal incidence of taxation so far as it is possible to obtain them, what does the House think of financial proposals which in the case of two men who enjoyed an income of £6,000 in the year 1913 worked out this way? We are told that if for "circumstances attributed directly or indirectly to the present War," the taxpayer can establish before the proper authorities the fact that his income through these circumstances has been reduced by one-third, then the payment of the Super-tax to the amount of that one-third shall be cancelled. In the case of a man who is able to prove that his income in 1913 has fallen in 1914 to £4,000, he is only asked to pay £79 3s. 4d., but if by any chance another man who had an equal income in 1913 is only able to show that his income has fallen to £4,001, he gets no relief whatsoever, and he has to pay £245 16s. 8d. In these two cases, of two men with equal incomes the man who establishes the fact that his income is reduced by one-third pays only 4¾d. in the pound, whereas the other man with practically the same income only £1 more, has to pay 1s. 2¾d. in the pound upon his actual income. I leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers to say how far that principle of taxation satisfies the true principle of equal incidents of taxes. I say it is most unequal and unjust. And I say more, that you are doing it in a most complicated and inconvenient fashion, and that it will cause trouble and heartburning to the Super-tax payers in this country.
  You have to go and prove before the Commissioners of Income Tax that "circumstances attributable either directly or indirectly to the present War" have caused that reduction in your income. I venture to say it would be past the wit of man to show in many cases how far the diminution in income is wholly or partly attributable to the circumstances of the War. It is absolutely impossible, and therefore the only sound and equitable principle upon which these War Taxes ought to be imposed is to tax every taxpayer upon his actual income. What would be the financial effect?
  874
  Leaving the assessment for Income Tax and Super-tax already agreed upon in force, three-fourths of the Income Tax and Super-tax would be received in January next, whereas by the postponement of the payment of the new special War Taxes until say the end of April of next year it would be quite possible that each taxpayers' income for 1914 would be actually and correctly assessed, and that it would be quite possible for the Government to levy these special War Taxes upon a man's actual income for the year. That seems to me to be a much simpler method of dealing with the matter than that proposed by the Government, and it has this great advantage that it is absolutely equitable. I venture, not as a financial authority, to make that suggestion to the Government, and I ask them to give some consideration to the aspect of the question which I have presented. I also hope before long that we shall be able to take all the taxes off the breakfast table and substitute a graduated tax on income, and a tax on wages earned above a certain limit throughout the whole country. But that time is not yet. The new taxation arrangements proposed by the Government are much more complicated than is necessary, and they would vastly simplify and facilitate the getting in of the National Income were they to determine that they would brush aside all the complicated arrangements for agreeing as to assessments, and would say once and for all that the true principle of taxation is to tax every man on a graduated scale according to his precise income for the year.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: With regard to the very interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) I would like to say one or two words. He said something which would interest every Member of the Committee in regard to the taxation of wages, and his speech raised a great deal of interest and comment from all quarters of the House. Only one hon. Member opposite raised any opposition to the general proposal on its merits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his reference to this subject, said the Government would postpone consideration of it for the present. I am glad that postponement was announced, because whatever the merits or demerits of a tax on wages may be, I am convinced that so far-reaching a proposal as that ought not to be carried into effect in time

  875
  of war. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer uttered the words "for the present" I hope they covered not only the present financial year, but at least the next financial year. No country in the world at the present time levies a tax on wages. It is not always a good thing to be guided by what other countries do or do not, and this obviously is a proposal which ought to be considered on its merits. It certainly is suggested that no other country has yet done this, and before we rush into it we ought to consider it carefully. On the face of it it sounds attractive. For these indirect taxes, which some of us deplore, we feel that something has to be substituted. The wages bill of the country is estimated by some people at £750,000,000. If you levy 1d. in the £ on that total you get, roughly, £3,000,000, so that a 6d. tax would yield about £18,000,000, but directly you are faced with the direct taxation of the working classes of the country you are presented with a very great problem.
  I would like to refer to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) in his speech on this subject the other day. In accepting this principle he laid down a proviso that he would not consent to the direct taxation on wages below a certain level. Let us see where that leads us. It is a very old principle, some people think it is a principle of modern Socialism, but it is nothing of the kind, because it was accepted by Mill in 1848, who accepted the verdict of Bentham. There is in our society a very large number of people who are too poor to bear taxation in any shape or form, with regard to whom you have no right to levy taxes. When you take a society like ours, and take up the question of what persons should bear or should not bear taxation, you have to consider the whole wealth of the country and what social life is at the present time. When you take the wages bill of £750,000,000 and take out of it the people who ought not to be taxed, you will find that it makes a very great difference in the total. For example, you cannot tax the part of the wages bill which is drawn by boys and girls or women, and when you take those out you make a very great inroad into the total. If you take the case of the men then you are faced with a number of agricultural labourers earning less than £1 a week, and you do not feel that they are fit subjects for taxation. If you take 25s. a
  876
  week as the level below which you do not feel it possible to go you take a large amount out of the total and you will find your £750,000,000 of wages very seriously diminished, and that will take a very large amount of the gilt off the gingerbread, and you will begin to wonder whether the rest is worth while.
  You will begin to wonder whether it is worth while to do this in the case of the workmen earning from 35s. to £2 per week. You have also to consider the cost of collecting and difficulties and natural suspicions which are bound to arise. I think it would be wrong for us to sum up for or against this proposal at the present time, and I should not have troubled the House with these remarks but for the way in which so many hon. Members have committed themselves to this proposal. I have made these remarks because I have just a fear in my mind that next year in March, when we know a little better what this War is going to cost, and when another War Budget will have to be framed, there is just the fear of a hasty proposal being put before the House of Commons, and it is with that fear in my mind that I have ventured to address these few remarks to the House. I suggest that there is one other way of taxing wages, which is, perhaps, a better way, and that is to lower your Income Tax level to the old level, which I think is a much better one. You might lower the scale down to £120 or even £105 a year, and then do your best to bring every working man in the country above that level.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I intervene to ask a question which was raised when one of the Resolutions upon which this Bill is founded was before the House last week. It is the question which was asked by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), whether, in respect to the increased Income Tax, any consideration is going to be shown in the cases of members of the Force serving in the field? The increased Income Tax bears very hardly upon some of these men, who certainly have very exceptional claims upon us. Some of us have received letters giving some idea of the dismay on this subject which those who have enlisted will feel if they are going to be asked to pay upon this terribly severe scale. I do not wish to hurry a reply, because the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say last week that consideration was being given to the matter, but if that

  877
  consideration has made any progress, I should like to know what is going to be done in the matter before we reach the Income Tax Clause.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I wish to raise a point in connection with the relief promise in respect of the diminution of income. I raise this question in connection with small property owners. I think Clause 12 is very complicated, and it is difficult for every Income Tax payer to understand it. I think we ought to utter a very strong protest in a matter of this kind, when it is proposed to give relief to Income Tax payers, that we should have so many references to past Acts of Parliament or to Sections of Acts of Parliament. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire was a very interesting one, but it was a speech by reference, because he referred us to Mill and then from Mill to Bentham. But this Clause is worse than that, because it really refers us back to an Act of 1842, then to Acts of 1865 and 1907, and then to Sections 34 of the Act of 1842. I should like to know how any Income Tax payer in this country—whether he is an ordinary Income Tax payer or comes within the definition of my hon. Friend who is so much concerned about the Super-tax payer—will really understand how to obtain his relief without referring the matter to a solicitor for explanation. Under this Bill I think there is a section of the Income Tax payers who will be hit very hardly indeed, and I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) on this point, because he raised a similar point when the Emergency Powers Bill was under consideration. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a great feeling for the spinster and the widow. There are a large number of ladies who live upon an income derived from property, and I am speaking in the sense of small property owners.
  Take the case of a woman who is in receipt of £200 a year derived from property. She has to pay an Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £, and she gets a rebate of £160, and that leaves her a net £40 upon which she has to pay Income Tax. If she has a reduction in her rents during the War, or under the Emergency Powers Act, some relief is given to the tenants and pressure is not brought to bear upon them; if there is a further reduction of £20 to £30 per year in that income of £200 caused by loss of rent, that woman would have to pay on her £40 as long as those
  878
  tenants in default remained in her property. I have put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and also to the Attorney-General, and there is a very strong feeling indeed that during the War there will be some very large losses in rent. I think if these property owners can in any way show that in any given year a loss of rent takes place relief should be given for that loss, and the owner of such property should not be called upon to pay full Income Tax upon the £40 in such cases. I hope that we shall have some satisfactory reply from the Financial Secretary, because this matter is receiving a great deal of attention in the country, and I have been asked by several people to make this representation in the House with a view of obtaining relief for such property owners, and also of asking a man or a woman to pay upon the actual amount received in the form of rent. I concur entirely in the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Clause 13 is another Clause by reference, and in order to ascertain what it means with regard to disqualification we should have to search the Act of 1872. If there is anything in this Clause which gives power to the Government to borrow beyond £350,000,000 I agree that no such power should be given. Whenever the Government require to raise money beyond the £350,000,000 which we have already sanctioned, they should come back to the House. I understood from the Chancellor when he made his speech upon the loan that it was his intention to ask the House to give him money to go right up to July, and that then, when the loan was completed, he would come back to the House and ask for further powers. We all agree with the point raised by the hon. Baronet, and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory reply from the Under-Secretary.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: It is well known on all sides that we are most ready to contribute to the enormous expenditure we are now incurring, and therefore much criticism is altogether beside the mark. If we had any doubts about our readiness or willingness to contribute this sum of money it would be right that the nation should remember how very much worse off we should be if the Germans ruled over here. I want to put on record one or two views. It must be admitted that the taxes that are now being put on are enormous. After all, a 2s. 6d. Income Tax is one-eighth of one's income, and in the case of

