Sitting of 26 November 1914

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

MEMORIAL TO FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ROBERTS.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Field-Marshal Earl Roberts, with an inscription expressing the admiration of the House of Commons for his illustrious military career and its gratitude, for his devoted services to the State, and assuring Me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
I will gladly give directions that your proposal to do honour to the memory of this great and devoted servant of the State, shall be carried into effect.

NATIONAL SOURCES OF FOOD PRODUCTION.
Petition of Daniel Tallerman, for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Petitions for drastic restriction during the European War;—From Camelon (two);—and, Dunipace; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of Hertford and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 26th November, 1914, under The Shops Act, 1912, affecting certain shops in the burgh of Hamilton [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

STATE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on the State of Employment in the United Kingdom in October, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations under which grants to Day Nurseries in England and Wales will be made by the Board of Education during the year ending on 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT, 1898.
Copy presented of Amendment of Statutes Nos. 119 and 125 of the Statutes of the University of London [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT, 1914.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of the County Courts (Emergency Powers) Rules, 1914 (Draft), dated 20th November, 1914, made by the Lord Chancellor under The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR IN EUROPE.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DRILL).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the President of the Board of Education, if he will sanction the request sent to him by the Eastbourne education committee for permission to teach drill in their elementary schools?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): Physical exercises are part of the regular curriculm in all elementary schools. I believe, however, that neither from a military nor from an educational point of view is advantage to be gained by introducing drill of a definitely military character into public

    1287
    elementary schools, and I do not see my way to authorise its introduction. My reasons are explained in a letter to the Eastbourne local education authority, a copy of which I have sent to the hon. Member.
    Colonel YATE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give his reasons here?
    Mr. PEASE: They are somewhat lengthy, but I have no objection to my letter to the Eastbourne education committee being published.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish it with the Votes?
    Mr. PEASE: I think that would be unusual.
    Colonel YATE: Ought not the country to know?

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LETTERS AND PARCELS).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the delay occurring in the delivery of letters from the front, extending to seven and even ten days; whether such delay is due to the Censor in London; and can he accelerate delivery?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): So far as the Post Office is concerned, there is no delay in the delivery of correspondence received in this country from the British Expeditionary Force. The question of the censorship of the correspondence concerns the military authorities and is not under my control.
    Sir ALFRED MONDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to extend free railway carriage to parcels addressed either to units or individuals serving in the Expeditionary Force when they are consigned on behalf of poor relatives by properly constituted and recognised organisations, newspaper offices, etc.?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The same considerations apply to railway parcels as were stated by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in relation to postal parcels in the general answer he gave to various Members on the 23rd instant.
    1288
    The military authorities in France are, I regret to say, unable to undertake the work of separating and distributing to the individual addresses large joint consignments sent out by agencies. Parcels have unfortunately already gone astray by unauthorised attempts to send parcels in this way.

    SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' WIVES.
    Mr. BARNESasked if postmasters and sub-postmasters have been instructed to give the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association all information in their possession connected with the amounts being paid to wives of soldiers and sailors; what is the purpose expected to be served by the instruction; are the wives of our fighters under the official surveillance of the association in question; and if the cheque books of the persons entitled to pensions are kept at the post office instead of being kept by the person to whom the payments are made?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Such instructions have been given. The arrangement applies to local relief committees and charitable societies generally and was made, with the concurrence of the Admiralty and the War Office, in order to prevent overlapping of relief. Books of postal drafts for payment of Army or Navy allowances are kept at post offices, the payee being required to produce a certificate of identity on the occasion of each payment.
    Mr. BARNES: Is there any reason why the payees should not have the books in their own possession?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The present system seems to me to be no trouble at all, and enables the payment to a great number of persons who are congregated in certain offices to be made much quicker than it would otherwise be done; and so far as I know there is no objection at all on the part of the people.
    Mr. BARNES: Is it not open to the objection that information relative to these people can be given to fussy people?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That may or may not be; but it has nothing to do with getting the postal drafts ready for payment.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the postmaster of Stoke-on-Trent has called attention to the fact that he could dispense this pay much

    1289
    quicker if the applicant for the money presented the book instead of him having to go through the whole list and find out the applicant?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir, I do not think so, because the person who comes from the applicant has to produce the identification certificate at the same time as making the application for payment, in order that postal drafts may be given on one side and cash on the other. I have had no representations of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers.