  879
  a double Super-tax it may mean, as the White Paper has shown, even more than one-fourth of a man's income, and we know not what more may come in the future. The fact remains that they are enormous and ought to be diminished as soon as a reasonable opportunity occurs. I have often urged, inside and outside this House, that the Income Tax was, and ought to be, really an emergency tax, that it was a war tax, or a tax for some great emergency. No doubt it comes in at the present moment, but it is legitimate to say that if the Income Tax had not been so enormously raised by the present Government in the past few years there would have been a much greater margin for us to call upon now in our dire need and necessity. It is necessary also to observe that the greater proportion which is being charged to direct taxation as against indirect taxation seems to me to be going a very long way. I know there are some hon. Members opposite who would do away with indirect taxation altogether. I am not sure that is the general view of all Members in this House, or of all parties, but if the old tenets of taxation are going to be maintained I do not think we ought to encroach more upon the proportion of direct taxation to that of indirect taxation, and I hope future Chancellors of the Exchequer when they have to deal with more peaceful times may bear out that general proposition.
  Something, perhaps, is to be said for imposing at this moment rather more of a capital charge by way of loan. I do not wish to press that very strongly, but it is right to call the attention of the House to the fact that those in trades and industries are bearing a very heavy charge at this moment, while they have complete uncertainty as to the difficulties in their trades which they may have to face immediately. If they were given somewhat longer notice of the great increase in taxation, they might be better able to provide for the uncertainties which undoubtedly await them. It is only from that point of view I venture to suggest that this moment is not perhaps quite opportune for suddenly raising the Income Tax to so enormous a figure. It might be that in a few months the trades and industries to which I refer would be better able to look round and consider their position, but this particular moment is one which, as I am informed, places them in very considerable difficulty in certain cases, and it might be worth while to
  880
  endeavour to mitigate the charge in so far as it hampers British trade in this respect. I wish that other articles as well as tea and beer had been taxed. I think it is rather a narrow point of view to take to select these two articles only when imposing such vast taxes as we are at the present time, more particularly in the case of tea, when, as my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Chamberlain) has already pointed out, much of it conies from India and Ceylon.
  I do not want to say anything that could possibly be of any use to our enemies, but I cannot myself see any objection to placing on record my view that it would have been far better if more articles had been the subject of Customs Duties, and if, in fact, we had adopted Tariff Reform from a general point of view, if only to obtain the greater revenue which we desire. I know it is not necessary or perhaps right from a patriotic point of view to raise any controversial topic, but in so far as that can make no difficulty and give no help to our enemies I think that some of us on this side who have strong views on that policy are justified in stating that if we had had the framing of this Budget at the present time we should have expanded the area of taxation very much more considerably than is done in the present instance. I have very little to say as regards the loan that is proposed to be raised. The investor is to put out his money at 4 per cent., though, of course, the yield will be somewhat less with a very high Income Tax. Then he is invited at the same moment to borrow money for his investment from the Bank of England at 4 per cent. It is an ingenious and rather curious proposal, no doubt without precedent, and I hope certainly that under more normal conditions it will not be attempted to be followed. Under present conditions, however, I am quite willing to accept it as a patriotic investment, and, as such, I hope that the loan will be subscribed for many times over. I need scarcely say that it is as safe as it is patriotic.
  Sir RICHARD WINFREY: I should like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the question of the incidence of the Income Tax, especially with regard to Schedule B. The time has really arrived when the agriculturists of this country ought to be asked to pay a fair share of Income Tax, and I do not think they could, on this occasion, complain. They have had ten very good

  881
  years to my knowledge, and at the present time they are practically escaping Income Tax altogether. I was talking at the tea table this evening with four Members of this House, three of whom are, I believe, right hon. Gentlemen, and not one of them could tell me how the farmer was assessed for Income Tax purposes. I believe a good deal of ignorance exists with regard to this matter. They are assessed under Schedule B. The farmer is supposed not to be able to keep accounts, and therefore he has to pay on one-third of his rental. What does that mean? It means that a farmer who is farming 500 acres of land at £1 per acre—he would be a considerable farmer to farm 500 acres—actually gets off Income Tax altogether. We have hundreds of farmers, I know in the Eastern counties, farming 500 acres of land and making £600, £700, and £800 a year, and yet not paying one farthing Income Tax at the present time. If we divide £500 by three, we get £166. Then they get the abatement of £160, a further abatement if they have any children, and a still further abatement for insurance.
  Take the case of a much larger farmer. Take the farmer farming 1,000 acres at £1 per acre, which is a fair average rent. A third of £1,000 is £330. That brings him under £400, and he therefore gets his abatement of £160, a further abatement for each child under sixteen and a still further abatement if his life is insured. You may therefore safely say that a man farming 1,000 acres only pays Income Tax on £150 a year. It is absurd to suggest that our agriculturists do not make more profit than that. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury represents an agricultural constituency, and so do I. Probably I am a bold man in speaking on this subject, but I venture to say that the farmers in my Constituency are willing to bear their share of the burden at this time of crisis, and this is a fair opportunity, therefore, to revise that Schedule B. Before 1893 they paid upon half of their rental. We then had a succession of wet seasons, and Sir William Harcourt, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, was appealed to, and, considering that the farmers had then had ten very bad years, he brought down Schedule B to one-third of the rental. Now, after ten good years, I think the time has arrived when it might be put up, at any rate, to where it was in 1893. If that were done, my own impression is that it would bring a very considerable sum into the Treasury. I venture to put this view before the
  882
  Government. I believe our agriculturists throughout the country would be willing, and, as I say, anxious to pay their fair share of Income Tax, and I hope some revision of that kind may be made, if not now, at any rate when the next financial year comes into existence.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. HASLAM: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has called attention to a very important point indeed with regard to the levying of Income Tax. It has appeared to me for many years that the agriculturist has not been called upon to pay a fair share. If he came under another Schedule he would be obliged to keep accounts, and would, as a result, I think, become a better farmer, because he would then know what his income really was. The principle underlying the present system is lax, and I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay attention to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend. With regard to the general question of the Finance Bill, I find it distinctly difficult to realise the enormous cost of the war. I have endeavoured to make the matter clear to my own mind by estimating the proportion which the cost bears to the total income from all sources in the country. I understand that the total annual revenue of the United Kingdom is something over £2,000,000,000 a year. The cost of the War will represent, I believe, one-fifth of the total national revenue, or probably one-fourth—4s. or 5s. in the £ on the earnings of the country. I call attention to this because I think it will emphasise the fact that it is essential we should bring this War to an early conclusion, so as to put an end to this enormous drain as soon as possible.
  Economic causes will be the chief means of bringing the War to an end. In Germany probably one-half of the total national income is being spent on the War. In this country it is costing us £1,000,000 a day. To Germany the cost is probably £3,000,000 a day, and I would ask how long can any country, even a wealthy country like Germany, which probably is about equal in wealth to this country—how long can it exist when spending half the national income on a war? Surely it must mean that, before very long, nearly one-half of the German people will have to depend upon charitable doles! With an early defeat at the front, I believe there

  883
  will be popular discord and discontent in Germany, and revolution will follow.
  The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) a few day ago referred to the desirability of taxing the wages of the working people of this country. The Home Secretary, some few years ago I remember, standing at the Table, expressed the same opinion, and I think the whole of the Members of this House will agree that it is the best course to take, so far as the principle is concerned. It would be a good thing to have an Income Tax, graduated according to the incomes of those who constitute the community. But an hon. Member who spoke just now pointed out the difficulty of carrying such a proposal into effect, and I, too, am afraid it would be insurmountable. Still there is a way of meeting the difficulty by making the amount on which Income Tax becomes payable lower than it is at the present moment. In my opinion it would be far better for the working classes of this country to know exactly what they are paying in taxation. It would induce them to take a great deal more interest in the financial business of the country.
  The hon. Member for Barnard Castle also pointed out the effect of the Tea Duty on the incomes of the working classes. He said there were 2,000,000 families whose income was about £1 per week on the average; that they used on the average one pound in weight of tea a week and that of course represents an Income Tax on them of 8d. in the £. An hon. Member near me says that they do not use that quantity. I agree, but the argument of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle is perfectly sound in principle. This duty is an exceedingly heavy Income Tax on poor people. In the whole of the United Kingdom there are 9,000,000 families. Taking the whole tax at 8d. as yielding £9,000,000, each family contributes;£1 per year; that would represent a tax of 5d. and not 8d. per week, as represented by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. In calling attention to this matter, I only suggest that the hon. Gentleman rather overestimated the facts with regard to poor people. In Ireland, where people are generally poor, I believe, from particulars I have been able to obtain, the amount paid there amounts to about 6d. per week per family.
  As regards the incidence of Income Tax, at the present time one-tenth of the income of Income Tax payers goes towards the revenue, this including Income Tax
  884
  and Death and Estate Duty. The very rich pay one-fourth of their income, when you include Income Tax, Estate Duty, Death Duty, and insurance. Although this tax appears to be extremely heavy when put in that light, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the absolutely right course in throwing the largest burden on the wealthy rather than in taxing the poorer members of the community It is sound policy, because I believe that by taxing the rich, you prevent a great deal of expenditure on luxuries, which means the employment of less labour than when the same sum of money is spent on necessities which, as is well known, involve the employment of more labour. May I also call attention to the position occupied by the French Government, and compare it with our own. The French financial position is this: They have about £1,200,000,000 of debt. In this present War they have a very large saving of expenditure as compared with ourselves, inasmuch as their soldiers only receive 7d. per week, as against the 7s. and upwards paid to our soldiers. That, of course, represents a very large saving which amounts, including their separation allowances, to about £70,000,000 a year. The French separation allowance for the wife is 1s. per day, with an additional 50 centimes for each child, and before this allowance is payable the recipient has to show that she is without the indispensable necessities of life. I should like the people of this country to realise how much better we can afford to be generous than a country like France. It is interesting to be able to point out the extraordinarily better position we here are in with regard to those who are righting for us at the front. We are able to treat them much better than our Allies can treat the soldiers who are fighting for them.
  There is one interesting fact which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the other day, and that was with regard to the loan which has just been issued, and for which there has been such a great rush. I am glad it should have been so. It is apparently a 4 per cent. guaranteed loan, and, therefore, I am not surprised at the demand for it. Some hon. Members, however, thought it would have been wise if the Government had allowed their Savings Bank depositors to invest in the loan, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, that would have involved a great national loss. In Germany the depositors

  885
  in the Government Savings Banks were allowed to invest in their loan, but then they were in a different position. They were entitled to 5 per cent. interest on their savings up to the sum of £200, and, therefore, the German Government would have made no loss in allowing them to invest their money in Government stock. In this country we obtain a very great proportion of our revenue from duties on alcoholic liquors, and these duties are further increased by the present Budget. I would like to call attention to what Russia is doing with regard to the sale of alcoholic liquors. In that country, a law was passed at the commencement of the War entirely suppressing the sale of vodka, the revenue from which had amounted to £90,000,000 per year. While we are endeavouring to get revenue from the sale of alcohol, Russia is taking the other view, and is entirely suppressing the sale with admirable consequences. I should like to read an extract from an article which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on Friday last:—
  "The prohibition of the sale of vodka has had a most beneficial effect on the life of the peasants and artisans. All the money that is being earned goes into business for its extension. There are no longer drunken brawls in the streets, or scandals in the families..… People have become somehow different. Tramps are no longer seen in the streets, everybody is dressed in good clothes and has decent boots on his feet. Soon there will be the season of marriages. Formerly at each wedding spirits were consumed to the amount of at least £12."
  The article goes on to say:
  "The material condition of the peasantry is perceptibly improving, the population is physically growing stronger, and is morally undergoing great change. Everything is new; there are fewer litigations at the courts, and the doctors notice that the number of sick is getting less."
  I am not asking the House to make any deductions from what I have read; I am only calling attention to a very important fact which is well worth the consideration of this House. I am not one of those who propose to do anything in the way of destroying the licensed trade or any other trade without proper compensation, but I do say this of the drink traffic, that it would be well if we considered carefully what the Russians have done in regard to the sale of alcohol in that country. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) made a suggestion that as there were so many wives whose husbands had gone to the front who had a certain amount of money coming into their homes, and who went into the public-houses to hear the news and so forth, the Government might buy up some of these public-houses in various localities and turn them
  886
  into clubs or places where the women might go and get refreshment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That could not be done under this Bill.
  Mr. HASLAM: I am sorry if I am exceeding the limits of order. I have said all that I want to say, and I thank hon. Members for their kind attention.
  Mr. NEVILLE: I wish to ask a question, which has been put before me by many of my own Constituents and other people, with regard to the date of the payment of these largely increased duties. There are a great many people who are living very close up to their incomes who will find that these new and increased duties will come down upon them with exceeding severity. The suggestion I should like to make to the right hon. Gentleman is that some means should be found by which those payments could be spread over a period, in the same manner as Death Duties are spread over a series of instalments, although they may be paid down at once. I am sure it would greatly facilitate the collection of the duties, which fall exceedingly hard upon a considerable number of people. Indeed, there are rich people who may have to pay large sums upon a particular date who are not in the habit of keeping enormous balances beside them, especially at the present time, so that they are unable at a moment's notice to defray largely increased taxation. It would be in the interest of the revenue itself if some opportunity were given for paying these exceedingly high duties by instalments.
  There is another point to which I invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention. A great many people find it exceedingly difficult to understand exactly what is meant by "loss or diminution of income due to the War." It may be perfectly easy to discover that if you are a trader or manufacturer, but in the case already alluded to by a previous speaker, namely, that of rents, it is quite clear that, owing to stringency, there will be during this War a large number of tenants which will go to their landlords and ask to have the payment of their rents postponed. Is that contingency contemplated, and will that be a diminution of loss of income which can be attributed properly to the War? Another point also arises in the case of people who have fixed incomes. I suppose we have all suffered in the last few months owing to the announcement made by a large number of companies that their dividends are postponed owing to financial

  887
  stringency due to the uncertainty of the War. I would like to ask for some assistance from the Treasury as to whether postponement of payment of dividends either by companies in this country or by foreign companies or even by foreign Governments, due to financial stringency in this country, will fall within the general exemption which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making in favour of the Income Tax payer when his income has been diminished owing to causes due to the War.
  Mr. LOUGH: This seems to me to be an occasion of intense and great historic interest. My only object is to assist my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is so very ably represented at this moment by the Secretary to the Treasury. Everyone who has listened to the Debate will agree that it has been most informing and full of the most useful suggestions for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend gave us a most concise and interesting historic summary with regard to the finance of wars when he made his statement the other night. He alluded to the three occasions on which this country was in a similar position to that in which it now is, and he told us in a few words what the Chancellors of the Exchequer did. He then derived from that an argument which we thought he was going to press to its logical conclusion. He told us that Mr. Gladstone, when he had a great war to face, provided six-elevenths of the cost of the war out of current revenue, and that when Mr. Pitt in the earlier part of the century was faced with a great European war he provided five-elevenths of the cost out of current revenue. In the later days within our own memories, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach had to finance a very costly war, I think I am right in saying, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mention the fraction, that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach provided two-fifths of the cost of the war out of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then gave us interesting figures as to what was going on now. Roundly, £100,000,000 has been spent, and the War has gone on three and a half months; yet we have paid nothing in taxation until Wednesday morning. The right hon. Gentleman explained that his difficulties were increased by the fact that his revenue would be £11,000,000 short. He said that we had been reminded that afternoon that the country was never
  888
  so strong in a time of war as it was on this occasion. Therefore we all thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to do better than any previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the end to which he seemed to bring us? That he is only going to pay 4.2 of the cost of the War out of revenue in the four months ending 31st March next. The whole of the taxation, he said, would only produce £15,500,000, and as £11,500,000 are required to meet shortage of revenue, there will be only £4,000,000 left.
  That is to be the only immediate cash contribution of this rich nation to the cost of the War for the first four months. It is approved by the House generally, and by those claiming to be financial experts on this side of the House. It is an interesting position which might well be considered for a moment or two. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an interesting statement in introducing his special taxes. He referred to the tax raised on spirits six years ago, which was a very heavy tax and shocked those who represented that trade. He said it brought him in no revenue for the next two years. We have not had that information given to us before, but it is obviously very important. I think my right hon. Friend may have forgotten the lesson that he ought to have learnt from that tax. He wants revenue now, and he thinks the way to get it is to raise the taxes suddenly to a large amount. If he will look into the history of this question he will see that at the beginning of the last century this House doubled the taxes, and, at the doubled rate, got less revenue than it would have received at the original one. Taxes are very subtle things, and you can raise them to a point at which they cease to be productive. I remember the very interesting Budget with regard to the war in South Africa.
  I remember Sir Michael Hicks-Beach coming down here with some marvellous Budgets. I admired the way in which he did it, and I congratulated him on the success of his financial proposals. One of the new taxes he proposed was a new tax on cheques of a penny per cheque. He said that the original penny on the cheque produced £1,500,000, and that if the rate was doubled he would get £3,000,000. The House was amazed that his advisers at the Treasury should have allowed such an idea to develop in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was able to

  889
  show him soon that, instead of the produce of the Cheque Tax being doubled, people would abandon the use of cheques, and the product would probably fall to half. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have remembered, and I would suggest it to him if he were here, that it is possible to raise a tax suddenly and not get the money at all. The House has accepted the proposals of my right hon. Friend. What are his proposals? A doubled Income Tax, a trebled Beer Tax, and an addition to the Tea Tax of 60 per cent. I say no more about the Income Tax payers than that the taxation of the rich may be raised to a point where it can hardly fail to be productive.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then there will be no more rich.
  Mr. LOUGH: Then there will be an end of it. I leave the right hon. Baronet's suggestion to be considered by the House. With regard to beer, here the tax is trebled, which is far more than was done in the case of whisky. Yet the result of the experiment of the Whisky Tax was no money. How do we know that my right hon. Friend will get any money out of the gigantic tax on beer? There are special reasons which affect this Beer Tax which one cannot but see at this moment. Public-houses have to keep short hours now, and quite rightly. I like to see experiments in restriction. I do not believe that any nation would be ultimately the poorer by it, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that the takings of the beer industry will diminish by 35 per cent. How can it stand a diminution of 35 per cent. at this moment? If the object is to get revenue, I should not be surprised if there is a great disappointment there, and equally so with regard to the Tea Tax. At this very time, the export of tea is forbidden. That is a great blow to the industry. At the same time you raise the tax by 60 per cent. We had an eightpenny tea duty in 1904; it could only be kept on a year. The diminution in consumption was so serious that it was suddenly abolished within fifteen months of its imposition, so that this tax, too, may be disappointing in its yield because of the heavy amount that is laid on. It had previously been raised from 4d. to 6d., and that caused an immediate decrease in productivity. That is a matter which wants to be watched in the most subtle way if you are to get revenue. I know
  890
  my right hon. Friend would say that this criticism is all very well, but we must make other suggestions to him. But we are not asked for suggestions. The thing is brought down and laid before us complete and we are going to swallow it with the most wonderful patience. I have nothing to say against it. I am only making these few suggestions from a helpful point of view.
  Some most interesting suggestions have been made, and one put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) was so important that I must allude to it. It is a suggestion which is not generally received on this side of the House, but it ought to be listened to with more patience now. He said that we must, if we are going to raise indirect taxation, find more subjects of taxation. We immediately suspected that he was suggesting Tariff Reform, and an hon. Member, less discreet than himself, used those very words this afternoon. But you can increase the subjects of taxation in accordance with Free Trade principles. There is no need to bring in Tariff Reform. The principle of Free Trade only requires that if you lay on a heavy Customs Duty and the object is produced in this country, there should be a corresponding Excise Duty. Once you observe that principle you might increase the number of subjects of taxation as much as you like.
  Why was not the Tea Duty raised more moderately, say, to sixpence, and a email duty imposed on cocoa and coffee? Sixpence a pound on cocoa would produce £1,250,000 of additional revenue, and sixpence on coffee would produce more than £500,000, and these two articles, especially coffee, we should hardly have noticed as being any dearer. They are mainly luxuries consumed by the rich, and there is an ample margin in both the articles, while the poor old dead horse of tea has been so taxed and worried and the trade competed for, that there is very little money in it for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or for anyone else. But these other articles have still some revenue attached to them. There are other great imports, like rubber. Why not sixpence a pound on rubber or rice? You could look at the Customs imports and get plenty of large articles, and you might apply a tax within the principles which Free Trade sanctions, just as easily as the tax on dried fruits or tea or sugar and raise revenue, I believe, much more safely than you have done it here. I know my hon.

  891
  Friend (Mr. Montagu) is very clever, and if there is anything in it, he and his advisers will consider it, because we are only at the beginning of this matter of finance, and we shall have many heavy burdens and many ingenious suggestions put before the House before we are through the work that we have undertaken.
  I disapprove of the big borrowing altogether. This idea of our spending £325,000,000 in eight months and only contributing £4,000,000 out of taxation is almost ridiculous. It is not worthy of the dignity of this nation. It only means that while Mr. Pitt paid nearly half, Mr. Gladstone half, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach nearly half, the Chancellor is paying only one seventieth-fifth up to 31st March. I know that next year we are to have much larger taxes, at least this will go on for the full year, but we do not know what the Bill will be next year, and sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. It seems that we have such a large amount to pay within this part of a year that remains to us that we ought to have been more courageous, and paid a great deal more in taxation. Does the House consider that when you say the War costs £325,000,000 up to 31st March, what you mean is that the War will cost £325,000,000 if you pay cash for it. But if you take credit and borrow at 4 per cent., in twenty-five years it will cost £650,000,000. The burden is doubled by borrowing. What my right hon. Friend has been doing in this great emergency is not undertaking our share of the burden at all, but ingeniously passing it on and arranging that another fellow should pay for the War. I seems to me a pity that that should be done when the nation is in such good spirits with regard to bearing burdens as it is at present. I do not think any Chancellor of the Exchequer ever had a time when almost any suggestion would have been taken so agreeably by the nation, however onerous. But it ought to have been remembered that we could only get through these times by strict economy. I got into trouble in the early part of this afternoon with an hon. Member because I was always talking about economy. This is the time in our home affairs to consider wherein economy can be effected. We are doing this year what we have always done in the last four or five years. We are making huge expenditure to relieve the burden which should be carried by our Poor Law if we
  892
  had a humane system of Poor Law. But we could not, because it is a most inhuman system. Why do we not economise £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 out of the old, worn-out derelict Poor Law system or in some other way effect economies? I hope this suggestion will not be taken in bad part by my hon. Friend. I should like the House to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us to do, to carry out his principles rather than follow his precise proposal, and I believe if we do not do it on the present occasion—and there may be a reconsideration sooner than we think in the financing of this War—we shall have to take the burden more freely upon our shoulders than is proposed at present in this Bill.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I wish to call attention to the question of the exemption of the pay of officers serving with the Colours from Income Tax. There appears to me to be a very strong case for it. The pay of officers is notoriously small. Further, in a time like this, these men contribute sufficiently to the War by giving their services and by sacrificing their lives, and it is for us who stay behind to pay their share of taxation. I hope when the Bill goes into Committee, they will take this into their most serious consideration and relieve officers on active service from payment of Income Tax, so far as their pay is concerned. I suggest also that some further exemption from Death Duties should be given in the case of officers who are killed in action. An Act was passed in August giving exemption, and I may be told that having considered the question so recently we ought not to raise it again. But that was three months ago, and a good deal has happened since then. We now know something more about the real dimensions of the War. We know a great deal more than we knew then about the number of lives which are likely to be lost in action, and I urge upon the Government that they should give some further exemptions from Death Duties than is provided by that Act. It is really lamentable to think that when these men die in action they should be contributing for the purpose of exempting from a share of taxation the men who stay behind and do not fight. You actually have this fact, that when they are killed the result is to relieve those who stay behind of part of their taxation. I am sure those who stay behind do not desire that they should suffer in that way, and we should do well to shoulder whatever increased taxation