    PRESENTS FROM UNITED STATES.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary whether he will take care that, in the distribution of the cargo of presents sent by the people of the United States of America to the children of the people of the various nationalities of the Allies who have suffered in the War, a fair proportion is allotted to the children of Irish soldiers?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer is in the affirmative; we have secured a proportion.
    Mr. P. O'BRIEN: What proportion?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think it is one-tenth.

    SEDITIOUS PRESS (IRELAND).
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. John MacNeill, now receiving £700 a year as Professor of Irish in the National University, is intimately connected with the paper called the "Irish Volunteer," an anti-British paper; whether a Civil servant is allowed to help a paper which urges Irishmen not to enlist; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take as to Mr. John MacNeill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. John MacNeill, who is Professor of early Irish History in University College, Dublin, and receives a salary of £600 from the National University of Ireland, is not a Civil servant. The attention of the University authorities is being called to his connection with the "Irish Volunteer," and to other action he has taken to impede recruitment in Ireland.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to deal with this Mr. John MacNeill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, none whatever; nor with any other professor.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Chief Secretary whether he will take steps to stop the publication of the "Irish Volunteer" and other seditious papers, and prevent the "Gaelic American" from being circulated in thousands every week in Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I dealt with this yesterday in my reply to the question of the right hon. Member for the Strand Division. The matter has engaged the serious attention of the Irish Government, but it is not in the public interest to announce what action it is proposed to take.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these papers have been poisoning the minds of Nationalists for the last six weeks?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have read the papers.
    Mr. HUNT: And can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has done nothing in that six weeks, and whether he is going to do anything?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have no reason whatever to believe that these papers have poisoned anybody's mind except the minds of the people who have written the articles.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Have they not, in fact, interfered with recruiting in the South-West of Ireland?
    Mr. BIRRELL: We have no evidence of it.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Solicitor-General whether His Majesty's Government is now prepared to suppress the publications called the "Irish Volunteer," "Irish Freedom," "Sinn Fein," and the "Irish Worker" on the ground of their being seditious; and whether he has made any inquiry as to whether they are receiving German money to discourage recruiting, and to propagate in Ireland hatred for England and friendship for Germany?
    Mr. HUNTasked the Solicitor-General (1) whether he has received a copy of the "Gaelic American," of the 7th November; whether he is aware that thousands of copies of this paper are distributed every week in Ireland for the purpose of poisoning the minds of Nationalists in Ireland against the British

    1291
    Government; whether the Press Censor can stop the circulation of this paper in Ireland; (2) whether he has received a copy of the "Irish Volunteer" of the 21st November, in which Irishmen are urged not to enlist in the Army and in which it is also stated that most of the Irish Volunteers know well that their only foreign enemy is England; whether the censor will stop the publication of this paper; and (3) whether he has yet received a copy of the "Irish Volunteer" newspaper of 7th November; and can he say what steps will be taken against this paper with regard to the statements contained in it?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): The copies of the papers referred to in these questions have been forwarded to me. I do not know the extent of their distribution, but their purpose is plainly what is stated in Question 98. With regard to stopping the circulation of the papers I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland yesterday. As to the latter part of Question 97 I have no means at my disposal for making the inquiry referred to.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it not the fact that these papers would not be allowed to be published in Great Britain, and can the hon. and learned Gentleman say why it is allowed in Ireland? Is it not also the fact that these papers are inspired by German money?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I cannot say; but the papers undoubtedly suggest that they are inspired by an enemy.
    Mr. HUNT: Cannot we do anything to stop them? That is what I want to know?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No, Sir. I have done everything in my power to stop them.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Would it not be possible for the Attorney-General, in his capacity of detector of wrong-doing in this country, to take action against these newspapers? Cannot he ascertain whether they are assisted by foreign money? Is there not some way by which these abominable practices may be put an end to?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The person who holds the office I occupy has no jurisdiction in Ireland. The matter has to be dealt with
    1292
    through the Irish Office or else through some Government Department such as the War Office, which has jurisdiction over the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. LONG: I am aware of that. But cannot the Attorney-General, to whom we look in these matters, call the attention of the Irish Law Officers to what is going on and suggest to them for their consideration some proper course which may at once be taken?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is there the slightest difficulty in initiating a prosecution under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Sir J. SIMON: That, as the Noble Lord knows, is not done by the Law Officers of the Crown. It is a proceeding rather in the nature of a court-martial.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Cannot the Government undertake to do it?

    PASSPORTS FOR GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precautions are taken and what investigations are made before granting to persons of German and Austrian nationality who are naturalised in this country passports for visiting neutral countries such as Holland: whether he is aware that persons to whom such passports are given are thereby enabled to pass, and have in some cases actually passed, into the German lines in Belgium, and are enabled to communicate directly and in person with the German military authorities, and whether, in order to lessen the danger of information being in this way communicated to the enemy, he will take steps to ensure that no passports shall be issued to persons of German and Austrian nationality, even though naturalised, unless the Foreign Office are satisfied after strict investigation that the purpose for which the passports are sought is a proper and legitimate one?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Passports are not granted to naturalised British subjects of enemy origin unless they produce documentary evidence that they have lost their enemy nationality. In the case of naturalised British subjects, special investigations are made, and passports are not granted if there is any ground for suspicion that they will be used for an improper purpose.

    CAMBRIDGE POSTMEN.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the temporary postmen at Cambridge have been given to understand that unless they are medically unfit for the Army they will be no longer retained in the post office; whether he is aware that the postmaster at Cambridge has individually interviewed temporary postmen of that place, and that these men report that he has strongly urged them to join the Army, suggesting that, unless they did, their services would be dispensed with; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The facts have not been correctly represented to the hon. Member. Now that the annual leave of the regular postmen at Cambridge is coming to an end, it has become necessary to dispense with the services of certain of the temporary postmen at present employed, and the postmaster selected for discharge, amongst others, the one unmarried man eligible for enlistment in the Army. The Post Office is not engaging for temporary employment single men eligible for enlistment if other candidates are available, and the postmaster's action appears to me to have been entirely justified.

    PRIZE MONEY (ROYAL NAVY).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say how much prize money is now lying to the credit of the Navy; and when the new system of prize bounties, promised by the Royal Proclamation of 28th August, 1914, will be announced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No information as to the amount of the prize fund can be given as a great many cases are still under adjudication. The system of award is under consideration, but the appropriation of the fund will not be determined until the end of the War.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has not this been under consideration now for three months?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, and we have been considering the system of the War as a basis of future distribution.
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: Will there be no distribution until this War is over?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know; I must have notice of that.

    PENSIONER SIGNALMEN.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty order stating that pensioner signalmen are to be given naval rates of pay and such allowances as they may be entitled to under the Naval Regulations covers the cases of all such signalmen employed in similar services since the War began?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: An Admiralty order was issued on 16th November authorising the payment of active service pay and allowances to pensioner signalmen employed in the Naval Port Signal Stations during the period of hostilities, in lieu of the civilian wages which they have received in time of peace. This decision will have effect as from 2nd August.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.
    Mr. WATTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the authorities of Somerset House have intimated to correspondents that the shares of the firm of Suter, Hartman, and Rahtjens, Limited, are largely held by Germans residing in Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremerhaven; that this firm are at present supplying the composition for His Majesty's ship "Grafton," now in Govan Graving Dock, and also for submarines in other ports of Scotland, and whether he will take any action in this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is known that certain shares are held by alien enemies, but under the Trading with the Enemy Act no payment can legally be made during the War to enemy aliens abroad. The directors are now British, and inquiries were made by the Home Office at the request of the Admiralty into the nationality of the staff and workpeople, with satisfactory results. It may be pointed out that the companies who supply compositions do not apply them, and are not therefore brought into contact with the Navy or dockyards. It is considered that all suitable precautions have

    1295
    been taken, but the Admiralty are in communication with the Board of Trade as to appointment of an inspector, if necessary, under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
    Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman find out what proportion of these shares are held by foreigners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot recall for the moment, but we have gone into all these things carefully.