  893
  may be required if this exemption is given to the families and relatives of officers killed in action. Whereas the relief given by the Act of this year is only in respect of property which passes to the widow and the lineal descendants of the deceased, I suggest that it should be given in the case of all property passing at the death of the officer. I hope the Government will consider these suggestions and accept appropriate Amendments on the Committee stage.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I am sure the House does not wish that I should answer in detail all the very valuable considerations which have been put before us this afternoon. Many hon. Members, I take it, did not expect a reply to the suggestions they threw out, and many of them, particularly my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough), frankly confessed that they were offering suggestions for future Budgets rather than desiring that this Bill should be amended. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) however, raised two most important points. I regret very much that we should have wasted so much indignation on Clause 13. All the time he was speaking about it, I was regretting that I was so thoroughly agreed with him because it would have been so much nicer for him if he had accomplished something by the indignation that he so rightly felt to the Clause as drafted. The Clause as drafted permits the Government to raise any sum of money it likes—not to spend it, but to raise it—and it is due to the fact that in the desire to put the Bill before the House at the earliest moment, we have more or less copied the Resolution which the House has passed, instead of narrowing it, as we intend to do on the Committee stage. The difficulty arises very simply. The Treasury has power to borrow money from time to time by Treasury Bills, Ways and Means Bills, and so forth. When they pay off money that they have temporarily borrowed they do not thereby renew their borrowing powers. The Treasury may raise £50,000,000 by Treasury Bills in the early part of the financial year. It may later raise £5,000,000 for the space of ten days in anticipation of revenue that has not come in—total borrowing £55,000,000. In ten days it repays the £5,000,000 out of revenue, and a few months later borrows £50,000,000 to replace the Treasury Bills which it has issued for six months. The total borrowing has been £105,000,000.
  894
  The actual amount it has is only £50,000,000, but it has exhausted £105,000,000 of borrowing power. As a consequence of that sort of process at present, the Treasury, after the issue of the War Loan and after the borrowing which has taken place under other Acts, has only unexpended a gross borrowing power of £4,682,000. Having regard to the fact that it is certain that the money which we shall want to spend, in accordance with the directions of this House by their Votes of Credit and other Votes in Committee of Supply, will not be forthcoming out of the instalments of the loan, it may be necessary from time to time during the War to obtain, in the ordinary way, short loans of small amounts in anticipation of revenue or instalments of the loan which are coming in.
  We have no intention of floating another loan of any dimensions without the consent and approval of this House. Therefore I propose in Committee to suggest, or my right hon. Friend will do it himself, that we should limit the excess of borrowing to £100,000,000 for the purposes indicated. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Baronet as to the Super-tax, I would remind him that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, addressing the House on Thursday last, distinctly said that it was the Government's proposal to proceed, not by way of legislation, but by way of regulation. His words, reported in column 582 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, were:—
  "The proposal is that this arrangement shall be made by Inland Revenue Regulations."
  It seemed to us that it was better to proceed by regulations, but if the hon. Member prefers that it should be incorporated in the Bill, and if he puts down an Amendment, I need hardly say that I will take care that it is considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the view of meeting the wishes of the House on this non-controversial subject. With regard to the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), I do not think there is very much in the proposal that we should leave out officers at the front. You cannot let off the soldier serving at the front from paying his share of indirect taxation. You have let off the soldier serving at the front—and I think very generously and quite rightly—from the Death Duties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day in this House that the

  895
  Government proposed shortly to issue a scheme under which the pay of the lower ranks of officers in the Army was going to be substantially increased at a far greater cost than any remission of taxation would represent. It seems to me that it is better to proceed by increase of pay where it is very much wanted than by a reduction of taxation, which I do not think would act fairly and which would be very difficult to administer.
  I would like also to tell my right hon. Friend that the suggestion that we should tax coffee, cocoa, and other things received very careful consideration. My right hon. Friend who sits behind me was very eloquent on the subject of taking care that in increasing taxation you do not diminish your yield. It is no use putting on a lot of small taxes that will not recompense you, after deducting the cost of collection, in the yield of the tax itself. I do not believe there is any substantial amount of money to be got out of a tax on cocoa or coffee. It seemed to us that the commodity which would yield money to us and would be a suitable means of doing what my right hon. Friend advocated, namely, the taxing of the elusive teetotaler, was to increase the tax on tea. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Sir R. Winfrey) with regard to Income Tax, and indeed many other suggestions, all point to the one fact which I think has long been recognised in this House, namely, that there is a field ripe for exploration in the complication of our Income Tax law and many of its antiquated provisions. That exploration would have been undertaken if this War had not taken place. A Committee was about to be set up. I do not think it is possible to suggest now in this time of anxiety either that we should amend the Income Tax law so rapidly or that we can avoid the necessity of legislation by reference. We content ourselves by passing a stop-gap Budget to supply the revenue required up to 31st March next year, and I should most respectfully like to say that it does seem to me that this afternoon has added new evidence of what was evident on the day the Chancellor of the Exchequer unfolded his Budget scheme, that of all the many qualities which our countrymen have shown since the War brought them face to face with the national emergency, I think the one symptem we have most right to be proud of is
  896
  the way in which all classes alike, called upon suddenly to bear at a time of great hardship enormous taxes—from the Super-tax payer down to the humblest teadrinker—have welcomed the new taxes and shouldered the burden without a single word of complaint or irritation or objection. It gives one an index of the determination of this country, and it augurs well for the success of the endeavours we are making.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I rise to deal with a matter which the hon. Gentleman overlooked in his speech. He was good enough to reply to as many suggestions as he could, but there was one made by the hon. Member for Wigan to which he did not reply, and which I wish to re-enforce in the hope that the Government may consider it. His suggestion was that Income Tax should be payable by instalments. I want the Financial Secretary to look at Clause 12 of the Bill, and to ask him a question, which perhaps, by leave of the House he could even now answer. I welcome the latitude which has been given by Clause 12, and the relief which is intended. I recognise that it is intended to be on broad lines, and I quite sympathise with the Financial Secretary's statement that it is impossible at this time to pick to pieces the whole structure of I the Income Tax Acts in order to make every Section perfectly plain to those who I are unfamiliar with them. Clause 12 is designed by the Government to give real relief, and the relief by a later Clause is made wider and freer in order to take away from Section 134 of a previous Act the narrow definition as to allowing relief in circumstances which are attributable directly or indirectly to the present War, whether these circumstances are a specific case or not. While I appreciate the spirit in which that relief is proposed to be given, am I not right in saying that the relief under Sections 133 and 134 cannot be obtained until payment has been made in January, and a case has been made out in three months from April. Sections 133 and 134 only do this in the cases within their ambit. Income Tax payers can apply to the Special Commissioners within three months from the close of the financial year, and if he is entitled to exemption or remission of the tax indicated in these Sections, repayment will be made. Let me take a concrete case. If Income Tax is collected in January, a person has under Clause 12 to make out a good case for reduction of Income Tax. On 6th April

  897
  he makes his complaint to the Commissioners and upon that the Commissioners, who have a great number of cases to deal with, will have to go into the matter and determine whether it is repayable or not. That is a question of fact which has to be carefully dealt with. When they have gone into the question they will be able to make the repayment. I do not think it would be too much to say that, having regard to the amount of work the Commissioners will have to do, repayment is not likely to be made before June, and the result will be that the taxpayer, who has paid in January, will not be repaid the amount due to him until June. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan suggested that the Government should collect three-fourths or nine-tenths of the Income Tax in January, so that in cases where it is intended to apply for exemption it should not be necessary to make an out and out payment in January with the expectation—perhaps the certain hope—that repayment will be made in June. It appears to me that if my hon. Friend's suggestion were carried out, it would be probably much fairer and the real relief would be granted, which I know the Government intend by Clause 12. I hope the Government will be prepared to look favourably at some of the Amendments directed to that end.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General in his speech last Thursday directed most of his attention to a point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in regard to the diminution of income. As I understood his speech he was to meet this case to a certain extent. Under Section 133, as the hon. Gentleman opposite says, if your average for three years is more than for that particular year, you were entitled under the Act of 1842 to take that year and that year alone, and if the amount of your income had so depreciated as to be under the amount of the average of the three previous years, you were entitled to be assessed on foot of the actual sum and to be repaid the difference. I am glad my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has come in. I would like to ask him whether I am right in the construction which I put on Clause 12? As I understood him he was going to meet the case to this extent, that he would go back to Section 6 of the Act of 1865, and would make the present year or any diminished year one
  898
  of the three years on which you were to reckon. I understand from this that you revise Section 133 and amend Section 6 of the Act of 1865, so that all you grant so far as it goes is that you are to include the bad year, which we will call the present year, in the estimate of the amount to be paid. My right hon. Friend said, very wisely, that there was some relief, whether it was satisfactory or not. In some cases it may be satisfactory. There are other cases to which I would like to draw your earnest attention in which it is most unsatisfactory.
  Remember that there are thousands of Territorial men—not officers, but Territorial privates, professional men, barristers, solicitors, architects—who on the 1st August, after only one-third of the financial year had passed, left their business, and from that day to this, during two-thirds of the financial year, they have not had the slightest opportunities, by reason of their military duties, of earning a penny piece. This may be something of a relief to the ordinary trader, who possibly during the whole year might be able to do something, but it is not fair to say to a man, "You shall leave your business on the 1st August; for two-thirds of the year you shall be cut off from all opportunity of earning a single penny, and yet I am going to make you pay on the average." See how it works out. I will take two cases within my own ken. There are two men in the Territorials. One of them is not even an officer. He has been at the front and is at home wounded now. His income earned was £2,100. The remedy offered by my right hon. Friend is, in taking the three years' average, to add for this year only £700, as he has only had four months of the year in which to make his income, and has therefore only made one-third the ordinary amount. Taking the three years, that would give a total of £2,100, £2,100 and £700—that is £4,900. Dividing that by three, you get an average of £1,633, on which he would have to pay tax to the amount of £136 1s. 8d. But if he paid on £700, which I maintain in this particular case is all you should ask him to pay on, he would only pay £58 6s. 8d. You are therefore saying in effect to this man, "You worked last year and the year before, and earned each year £2,100, but, by reason of the War, we called you from your business and shut you out for two-thirds of the year from the opportunity of making a shilling. You went to serve your