    STEAM DRIFTERS (ADMIRALTY WORK).
    Mr. COWANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a steam drifter launched at Inverness on Friday, 13th November, is to be engaged on Admiralty work when completed; if so, will he state the reasons which induce the Admiralty to wait for the completion of this vessel while Fraserburgh harbours are full of drifters lying idle owing to the suspension of fishing operations due to the War; whether the Admiralty is employing a number of drifters belonging to Lowestoft and Yarmouth; and, if so, why preference has been given to these ports?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; therefore the second part does not arise.
    Mr. COWAN: As the two parts of the question are quite disconnected, I venture to submit the second part does arise.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the answer to the first part is in the negative, the second part cannot arise.
    Mr. COWAN: The second part refers to Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and has no connection with the first part.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no desire and it is not our practice to give any preference.

    PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if the scale of pensions and allowances, as laid down in White Paper on 9th November, is now the scale on which payment is being made; and, if not, at what date will the authorities begin to pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Pending the Report of the Select Committee which has been appointed to consider the subject, widows pensions and children's allowances and disablement pensions are being paid on the scales in force at the outbreak of war. Separation allowances are being paid according to the scales laid down in the White Paper.
    Mr. BARNES: When the Committee has finished its labours, will those people now paid the semi-starvation wage of 5s. a week pension be given the difference?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not for me to anticipate what the Committee may decide, but certainly if the Committee recommend a higher scale, then cases that have arisen since the War would need adjustment.
    Mr. BARNES: Does it depend upon the Committee recommending that the higher rate should be made retrospective?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not in regard to the cases of widows and orphans before the War, but certainly with regard to cases that have arisen since the War.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that in the first six months of the death of a soldier the person receiving the pension will receive a full sum, including separation allowance?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is quite true. Separation allowance will be continued, but my hon. Friend has in mind cases prior to that.
    Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Army and Navy Pensions Committee will give special consideration to the case of widows of officers who were just commencing their professional and business careers and who have accepted commissions in His Majesty's Forces?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): This is a matter for the discretion of the Committee.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider the question of including in the grants to the dependants of sailors and soldiers children who were adopted by them prior to the outbreak of war and who are dependent on them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): This question would be within the scope of the Committee now sitting. Meanwhile I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North-East Lanark on the 18th instant.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that the extension of Army and Navy separation allowances to sons between fourteen and sixteen who attend a State-aided schol, other than an evening school, will apply to pupils of Irish Christian Brothers' schools and other similarly circumstanced Irish schools, receiving no direct State Grant but paid result fees by the Irish Intermediate Education Board in respect of their pupils who pass that Board's examinations; if so, whether this extension will apply to such pupils, irrespectively of whether they are individually preparing for the said examinations or not; and, if not, whether he will take steps to make this extension applicable to all such pupils, seeing that such schools in Ireland admittedly fulfil with marked efficiency the purposes of public elementary schools in Great Britain?
    Mr. BAKER: This case shall be considered.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether men from the National Reserve who have re-enlisted or have been called up for military service, and who on further medical examination have been found unfit for active or foreign service, are entitled to allowances and their families to separation allowances; and, if so, for what period?
    Mr. BAKER: Generally speaking, allowances are issuable from the date of enlistment to the date of discharge. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind, perhaps he will bring it to my notice.
    Mr. BARNESasked if men coming from the front permanently unfit on medical grounds are discharged without pay or any recognition, having regard to the fact that they had been passed into service as fit, and therefore had presumably become unfit owing to disease contracted at the front?
    Mr. BAKER: The claims to pension of all such men are considered, and in all
    1298
    cases of disability due to service pension is awarded. Temporary grants of pension may also be given in cases where the disability was not caused by service. Everyone discharged unfit who does not get a pension gets a gratuity.
    Mr. BARNESasked if the scale of pensions and allowances, as laid down in the White Paper of the 9th instant, is now the scale on which payments are being made; and, if not, will the payments be made retrospective when commenced to be paid on the new scale, or when does payment on the new scale commence from?
    Mr. BAKER: The scale of separation allowances is in operation and continues for twenty-six weeks. Before that period has elapsed I hope the new scale of pensions will have been finally settled.

    EXPORTATION OF CLOTH AND BLANKETS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether early this month a large parcel of Army cloth passed through Hull on the way to Holland; whether the Customs stopped it as being obviously intended for Germany, but that, on presentation of amended papers, it was passed; whether he has information as to considerable manufacture of such cloth and also blankets in the West Riding; and what steps he proposes to take?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am informed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that inquiries have been made at Hull, but that they have been unable to trace the exportation referred to by the hon. Member.