  899
  country, and to show our gratitude we are going to ask you to pay £77 15s. more than you ought to pay."
  I submit that it is most unjust to tell a man in effect, "We are very grateful to you for fighting our battle. You have done your duty nobly. You have been to the front and got wounded, and you will go back again, and for eight months' out of the financial year you shall not be able to make a shilling, and we are going to show our gratitude by charging you £77 on moneys which you have had no chance of earning." This is a case, if ever there was a special case, in which you should go back to Section 133 of the Act of 1842 and tax each man—you could draw the line if you liked at men on military service, where they have not had an opportunity of earning money for two-thirds of the year—only upon the amount actually earned. It is unjust to say to a man, "I am very sorry, but by reason of the fact that you made money last year, and we have shut you out from making two-thirds of your income this year, we are going to make you pay a much larger sum than you should pay." The only other case with which I will trouble the House is that of a man making £1,200 a year. This year he can only make one-third of that sum. The average for the three years, according to the Schedule of Section 12, would be £933, and he would have to pay a tax on that, as being his earned income, of £46 13s., whereas, if he paid on the actual amount which he made this year he will only pay £12, so that as a reward for his sacrifice for his country he is asked to pay £34 more than he ought to pay on some profits or emoluments of his business which he had not the slightest opportunity of making. I shall put down an Amendment on this point and shall go to a Division on it. I think it a most scandalous thing, if a man gives up his income for two-thirds of the year to serve his country, that you should make him pay on the income which he could not possibly earn.
  With regard to the Super-tax, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General had a very difficult task. His speech showed it. If you read it carefully you will see that it was a case of a great mind struggling with a very impossible proposition. I am not anxious to say much about it, but I will give the House a few figures that will show, I think, conclusively the tangle which they are weaving for themselves at the
  900
  Treasury. My right hon. Friend's suggestion was this: If a man with £6,000 a year lost one-third this year, and his income is only £4,000, he is going to postpone it to the extent of a very large amount. The ordinary sum which that man would have to pay would be £168 17s. 9d., and all he is to be asked to pay is £52 15s. 6d. But the right hon. Gentleman never said when he was going to ask for the balance. Mark the absurdity of it. Another man with an income of £5,500 last year, loses less than one-third and is reduced to an income of £4,000 and he is allowed no abatement, and while the lucky man who has £6,000 gets off with an immediate payment of £52, the other man pays the full amount of £133 6s. 8d., and if he has £5,000 and has only lost one-fifth of his income and is still down to £4,000 he has got to pay £102 8s. 10d. Why make such a ridiculous discrimination? Why not charge the man upon the proper income that he has made? Surely that must commend itself to every reasonable man.
  But just mark the Nemesis that is going to follow the Treasury. Everyone of these men according to the Act as it at present stands, will return his income for Super-tax next year at £4,000, though at the end of 1915–16, long before that I hope, the War may be over, a great many of the companies as we know, who could have paid dividends have kept them back in reserve because of the difficult times. They thought it prudent to do so and I think they were right. Once the War is over difficulties will disappear, and it may well happen that the men with incomes formerly of £6,000, £5,500, and £5,000 may all get back to these old figures, but next year when the tax is doubled they can only be charged on the £4,000. You go by the income of the previous year. That is the law. Therefore, instead of getting a tax of £599 10s. the Government will only be entitled to claim £237 10s., so that they will lose £362. Therefore it does not very much matter. The Super-tax men will get perfectly right. But I cannot understand why you should discriminate between the man who loses one-third and the man who loses one-fourth. The only real remedy is to go upon the actual income which the man has made. It may be that you will collect from him one amount, and when he shows you the actual figures you may be obliged to pay him back something, but you are only creating by this proposal of my right hon. Friend another of the anomalies with

  901
  which this unfortunate tax bristles. While in theory the fairest tax that could be assessed it is, in practice, by reason of its enormous anomalies the most unjust in many cases in its incidence of any tax that exists. A Committee is going to be formed, and the sooner it is formed the better. Give them plenty of time to consider it and get rid of those anomalies which makes the tax very much disliked, and cause every man who can do so to try and avoid it. There is nobody who really complains about the taxes themselves, but one is bound to protest against any ridiculous inequality, and I must particularly once more refer to those men who have been taken away for two-thirds of the financial year and have not been able to make any money, and I say that in these cases they ought to be assessed on the actual money which they have made, and not upon a shilling more.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Whatever proposition the Government had come forward with on this occasion, having regard to the great calamity of the War, it would have been accepted unanimously on all sides of the House, and I think that in all the speeches to which we have listened to-day—and I have heard every one of them—there has not been one which has been made in criticism of principle, and I think they have all been really suggestions for modifications of some details, or have been criticisms of some of the methods of carrying out the imposition of the tax—matters which really could have been properly dealt with in Committee. I venture, however, to suggest that there are two aspects of this taxation which give one food for reflection and for some misgiving. I happen personally to be associated with some undertakings in the City of London connected with valuable properties abroad, and in which foreign money is to some extent invested, and I have no hesitation in saying that the increase of the ordinary Income Tax foreshadowed in this Bill for next, year to 2s. 6d. will be a very serious handicap to the working of those international companies in England. In illustration of that, I may point out that a few years ago, when the tax on the registration of companies in England was suddenly raised to a figure very considerably higher than that at which it had stood, the effect was to immediately cause a large proportion of these general cosmopolitan undertakings being registered abroad, and there was an outbreak of registration
  902
  in Brussels to such an extent that we were deprived here in England of a very large proportion of the natural increase that we might have been allowed to expect. As a matter of fact, for some little time the extra tax produced nothing.
  I am afraid that one effect of doubling the Income Tax for a period that is indefinite, and that may go on possibly for a good many years to come, will be that all companies that can be conveniently registered in less expensive countries, particularly in some countries on the Continent, will be registered there, and England will lose to that extent its position as the market of the world for those enterprises. I am old enough to remember the effect on the City of London of the way in which the Baring crisis was dealt with, and the way in which the Government of the day and the Bank of England in association with a large number of other banks carried over that crisis and inflicted it upon posterity, so to speak. Mr. Lidderdale and those associated with him at that time got great credit for what they did, but very shortly afterwards it was shown to be a mistake, making a big black cloud on the financial horizon of London, which was a terrible error. I look upon this doubling of the Income Tax in the same light. I am afraid it is going to be a very serious handicap for Great Britain and for London, as the financial centre of the world, and I am afraid that a larger number of people than ever before will endeavour to find sources of investment elsewhere than in London. I would have preferred, as I explained when we had the Resolution before us, that the Government had adopted a bolder policy, and since the observations which I addressed to the House on that occasion, I have received a very large number of communications on the subject, and I am bound to say that I have received an amount of support I could hardly have expected. The fact is that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come to the people of this country and said, "I want you all to contribute in proportion to your means in this great calamity, to meet the expenses involved by it," I believe the people of England would have readily done it. The communications which I have on this point satisfy me that it would have been so.
  The suggestion I venture to make is that a shilling tax on capital should be boldly imposed, and 5 per cent. on all investments, taking shares that men

  903
  own, and taking banking accounts, would have been readily responded to by the whole community. The people would have been glad to have faced this financial difficulty, and to have contributed according to their means. What would have been the effect of it? On the £12,000,000,000, which is estimated to be the amount of taxable property in the United Kingdom, we should have had £600,000,000 towards this financial difficulty. Instead of making a permanent difficulty for everybody who is going to follow us in business in this country for years to come we should have faced it now, and we would hardly have felt it in a few weeks. Then there is the temporary difficulty caused by this Bill. This, of course, is nothing like so important as the main general difficulty to which I have referred. Still, it is a serious one. I would point this out to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill: The rate of deducted Income Tax, according to a man's income, is 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d., and under Sub-section (3) of Clause 11 of the Bill you make the rate for the aliquot portion of the year yet to come 1s. 8d. Look at the effect of that on all kinds of incomes paid by instalments. You have the Income Tax deducted to 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d. already, and in the next instalment up to the end of the financial year the rate is going to be 1s. 8d., and that would make an Income Tax for the year of 1s. 4¼d. If a man were to receive the whole of his salary in a lump sum on the 1st January, he would pay the rate of 1s. 8d. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that this is a serious and an important criticism of the effect of the Bill.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think the hon. Gentleman is in error. The rate of Income Tax for the whole year is 1s. 8d., and not for a third of the year.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: That is exactly what I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman. Under Sub-sections (d) and (e) of Section 11 all kinds of incomes that have been paid in instalments up-to-date have had the old Income Tax deducted, and now you say that in any further portions of the year the Income Tax to be deducted is to be 1s. 8d., not on the amount for the whole year, but on the portion that is to be paid. That I think is unfair on some people, and although it is a comparatively small point it is one which I think the Government ought to consider
  904
  before the Bill goes into Committee. I was sorry to hear the Government going back on two promises they made. The first was when we had the Resolution. As I understood some arrangement was to be made with regard to a deduction of Super-tax in case there was a third dropped in the income for the current year—
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The hon. Gentleman has accused me of making a promise in the House which I have not fulfilled.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: You did not wait to the end of my sentence. The Committee generally got the view that the Government were going to give some relief to those in respect of Super-tax whose income during the year was reduced by more than a third. When we heard the later explanation of the Attorney-General we found that that was cut down, and that it was only going to be postponed, and that it was to be a postponed instalment. I am not quite certain how the Attorney-General put it, but I believe it was said it was not going to be in the Bill, but by Inland Revenue regulations.
  Sir J. SIMON: Has the hon. Gentleman finished his sentence?
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I have.
  Sir J. SIMON: If he will allow me to say so, I confess I resent the suggestion that I promised something which I have not fulfilled.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I have not said so.
  Sir J. SIMON: The statement the hon. Member referred to about the one-third allowance was made by me, and in the same speech in which also occurred the other statement which the hon. Gentleman says made the matter clear. The words I used in my speech were:—
  "The proposal is that this arrangement shall be made by Inland Revenue Regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1914, col. 592.]
  I do not in the least object to the hon. Gentleman saying that that is not adequate, but I would ask him to state that he does not intend to impute to me that I made any sort of suggestion to the House which I did not to the best of my ability make plain was going to be carried out in the way it has been.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: If I made, or had the remotest intention of making a suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman had not carried out every promise he made,

  905
  words have failed me in some manner and I am at fault. I do not make the suggestion. We listened to a most carefully lucid and excellent speech of the Attorney-General upon the subject of the Income Tax, and I never listened to a speech which was clearer or more lucid on that very difficult and complicated subject. The Attorney-General did give us in a certain portion of that speech the idea that the payers of Super-tax were to have some relief in case their income suddenly dropped. In a later portion of the speech, and for the purpose of my argument it does not matter whether this was in the same speech or in two speeches, it would appear that that was only going to be a postponement of the instalment that was to be paid. What we have not had to-day, or on any occasion yet from the Government, is this, namely, a statement as to when the balance of that Super-tax is to be asked for. If it is only going to be put off for twelve months, or something of that description, and if we are to be asked for interest upon the balance of the money that is postponed, then in either of those events I do not think the concession would amount to anything at all. It would be a pity under those circumstances for the right hon. Gentleman to be wasting his time by explaining with such lucidity some relief that was not going to amount to anything at all, and especially when we open the Bill and do not find the smallest reference to the subject. There was another point as to which it was promised that the Government would give favourable consideration. We know, of course, that sometimes that does not amount to much, and therefore if favourable consideration has not been given, I do not know that I should be justified in putting it as high as to say that a promise has been broken, especially as we seem to be a little bit nervous and tender at suggestions—
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, I am.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: We have all got to be very thick-skinned nowadays. A point was referred to by two or three Members in Committee, and it was that officers serving in His Majesty's Forces ought not to be asked to pay the extra Income Tax, not on their whole incomes, but simply on the amount they were paid for their services as officers. I understood, and I am measuring my words very carefully, the Government to say that they would give favourable consideration to
  906
  the suggestion, but we do not find any reference whatever to it in the Bill, and as I understood the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his speech just now he rather suggested that the Government had considered the point and were not goings to concede it. If it is dealt with by a flat negative, then there is an end to the whole point. But I trust that even yet the Government will see their way to collect either the whole or, at all events, half of this extra taxation which is going to fall upon us boldly from the property of the country by a tax on property. I am convinced that we would all readily pay a shilling in the pound, and that it would be best to establish a great fund of that kind rather than spread it over future enterprises and future earnings of the country, and than that such charges should be accumulated in order to pay the cost of this terrible War.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: While I desire to express the view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be congratulated on his courage in introducing this increased taxation, it is not taxation which we can regard as being permanent and beneficial in its nature. It seems to me that these are fateful times for the future of this country regarded industrially, because the way in which we levy this enormous burden of taxation must undoubtedly affect all classes of the community in the future. I do not think we can regard it as good theory or practice of taxation to finance a great war, which we are told is for the benefit of civilisation, by way of taxes on beer and tea. There is no principle underlying the financing of a great war on the thirst of the community. Leaving the Beer Tax on one side, the Tea Tax is a cruel impost, and certainly we cannot regard it as being one which we will permanently endure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), who is an acknowledged expert on taxation, suggested methods which he considered would be more beneficial than those proposed by the Government. He said that we should not tax tea so much, but should tax other imports as well. For instance, he said, "Why not levy a tax on rubber or cocoa?" If you levied an increased tax on cocoa, you would throw out of employment in this country men and women who are manufacturing that product. The increased tax on tea will throw out of employment people in Ceylon and elsewhere, but we are not so much concerned