    NETTING WIRE.
    Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, as large quantities of netting wire are obtainable from the United States, Canada, and also from British manufacturers, there is any necessity to purchase from Germany, although doubtless the Germans accept lower prices; and (2) whether he will give a Return of the number and names of licences given to manufacturers of wire netting in

    1299
    this country for leave to import the requisite wire from Germany; and whether, as he has given licences to import wire, he intends also to give licences to purchase steel billets and steel rods, from which wire is made, from Germany, so as to enable manufacturers to use this material and compete with those to whom licences for importing wire from Germany have already been given?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that only one licence has been granted to import a limited quantity of netting wire not exceeding 400 tons. This licence was issued after inquiry had shown that wire of this character was not being produced to any extent in the United Kingdom and that wire drawers in this country were fully occupied in producing wire of a higher grade. Last year our imports of wire from Germany were 37,000 tons, or more than two-thirds of our total imports. I am informed that the issue of licences for the importation of steel billets or steel rods is not contemplated.

    GOVERNMENT ALIEN CLERKS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked if there are any clerks of German or Austrian nationality in the War Office, Admiralty, Home Office, or Treasury who are not naturalised or who have been naturalised within the last year, or who have changed their names since the War began?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I can only answer for the Treasury. There are no clerks of German or Austrian nationality employed in that Department. One British-born clerk, who had a name of Teutonic origin, has changed it since the outbreak of War.
    Mr. STEWART: The answer does not cover the other Departments?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No; I can only answer for my own Department. The hon. Member must address his question to the Minister responsible.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people cannot change their names since the outbreak of the War?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No; I am not aware of that.

    INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the governing principle or fact accountable for the discrimination shown in the making of orders under the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act; and whether in all cases the consideration of the making of an order was upon the initiative of the chief of police, as required by the Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): If my hon. Friend is referring to the difference between the action taken by different licensing benches, I presume that the reason for them is to be found in the differences in the circumstances of the localities and in the views of the justices and the chief constables. No valid order can be made under the Act except on the recommendation of the Chief Officer of Police.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the difficulty in obtaining recruits, he has considered the advisability of facilitating the employés in Government Departments not directly concerned in the prosecution of the War or providing for the Services, enrolling in one or other of the Forces, and of employing temporarily men who are over the enlistment age or are, by reason of short sight or otherwise, disqualified from service so as to free those who are willing to volunteer?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have to refer the hon. Member to my written answer on Monday to the hon. Member for Sunderland.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister how many offers have been received from retired Civil servants to fill posts vacated by younger men in Government offices who have joined, or are anxious to join, the Army; and whether the Government will accept such offers so as to release active men for military service and, at the same time, to have well-trained men to fill the vacancies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A large number of offers of service have been received from retired Civil servants, and many have been accepted. I regret that I cannot

    1301
    give the numbers. I may refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities on 14th September, and to the hon. Member for Sunderland on Monday last.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the heads of departments are giving all facilities to let the young men go on service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, they are.
    Mr. D. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken into consideration the number of new recruits they consider it is necessary should come forward voluntarily and the limit of time within which they must be obtained for the efficient carrying on of the War; if he will state what the approximate number and date are; and what steps the Government propose to take either by means of the Ballot Act or special legislation in the event of an insufficient number of recruits being obtained within that time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It would be misleading to suggest any number or date, which must be conjectural. The progress of recruiting is naturally constantly receiving the attention of the Government.
    Mr. GRANTasked if the regulations as to eyesight of recruits have been modified so that the use of glasses will no longer debar a man from joining His Majesty's Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: Glasses may be worn by all ranks on or off duty.
    Mr. GRANT: May I ask if that applies to recruiting men?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that is so; but of course we must see that his eyesight is not too defective.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to suspend the payment of the £400 a year to Members of Parliament during the continuance of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is there anything to prevent either the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Leach) or any other equally wealthy Member, leaving his salary with the Treasury, if he chooses to do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is absolutely within the discretion of hon. Members.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, having in view the importance of those who are incapable of military service being made to understand the circumstances under which they can properly be trained for and take part in national defence, he will direct that a copy of the War Office letter to Lord Desborough, dated 19th November, and containing a statement of the circumstances under which the Army Council will recognise volunteer associations and the rules which have been framed for their guidance, shall be sent for publication to all mayors and exhibited outside all post offices in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will confer with my right hon. Friends the President of the Local Government Board and the Postmaster-General, with a view to carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion, if possible.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether the condition laid down in the letter of the War Office to the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps with regard to affiliated corps of men over age for enlistment, but desiring to be recognised for Home defence service, to the effect that no badges of rank are to be worn admits of the use of such distinctive marks as are necessary for effective discipline and drill?
    Mr. TENNANT: The object of the prohibition against badges of rank was to avoid confusion. There would be no objection, should necessity arise, to distinctive badges being worn to differentiate those who exercise authority.

    FRIEDRICHSHAFEN ZEPPELIN SHEDS (BOMBARDMENT).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if instructions were given to the aviators who bombarded the Zeppelin

    1303
    sheds at Friedrichshafen to avoid neutral territory; and what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the passage of warlike machines over the land or territorial waters of neutral countries?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Instructions were given to the Naval Flying officers who attacked the Zeppelin factory at Friedrichshafen to avoid neutral territory, and the course drawn on the maps supplied to them should have taken them well clear of Switzerland. When machines are flying at a great height it is almost impossible for any but a skilled observer to determine with any accuracy the course the aircraft are taking unless he is directly beneath them. No agreement was reached at the Paris Conference, 1910, in regard to the passage of belligerent aircraft over neutral territory.

    COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Fraternal Association of Assurance Officers protesting against the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, as it affects industrial assurance companies and associations; and whether he will arrange to meet a deputation of these officers to discuss the Act, as its operation affects them?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The working of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, as it affects industrial assurance, has been the subject of many representations to the Government since the Act was passed in August last, but these representations are not all to the same effect; while insurance managers represent that the Act should not apply to industrial assurance, insurance agents urge the Government to preserve the Act intact and even to extend its application. In these circumstances, it will be best to leave the Act as it is at present, until the actual effects of its working are more clearly ascertained by experience.

    CIVILIAN SERVICE.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he will be caused to be issued by the War Office and the Board of Admiralty a compendious statement showing the various combatant or non-combatant units, posts, duties, or employment which offer opportunities to efficient and suitable civilians to serve the State, distinguishing in each case between officers and men, and stating specifically whether such service will be for the period of the War or a definite time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Such a Return would involve very considerable labour to the Departments concerned, and I am unable to ask them to undertake it at the present time.
    Mr. HALL: How can any individual who wishes to serve his country learn in what way his services are most acceptable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A large number of leaflets and pamphlets are in circulation on the subject. If the hon. Member will bring the matter more closely to my notice I will see what can be done.

    WAR CONTRACTS (SELECT COMMITTEE).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether the Government are prepared to appoint a small Select Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into all contracts entered into by Government Departments during the War and for the purpose of the War, with powers to revise the prices contained therein after the War if such are found to be unduly profitable to the contractors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question of contracts is receiving the attention of the Government. I cannot undertake to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the members of the Select Committee on Estimates or the members of the Public Accounts Committee, who have already investigated War Office contracts, have been or will be consulted with regard to war contracts?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not sure how far the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable, or acceptable to the members of the Committee referred to, but I will see that it receives consideration.

  PEOFESSIONAL FOOTBALL MATCHES.

    GOVERNMENT ACTION.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that recruiting meetings held in connection with assemblies of men to watch football matches have produced disappointing results: and whether, in view of the gravity of the crisis and the need for recruits, he will introduce legislation taking powers to suppress all professional football matches during the continuance of the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Communications are taking place with those who are responsible for the organisation of football matches from which I hope for good results. I do not consider that a case exists for such legislation as the hon. Member suggests.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday last, notwithstanding the most strenuous efforts at a number of football grounds attended by many thousands of people, only one recruit to the Colours was obtained?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I saw that in the papers; but, on the other hand, I am glad to say that in Scotland there was a very different response.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop this scandal at once by introducing legislation to commandeer all football grounds for military purposes?
    The PRIME MINISTERS: would rather trust to the progress of the communications which have taken place, and appeal to the general good sense of all football players.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    ARTILLERY RESERVE.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Territorial Artillery Reserve units are only allowed to recruit 25 per cent. of their proper establishment, although in some cases commanding officers have waiting lists of men desirous of joining and who will not enlist in the New Army; and, if
    1306
    so, will he state the reason for this restriction?
    Mr. TENNANT: It has been found necessary to make this restriction. If my hon. Friend will be so good as to speak to me I will explain to him the position.