  907
  with them. A tax upon rubber would be a tax upon a raw material of British industry, and to increase the cost of raw material would again result in the diminution of employment in this country. I regret to hear arguments used from this side of the House in support of taxation which would undoubtedly mean the scrapping of the Free Trade policy of this country. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Watson Rutherford) suggested that we should levy a tax upon capital. In a speech the other day he said:—
  "I will also point out that there is a vast amount of valuable property in this country which is at present producing a comparatively small revenue."
  That is a fact which we have to ponder. There is a vast amount of property of enormous value in this country which returns little or no income whatsoever. That property is the land which is being withheld from use. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brings in future Budgets of increased taxation I trust that he will move towards bringing under contribution those great values, which to-day escape taxation. It is only thus that we shall get towards any principle in this matter of raising money for the defence of the realm. There is no principle in taxing tea for the defence of the realm, but there is a principle in calling upon those who own the realm to be the first people to come forward to pay for its defence. After all, if we levied unsuccessful war, while we should all suffer perhaps by loss of liberty or by loss of life, there is one section of the community who would suffer more than anybody else, and they are the people who own the land, which would be taken in successful conquest. If we wage successful war, if this War is to end war, if it is to lead to a diminution of expenditure on armaments, the first people to reap the advantage will be those who own the realm. That, at any rate, is recognised in Germany. I was reading to-day a German land reform paper, and I find that a German landowner sent the following letter to her tenants in Stettin, in East Prussia. This was written when things were more favourable for the German Army than at present:—
  "The great and favourable turn of affairs which has come about for our nation through the grace of Almighty God and our brave troops strengthened by Him, permits us to look forward to a great and blessed future. May our people never forget this mercy, never turn from the God of their fathers, who has preserved them from all evil. Your rent will be raised to thirty marks from the 1st of October."
  908
  That is a rise of about a shilling a week in view of the victory of German arms. There is a great principle underlying that. Undoubtedly if we wage successful war, if the expenditure of these millions results in a limitation of armaments, the first result will be an enormous increase in the value of the land of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, this levying of a high Income Tax has to be taken into consideration as regards its effect upon employment. The great incomes, which are now to be taxed about 5s. in the £, are never earned by the men to whom they come. Nobody is capable of earning an enormous income himself. The great income must come from one of two sources. One is as the result of the ownership of land, or from offices or privileges of some sort. If it comes from that source, the best way is to tax it at the source by way of a tax on its capital value. If the income comes from industrial enterprise it comes from the underpayment of labour, and it belongs by right, not to the State, but to the workers who create the value which it represents. If the State takes this great income it only means for the workers that the State is absorbing in taxation wealth which they ought to take by way of increased wages, and any great Income Tax levied in that direction must have for its result the permanent impoverishment of the workers. For the defence of the realm, those who own the realm should be called upon to pay in proportion to the value of the realm which they hold. Then, and only then, shall we get to a just principle in the matter of taxation for defence. It is a return to the old principle of this country when land was held from the Crown, not in ownership, but in consideration of those who held the land paying and providing for its defence. The time has come for the gigantic burdens of taxation that are before us, burdens which we must see, if we allow them to fall upon industry, will impoverish and ruin this country and lower the great position it at present holds in the world—that the time, I say, has come when we must introduce a principle of calling upon the value which the community creates and which monopoly and privilege now take, for the benefit of the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be required for giving effect to obligations incurred for the purposes of the present War or in connection therewith, by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and for other purposes in relation thereto."
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Runciman, and Mr. Montagu; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: This is a Bill which, as I understand it, is for the consolidation and re-enactment of two Acts which were passed in August or September. There are one or two Amendments, but I do not know that they are really of very great importance; they are mainly a matter of machinery. The only one which I have been able to see which seems to me of considerable substance is the second Sub-section of the first Clause of the Bill in reference to that I would like to say a word of explanation as to exactly what is meant. I dare say it is all very right and proper, but I do not myself quite understand what is meant by—
  "Any such regulations may provide for the suspension of any restrictions on the acquisition of user of land.…"
  I should like to know exactly what it is desired to do in regard to that Sub-section, which does not appear to me to be required, as you already have the powers given under paragraph (b) of Clause 1. But this is a matter of comparatively small importance. The real point on
  910
  which I desire to direct the attention of the House is paragraph (c) of Clause 1. It is old, having been passed into law, and we are asked to re-enact it. It gives the Government power—
  (c) to prevent the spread of reports likely to cause disaffection, or alarm.
  Those words seem to me to be extremely wide. I do not quite know how far the Government intend to take them. As they stand they seem to cover a very very large area. They practically enable the Government to suppress any reports of any kind of which they disapprove. It does not matter whether the reports are true or untrue. They may be perfectly true, but the Government are still entitled under that paragraph to suppress them altogether, and not only to suppress them, but to bring anyone who spreads them before a court-martial. That is a very extreme power, under the circumstances, to give to any Government. I should like to know exactly what "disaffection" means. It is not disaffection to His Majesty or disaffection to the Crown; it is simply "disaffection." Does it mean disaffection to the Government? Does it mean that the Government would be entitled to bring before a court-martial anyone who publishes—I am putting an extreme case, and I do not say the Government would do this—reports which were not in any way damaging to the interests of the country, but were damaging to the interests of the Government? If so, the Government would be entitled to bring a man committing that offence before a court-martial, and he would have no defence, the Government having proved that the report was likely to cause disaffection to the Government. We come to the words "or alarm." These are surely very extreme indeed. A report might not be unfavourable to anyone at home. I presume it means in connection with the War, though that is not specifically stated. Some misfortune or some reverse may take place, say, and anyone casually spreading a report—which might be perfectly true and not exaggerated in any way—of that reverse, from the mere fact that it was likely to cause alarm would be liable to be brought before a court-martial or before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and sent to prison for six months. Observe that this does not mean reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm, such as would injure our military interests. It is not that, because that is all dealt with in paragraph (e).

  911
  This is a very wide provision, for it gives power to the Government to make regulations—
  "to prevent assistance being given to the enemy, or the successful prosecution of the War being endangered."
  That is to say, that under the Act, and so far as I am concerned I have no quarrel with these words, although they are very very wide indeed, power is given to the Government to make it a criminal offence to interfere directly or indirectly with the War. That is all that was required. To go on and say that you are to be entitled to issue regulations making it a criminal offence to spread reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm does seem to me to give a very wide power indeed to the Government, and I must honestly add that I think they are very liable to create the impression that the Government—I will not say desire—might conceivably use such power to keep the people in the dark unnecessarily as to the events of the War. I am quite sure that I shall have the assent of the whole House, including the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when I say that nothing would be more disastrous to the morale of the people of this country, and nothing would be more likely to endanger our success in the War than the impression, if it were ever allowed to get about, that the Government were not dealing openly and frankly, so far as possible, with the people of the country, and were not taking them into their confidence. In this case the old Liberal maxim surely applies, if it ever applied, with immense force, that if we are to carry on this War, as I have no doubt we shall do, to a successful conclusion, it will only be done by the Government of the day reposing complete trust and confidence in the manhood, vigour, and courage of the people.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have certainly no wish to embarrass the Government, but I desire to rise and emphasise the considerations urged by the Noble Lord behind me. I think if we look at the words hon. Members will agree that there are some reasons for thinking that the powers given in the Clause to which the Noble Lord has referred will and are contemplated to be used in a direction which might be dangerous. In September an alarm arose with regard to the presence of spies in England,
  912
  and one newspaper in particular wrote on the matter. I am not concerned with that alarm or with the articles in the newspaper. It might have been entirely wrong. It might have been exaggerated. I think, myself, it was in some cases exaggerated. But an alarm of that sort could not possibly interfere with the carrying on with success of warlike operations. But is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that some of those acting for the Government will not use the words of this Clause to call any such statements as appear in newspapers with regard to spies statements of alarm for which they might be prosecuted? I direct attention to a letter written from the Press Bureau by the officials acting on behalf of it on the 8th September, 1914. The Secretary to the Bureau urged upon a particular newspaper in very peremptory terms the cessation of those articles upon spies. As to whether he did that rightly or wrongly, I pronounce no opinion. When the newspaper in question doubted whether he had power to do so, his answer was to refer him to this particular Clause and to say it gave the Secretary of State power—I use his own words—"to make his desire for suppression effective." That surely was a claim based upon the words of this Clause. It was a claim that the Secretary of State had power to bring the editor of this paper before a court-martial on the ground that he had raised alarm in this particular—an alarm which might be exaggerated, but was not calculated to interfere in any way with the carrying on of the War.
  Is there not a little doubt, even if we take the last speech of the Solicitor-General, made on the 12th November, and compare two passages in that speech, as to what view is precisely entertained in carrying out the powers under this Clause? In that speech the Solicitor-General said the public should be guarded
  "from being depressed by the circulation of untrue statements with regard to disasters on land or sea."
  The word "untrue" in that sentence of the Solicitor-General's met with universal assent. We all want to stop the circulation of untrue statements, and we desire that the Government should have power to stop those untrue statements in the future. There is no desire to interfere with that power, but in another part of his speech the Solicitor-General seemed to contemplate the use of this power in a very different way. He said:—
  "Criticism of the Government, or Members of the Government, is not that which I ever stopped."