    COUNTY OF LONDON TERRITORIAL FORCE ASSOCIATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the exhibition grounds known as the White City have been leased on behalf of the Government for military purposes; and, if so, how much is being paid for the same, how long has it been leased for, what is the rent paid, and with whom is the contract made?
    Mr. BAKER: The premises have been hired by the County of London Territorial Force Association for a period of eight weeks (from 19th October) from the Shepherd's Bush Exhibition, Ltd., at a rent of £600 a week.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the contract for the feeding of troops at the White City was thrown open to public tender; and how much per day per man is paid for the same?
    Mr. BAKER: This contract was made by the London County Territorial Force Association. I am informed that it was not thrown open to public tender.

    ARMY PAY CORPS (PROMOTION).
    Mr. CROOKSasked whether there is any prospect of promotion for the senior non-commissioned officers of the Army Pay Corps who have been superseded for warrant rank owing to age and yet have been strongly recommended for promotion to commissioned rank; and, if not, whether he will state why these men have not been taken into consideration for quarter-mastership in the New Army, as has been the case in all other corps and departments in the Army?
    Mr. BAKER: The warrant officers, of whom there are a large number with adequate qualifications, have a prior claim to any promotions to commissioned rank which can be offered. These men have been taken into consideration in many cases for the appointment of quartermaster in the New Army, but for the few appointments available others have been found to possess better qualifications.
    Mr. CROOKSasked why non-commissioned officers of the Army Pay Corps who have been recommended for commissions as assistant paymasters have been superseded for promotion by the introduction of civilians as acting paymasters; whether he is aware that the civilians introduced have to be instructed in their work by the men they have superseded, and the work is therefore delayed; will he state what military status these acting paymasters have; and will he also state the reason for issuing to paymasters War Office Letter Accounts 2, dated 7th September, if it was considered that these acting paymasters were suitable and adaptable to the posts?
    Mr. BAKER: The number of commissioned officers in the Army Pay Department is regulated by the permanent needs of the Army, and is being maintained at its due strength by promotion of non-commissioned officers and otherwise in the usual way. Non-commissioned officers of the Army Pay Corps have not been superseded for promotion by the introduction of civilians, who enter on a purely temporary footing and have no military status. The civilians appointed acting paymasters are instructed in their duties by the paymasters and not by non-commissioned officers. The object of the War Office letter referred to was to secure that these highly suitable gentlemen should be rapidly adapted to the duties of the posts by proper instruction.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is it not a fact that nearly 3,000 applications for commissions had been made by officers before the War and only some 400 have so far been granted?
    Mr. BAKER: My answer only applies to the Army Pay Corps.

    BILLETING.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men are billeted at the hotels at Carmarthen at the rate of 2s. 3d. per day, while the rate in private houses in the same town is 3s. 4½d. per day; what is the reason for such disparity in the rates; and whether he will see that hostelries which have to pay Licence Duties shall be treated at least on an equality with private houses and temperance hotels?
    Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 24th instant to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, in which I explained the difference between the position of a private occupier with regard to billeting and that of a licence holder.
    Mr. L. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that owing to the disparity of the rates of billeting some authorities are inclined to billet young soldiers in public-houses instead of private houses, and so increase the temptation to drinking?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not aware that that is so.

    ARMY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked if it is intended that the War Loan of £350,000,000 will largely go in the purchase of manufactured articles made in England and Scotland, and that millions will go for boots, and that the Northampton boot factories will obtain a large share of these orders; if any of these contracts will be available for Irish clothiers and boot factories; and what is the total value of Army contracts given to Irish firms since the War commenced up to the present date?
    Mr. BAKER: Orders for boots will amount to some millions of pounds, and a large proportion of these orders will doubtless go to the Northampton district. With regard to the latter part of the question, certain Irish firms are already invited to tender for clothing and boots respectively, and if the hon. Member will supply me with the names of additional firms capable of undertaking such contracts, I shall be pleased to make inquiries with a view to adding them to the War Office list. Considerable quantities of food supplies, textiles, and other goods have been obtained from Irish sources since the beginning of the War; but the total value could not be given without extensive inquiry involving much time and labour.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department intend to apportion these contracts according to population?
    Mr. BAKER: I am afraid it would be impossible to so apportion them without an extensive inquiry.