  913
  But he goes on to say:—
  "Except it is of such a character that it might destroy public confidence in the Government which at the moment is charged with the conduct of the War."
  That extends your power very considerably beyond the stopping of untrue statements or criticism. If the impression gets abroad that this Clause is intended to stop not only the circulation of untrue statements—you have ample powers to bring home responsibility for untrue ctatements to anybody who utters them or circulates them in public, and no one would deny the power of stopping and punishing severely any such action—but if the suspicion is aroused in the minds of the people of this country that you have the power to stop any statement that may cause alarm, however justified and well founded, it is another matter, because it attributes to the nation a feeling of timidity and nervousness which is an insult to the nation and which is untrue. And it is injurious, because it is precisely the method that gives rise to lack of confidence, to distrust and suspicion, when the realities of disaster, which we all know must occur in the course of a long war, are concealed. Nothing can produce greater evil or more disturbance, or more likelihood of panic than the powers given under this Clause, if they contemplate the stopping of any reports however well founded, which may give ground for reasonable alarm.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The points referred to both by the Noble Lord, and the hon. Member relate to the Clause in the Bill which were in the original Act, and has been the foundation of the action of the Press Bureau for some months. I think I ought to remind the House that the Act authorises the issue of Orders in Council, and in the Orders in Council will be seen the precise operative words under which the Government arts. Now as regards this Sub-section (c) of Section 1 of the Act, there are two paragraphs in the Order in Council which deal with it. The first is paragraph 14 of the Order in Council of the 12th August. It is as follows:—
  "No person shall, without lawful authority, publish or communicate any information with respect to the movement or disposition of any of the forces, ships or war material of His Majesty, or any of His Majesty's Allies, or with respect to the plans of any such
  914
  naval or military operations by any such forces or ships, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with the fortification or defence of any place, if the information is such as is calculated to be or might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy."
  I understand, so far as that Section of the Order in Council goes there will be complete agreement that it is perfectly proper. The second Section is Section 21, as amended by a subsequent Order in Council of the 1st of September, and the amended paragraph of the 5th September runs as follows:—
  "No person.… shall by word of mouth or writing spread reports likely to create disaffection or alarm amongst any of His Majesty's forces, or among the civilian population."
  Everybody must admit that a power of that kind is capable of serious abuse. The difficulty I can assure hon. Members is one for the Government quite as much as for any of the Government's critics. It is a matter of the extremest gravity to come to a decision as to the kind of news which may be properly spread on the ground that it causes disaffection or alarm. I can only say that in exercising discretion upon the point, in every case action is only taken upon the advice primarily of the naval or military authorities, and in certain instances on the advice of the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, or the India Office. It is felt, and we are bound to feel, that any Government which abused that power would lay itself open to the severest condemnation by this House, and this Clause was never intended, and ought never to be used, for the mere purpose of protecting the Government as a Government from adverse criticism. It is very difficult, unless precise statements are brought to our notice—I am grateful to the hon. Member for having brought forward a particular case—to formulate the lines of the defence of a Clause of this kind. It is obviously necessary to have something of this sort. It is clear that there are reports which would create disaffection against the Crown, or would cause alarm to the public, which would have a serious influence on the nation in the conduct of the War. Everybody can think of occasions when news of that kind—
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is that not all covered by the last Sub section, which

  915
  gives you power to prevent assistance being given to the enemy or the possibility of the War being abandoned?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be very difficult to prove that assistance was being given to the enemy except in a general way by depleting the forces of our people. All disaffection and all untrue alarm is weakening, and one might see that any false news is in itself bad and so far weakening to the nation. I very much doubt whether a court-martial upon the mere publication of false news would find the author of the news guilty.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I should not object if they did.
  Mr. McKENNA: If the news were true, and it was not proved that the publication of the true news was injurious to the nation in the naval or military or foreign sense, I do not believe that any court-martial would be found to convict. Let me remind the House that although this Section has been in the Act now for nearly three months, there has not been a single court-martial under it. It has never been made use of, but the power is there, and it has never been exercised. With the hon. Members leave, I will explain how it was not even exercised in the case to which he refers. The only case brought forward is what appeared to be a threat in a letter written by the Secretary of the Press Bureau to the editor of the "Globe." That letter cannot be explained without a full statement of the incidents which led up to it. There was published in the "Globe" on several occasions a statement that there were in London 250,000 armed Germans. When that statement was brought to my notice I came to the conclusion, and I think it was a justifiable conclusion, that a statement of that kind was calculated to create alarm injurious to our people. It was not stated once, but again and again, that there were 250,000 armed Germans in London. When this statement was brought to my notice I telephoned to the Secretary to the War Office, called his attention to the statement, and reminded him of the power which the War Office possessed under the Defence of the Realm Act to stop the spread of false news calculated to create alarm. I have to tell the whole of the circumstances, and so far as I was concerned that was the beginning and the
  916
  end of my intervention in the proceedings. An unofficial note was sent by my private secretary to the Secretary to the War Office calling attention to the same statement. The Secretary to the War Office in his discretion, believing it would be a matter which would be most quickly and readily dealt with by the Press Bureau, sent over to the Secretary of the Press Bureau an intimation that the "Globe" ought not to go on repeating that statement, which was likely to cause alarm. The Secretary to the Press Bureau then wrote a letter to the "Globe," and although the hon. Gentleman opposite criticises the style of the letter, and says it was somewhat peremptory in its terms, I think the House will agree that the terms were not too peremptory having regard to the great wickedness of alarming the London public by such a false statement as the "Globe" had made.
  No further proceedings were taken against the "Globe," and the incident dropped except for this particular issue, that from that time onward I believe I was charged with having endeavoured to muzzle the Press. As far as the Government are concerned, the limitation on the muzzling was an endeavour to stop a newspaper from creating an alarm by alleging most grossly and most falsely that there were 250,000 armed Germans in London. If that is to be the only case in which there has been a misunderstanding as to the construction of the Act, while I recognise the great danger that might arise if this Section were abused, I do not think that, so far as I am aware, it has not, in fact, been abused; and I can answer for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has an immediate responsibility in the matter, that he is the last man in this House or out of it who would ever agree to the suppression of news merely for the purpose of saving the skin of the Government. I hope the Noble Lord is satisfied with the explanation I have given, but so far as I am concerned I feel it necessary to ask the House to continue to give the Government a power of this kind. If in a later stage of the Bill a suitable Amendment is found, or if not an Amendment of the Bill itself suitable words are suggested for insertion in the Order in Council, I do not think the Government would have the slightest objection.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Would not the word "unfounded" have applied in that particular case?
  Mr. McKENNA: In that case it would, but there are cases where it might not apply. I admit that such cases are much more rare, and apart from military and naval necessities it would be dealt with under the preceding Section. They ought not to be allowed, except under the circumstances of extreme gravity, but there is from time to time foreign news, Colonial news, and Indian news which is true, but which ought not to be published, and it would not be covered by paragraph 14, and some more general words would be necessary in order to give power to prevent the publication of news of that kind. The Amendments contained in this Bill, apart from the mere consolidation of the two preceding Acts, are fourfold. In the first place, the Bill authorises the trial by court-martial of all offences, and in minor offences it authorises the trial by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Next, the power of making regulations is expressly extended to the regulation of the navigation and pilotage of vessels, a matter on which the Admiralty lay very great stress. One other point. Under the original Act no offence is punishable by death. War offences are punishable by death, but war offences can only be charged against an alien. If an enemy subject committed any offence which was helpful to the enemy he would not be tried under this Act, but he would be tried for having committed a war crime, and, of course, he then could be shot; but a British subject could only be tried under the Defence of the Realm Act unless he was tried for high treason. It is proposed to extend the punishment of death to offences under this Act in cases where the intention to assist the enemy is proved. Other offences under the Act will still not be punishable by death, but I think the House will agree that where the intention to assist the enemy is proved the death sentence ought to be imposable. I have stated all the changes in the Bill, and I trust the House will allow me now to have the Second Reading.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no intention, and I am sure none of my hon. Friends have, of preventing the Second Reading of this Bill. The points which have been raised so far are points which can quite well be dealt with in Committee, and I am sure that we are all obliged for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he will consider any reasonable Amendment when the subsequent stage comes. The
  918
  point dwelt upon by both my hon. Friends behind me, the difference between news that is true and untrue, is, I think, a very important one, but even at a time like this the House should keep constantly before its mind that it is quite conceivable, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there might be occasions when even true news ought not to be published. I am sure, however, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that he has found the Press of this country entirely ready to consider the interests of the nation and fall in with the wishes of the Government without any special pressure. I should myself have thought that it was quite sufficient to make this particular Clause apply to untrue statements, and that the Government would have been able to deal with the other kind under the Clause to which my Noble Friend behind me (Lord R. Cecil) referred, and which gives very wide powers. They are the last few words in the Sub-section to which I refer—
  "assistance being given to the enemy or the successful prosecution of the War being endangered."
  These are very large powers, and I hope, when we come to a subsequent stage, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the particular Sub-section to which exception is taken would be sufficiently strong if it applied to untrue statements circulated in that way. I should not, however, have taken the trouble to wait until this hour to take any part in this discussion but for a bigger principle which I think is involved. Unfortunately I was not present when the Solicitor-General made his statement the other day as to the principles upon which he is prepared to act in regard to the powers which are given to him as Press Censor. If I had been, I should at once have made the protest I am now going to make, and I am convinced the Solicitor-General would have explained that the words read by my hon. Friend behind me (Sir H. Craik) did not express his opinion. Let me read to the House again what these words are:—
  "Criticism of the Government or of the Members of the Government is not that which I have ever stopped except when such criticism is of such a character that it might destroy public confidence in the Government which at the moment is charged with the conduct of the War."
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman or any other Member of the House to consider what that means. If these powers had been in existence at the time of the Crimean War, and the men who carried the

  919
  Amendment which defeated the Government had made the statement outside which they made in the House, where they carried the majority with them, they would have been liable to be dealt with under the principles laid down by the Solicitor-General. Take a case which might happen, though I do not think it is likely to happen. I think it will be agreed that the official Opposition has shown that the last thing they wish to do is to weaken the position of this Government so long as it has to carry on the War, but suppose we came to the conclusion in a vital matter that a Minister who was conducting a particular Department was incompetent, and that it was against the interests of the country that he should continue, it would be our duty to do all in our power to get rid of him. But that is precisely what the Solicitor-General says he would stop.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think he meant that at all.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe, as I said at the beginning, that if I had been here and had called his attention to it he would have explained that he did not, but I wish at all events to make this clear protest, that it is the right not only of every Member of this House but of every newspaper in this country, and of every speaker on any platform, if he honestly believes a Member of the Government to be incompetent or that he is not properly doing his work, to try to get rid of that Member, even though his doing so does cause a weakening of confidence in the Government that is carrying on the War.
  Mr. McKENNA: Absolutely.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I have succeeded in making, as I wished, a real protest against that interpretation of his powers by the Solicitor-General, and I wish further, so far as the Solicitor-General himself is concerned, to say I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I do not believe he would for a moment exercise these powers in a case like that. One of the difficulties, however, which I have had all through this period of the War is this: We have not wished by any criticisms to weaken the Government, and we have tried to avoid it, but Governments, like other people, are human, and if they find they are not criticised and that they can exercise powers of all kinds without
  920
  being called to question, the powers grow, and they become more and more inclined to be dictatorial. While it is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that they have not put these powers into effect, I am not sure—I do not say this positively—that they have not in consequence of these powers exercised a pressure on the Press which on the whole is greater than ought to have been exercised, and which in the long run might be found to be detrimental to the real interests of the country and to the successful carrying on of the War. I have said all that I wish to say. I thoroughly recognise that exceptional powers which could not be tolerated at another time must be given, but I feel most strongly that the Government should not ask for greater powers than are necessary, and that they should be most careful to show by their speeches, as well as by their acts, that they recognise the limitation of the powers which are given to them, and that they do not intend to interfere in any shape or form with legitimate criticism.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DISQUALIFICATION RELIEF) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: May I ask what is the object of this Bill?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): Under various provisions in the general law members of local authorities vacate their offices, and, in some cases, are liable to a fine if they are absent for more than a certain period from the areas which they represent. An Act was passed in the year 1900, at the time of the Boer War, which provided that an officer

  921
  or soldier of the Auxiliary or Reserve Forces on active service, or on service beyond the seas, should not by reason only of his absence on such service be disqualified or vacate his office in a county, borough, district, or parish council or a board of guardians, or incur any fine or other liability. But the terms of that Act relate only to officers and soldiers of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces, and they do not cover the case of members of the New Army. I am sure the House will agree with me it is reasonable that the exemption from disqualification which members of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces possess should be extended as proposed by this Bill, which is limited to the period of the present War.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Section 16 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907.)
    Section sixteen of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, shall be amended by the insertion after the word "ill-health" therein occurring of the words "or other reasonable cause."
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move to leave out the words "or other reasonable cause" to insert instead thereof the words "for military service." I called attention to this matter on the Second Reading of this Bill. The measure has been brought in in order to enable Sheriff Substitutes in Scotland to serve during the War, and, in a memorandum issued with this measure that is set out. But in the phraseology of the Clause with which we are now dealing, instead of using the words "for military purposes" the words used are "or other reasonable cause." These Sheriff Substitutes are a monopoly of the Scottish Bar, as I think, unfortunately. The Scottish Bar is the most exclusive Bar on the face of the earth. It is the most expensive Bar to enter, and that is a state of things which exist in a Radical country. I take the liberty of thinking that this is not the time to extend the privileges of these Sheriff Substitutes. They ought not
    922
    to be permitted by this measure, when it becomes an Act, to absent themselves from their duties for "other reasonable cause." The War should not be taken advantage of by the Lord Advocate to extend the right of Sheriff Substitutes to enable them to absent themselves from their arduous duties whenever they can satisfy the Secretary for Scotland, or the Lord Advocate, that there exists "reasonable" cause. I understand the Lord Advocate, although he is not willing to accept the Amendment is prepared to compromise, and, in those circumstances, I beg to move.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I have had an opportunity, since the Second Reading of the Bill, to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend. No doubt his watchful eye has detected a certain objection to the Bill as drawn. I will not enter into the criticism he levelled against the Scottish Bar at this stage, although I think it quite unfounded, but I will confine myself to the merits of the Amendment he has moved. I admit there is some justification for the criticism he has made, but I demur to the means by which he proposes to give effect to that criticism, because I think, if his Amendment were carried as framed, it would unduly narrow the legitimate ambit of this Bill, and also unduly narrow its administration. I am quite willing to meet my hon. Friend on the subject, and what I propose to do is to leave the words as they are, but when we reach Clause 2 of the Bill to move an Amendment which would limit the operation of the measure to the time of the War, and to a period of six months after the end of the War. That would make this measure, strictly speaking, an emergency Bill, and I think my hon. Friend can have no objection to that proposal. I would suggest, therefore, that he be good enough to withdraw the Amendment which he has moved, on the understanding that on Clause 11 I will move the Amendment I have indicated, which I think will meet the purposes at which he is aiming.
    Mr. WATT: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title and Citation.)
    This Act may be cited as the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1914; and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Acts,

    923
    1907 and 1913, and this Act may be cited together as the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Acts, 1907 to 1914.
    Amendment made: In the first line, after the words "this Act," insert the words,
    "shall have effect during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter as"
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  ANGLO-PORTUGUESE COMMERCIAL TREATY BILL.
  Considered in Committee and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  EXPORTATION OF ARMS ACT (1900) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  EXPORTATION OF ARMS ACT (1900) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Vary a Proclamation.)
    Any proclamation made under Section 1 of the Exportation of Arms Act, 1900 (which enables the exportation of certain articles to any country or place named in the proclamation to be prohibited) may, whether the proclamation was made before or after the passing of this Act, be varied or added to whilst a state of war exists by an Order made by the Lords of the Council on the recommendation of the Board of Trade.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "Section one of the Exportation of Arms Act, 1900 (which enables the exportation of certain articles to any country or place named in the proclamation to be prohibited)," and insert instead thereof the words "the said Section."—[Mr. J. M. Robertson.]
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Exportation of Arms Act, 1914; and the Exportation of Arms Act, 1900, and this Act may be cited together as the Exportation of Arms Acts, 1900 and 1914.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "Exportation of Arms Act, 1914; and the Exportation of Arms Act, 1900, and this Act may be cited together as the Exportation of Arms Acts, 1900 and 1914," and
    924
    insert instead thereof the words "Customs (Exportation Restriction) Act, 1914."—[Mr. Robertson.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of 63 and 64 Vic., c. 44.)
    Section 1 of the Exportation of Arms Act, 1900 (which enables the exportation of certain articles to any country or place named in the Proclamation to be prohibited), shall have effect whilst a state of war in which His Majesty is engaged exists as if, in addition to the articles therein mentioned, there were included all other articles of every description.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time; read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION (POSTPONEMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION (POSTPONEMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Postponement of Commencement of 4 end 5 Geo. V., c. 58.)
    In Section fourty-four of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, shall, as respects England and Wales and Scotland, be substituted for the first day of December, nineteen hundred and fourteen, as the date of the commencement of that Act:
    Provided that His Majesty by Order in Council may, as respects any particular provisions of the said Act, fix some date or dates earlier than the first day of April, or in the case of Section ten earlier than the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, for the commencement thereof, and different dates may be so fixed for different provisions and for England and Wales and Scotland respectively.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words, "His Majesty by Order in Council may, as respects any particular provisions of the said Act, fix some date or dates earlier than the first day of April, or in the case of Section ten earlier than the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, for the commencement thereof, and different dates may be so fixed for

    925
    different provisions and for England and Wales and Scotland respectively," and insert instead thereof the words "the postponement effected by this Section shall not apply to the following Sections of that Act—that is to say, Sections one, eighteen, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-five, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-five, thirty-six and thirty-seven, or any of the provisions of Section forty-two by which that Act is modified in respect of those Sections in its application to Scotland, or any repeal which is consequential on any of those Sections, all of which provisions shall come into operation on the first day of December, nineteen hundred and fourteen, as if this Act had not been passed."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Clause 2 added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. [Bill 16.]

  INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION)— [MONEY].
  Committee to consider of making provision for the grant of Pensions and other Allowances to certain persons if disabled whilst employed abroad in connection with warlike operations, and to their dependants under any Act of the present Session relating to such provision.—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes before Ten o'clock.

WAR IN EUROPE.
  CIVIL SERVANTS AND ENLISTMENT.
  CIVIL SERVANTS AND ENLISTMENT.
  ARMY BOOTS (LEATHER PRICES).
  ARMY BOOTS (LEATHER PRICES).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (SUPPLY OF UNIFORMS).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (SUPPLY OF UNIFORMS).
  ARMY CYCLIST CORPS (VACCINATION).
  ARMY CYCLIST CORPS (VACCINATION).
  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY (CADETS).
  ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY (CADETS).
  MILITARY CAMPS.
  MILITARY CAMPS.
  TOWN TENANTS.
  TOWN TENANTS.
  WAR NEWS (POST OFFICES).
  WAR NEWS (POST OFFICES).
  TROOPS IN EGYPT (DELIVERY OF LETTERS AND PARCELS).
  TROOPS IN EGYPT (DELIVERY OF LETTERS AND PARCELS).
  ESSEX AND MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER SUPPLY).
  ESSEX AND MALDON DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER SUPPLY).
  ALIEN ENEMIES (BRITISH-BORN WIDOWS).
  ALIEN ENEMIES (BRITISH-BORN WIDOWS).
  ARMENIANS AND EGYPTIANS.
  ARMENIANS AND EGYPTIANS.
  GOLD EXPORT.
  GOLD EXPORT.
  SMALL INCOMES.
  SMALL INCOMES.
  LACE (GERMAN OR SWISS).
  LACE (GERMAN OR SWISS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN BILLS HELD BY BRITISH FIRMS.
  GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN BILLS HELD BY BRITISH FIRMS.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES.
  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  DEUTSCHE ORIENT BANK.
  DEUTSCHE ORIENT BANK.
  ALIEN INTERESTS IN COMPANIES.
  ALIEN INTERESTS IN COMPANIES.
  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  RECREATION IN CAMPS.
  RECREATION IN CAMPS.
  ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  CONTINENTAL TYRE COMPANY.
  CONTINENTAL TYRE COMPANY.
  RECRUITING CLERKS.
  RECRUITING CLERKS.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  INCREASED TAX ON BEER (MILITARY CANTEENS).
  INCREASED TAX ON BEER (MILITARY CANTEENS).
INCOME TAX.
  ALLOWANCE TO EMPLOYERS.
  ALLOWANCE TO EMPLOYERS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS.
  DIVIDENDS.
  DIVIDENDS.
  WAR LOAN STOCK (WORKING MEN'S INVESTMENTS).
  WAR LOAN STOCK (WORKING MEN'S INVESTMENTS).
  LICENCE DUTIES.
  LICENCE DUTIES.
  MEN INVALIDED HOME.
  MEN INVALIDED HOME.
  ARMY CONTRACTS (SUB-LETTING).
  ARMY CONTRACTS (SUB-LETTING).
  ARMY CANTEENS (SALE OF WHISKY).
  ARMY CANTEENS (SALE OF WHISKY).
  CABLE MESSAGES (ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL).
  CABLE MESSAGES (ARGENTINA AND BRAZIL).
  PUBLIC-HOUSES AND CLUBS, CROYDON.
  PUBLIC-HOUSES AND CLUBS, CROYDON.
  GERMANS NATURALISED.
  GERMANS NATURALISED.
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (NEXT-OF-KIN).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (NEXT-OF-KIN).
  SERVICES OF REGIMENTS.
  SERVICES OF REGIMENTS.
  POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
  DISLOYAL PLACARDS (IRELAND).
  DISLOYAL PLACARDS (IRELAND).
  NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  EXPLOSIVE MINES (IRISH COAST).
  EXPLOSIVE MINES (IRISH COAST).
  RECRUITING OFFICES (IRELAND).
  RECRUITING OFFICES (IRELAND).
  Potato Spirit (Manufacture).
  Potato Spirit (Manufacture).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Thursby Committee.
  Thursby Committee.
  Silver Bullion.
  Silver Bullion.
  Indian Budget.
  Indian Budget.
  Welsh Church Act.
  Welsh Church Act.
  Vaccination (Death at Croydon).
  Vaccination (Death at Croydon).
  Central Mining and Investment Corporation, Limited.
  Central Mining and Investment Corporation, Limited.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  CONTRIBUTION BOOKS (RECEIPTS).
  CONTRIBUTION BOOKS (RECEIPTS).
  Egyptian Cotton Crop.
  Egyptian Cotton Crop.