    GALLANTRY OF TROOPS.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, if he has official information to the effect that an Irish regiment fought a detachment of Germans for half the night, and after a fierce fight in which the Irishmen used the butts of their rifles and even their fists the Germans were defeated, having lost three-fourths of their numbers; and, if so, will he state the name of the regiment?
    Mr. TENNANT: No Sir. I have not received any such information.
    Mr. FFRENCH: Is the hon. Member aware that this statement was made by a correspondent of the "Daily Chronicle"?
    Mr. TENNANT: We have had no official information.
    Mr. COTTONasked the name of the Irish regiment which distinguished itself by the charge at the battle of Zonnebeke?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I have no information on the subject.
    Mr. COTTONasked whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for South Dublin to the Solicitor-General, with regard to obtaining from the commanding officer of every regiment at the front a report as to the operations of that regiment since the beginning of the War, as well as regular reports in future; and whether these reports, when obtained, will be collated and sub-edited by practical journalists and issued day by day to the Press?
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if the marked gallantry of certain regiments and other units at the commencement of the War, and at such an early stage in the War as will prevent their identification now being of any possible use to the enemy, can be written up and described by trained writers in Government employment, and given to the Press for publication, so as to encourage recruiting for these regiments or units?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter is now under consideration, but the adoption of a proposal of this kind raises many difficulties, and I am not hopeful that they can be easily surmounted.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask whether Army Orders issued in the field commending
    1310
    the gallantry of particular regiments or battalions cannot be given publicity in this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: Army Orders in the field do not reach the War Office, and they are very different from the orders issued by the Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will steps be taken to see that these things are published?

    PRESS BUREAU.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will cause greater care to be taken in the publication by the Press Bureau of the reports circulated through that agency regarding the brave doings of the Indian troops at the front; and whether he will see that equal praise, where it is due, is given alike to Sikhs, Ghurkas, Dogras, Punjabis, Pathans, Afridis, and the other Indian nationalities who are fighting the Empire's battles in France and elsewhere?
    Mr. TENNANT: The services of the troops of all the nationalities mentioned are highly appreciated. I was not aware that any discrimination or distinction had been made.
    Mr. LONGasked the Solicitor-General whether, on the occasions when information of a naval or military character is held up by the censors in the Press Bureau, that information is generally withheld by the direction of the Admiralty or War Office, or solely on the initiative and direction of the Director himself; whether the naval and military censors are in constant touch with the Admiralty and War Office; and whether they receive instructions from time to time from those offices?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The office of the Press Bureau is the offspring of the War and its powers must be measured and its actions judged in relation to this fact. It provides the official means by which all information relating to the War which any of the Departments of State think right to issue is communicated to the Press, but it has no means of collecting news and no power to compel its publication. No matter relating to the War is issued to the public through any other channel except through the "London Gazette." The policy which determines publication of any

    1311
    matter rests with the particular Government Department through which the information comes; it does not depend on the whim of the Censor. If news of any event reaches the Press before it is received from an official source, the question as to whether it should be made public or held back is determined by the Department to which it relates. For example, I have no power to publish news of an action or accident at sea without the consent of the Admiralty; nor of any action or mishap on land, excepting in accordance with the rules of the War Office. This office does not withhold, and according to my views of its powers cannot withhold, any news excepting pursuant to the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act and to the rules and directions laid down by one of the Departments of State.
    As to the censoring of news, this is carried out in obedience to the regulations which are drawn up from time to time in accordance with information received from the other Government Departments, with whom we are in constant contact. These form the instructions on which our censors act. Subject to this, the actual work of censoring is all done under my control, and in this I am assisted by a body of skilled officers of the Army and Navy, expert journalists, and other civilians. They number about fifty in all, and they work in shifts throughout the day and night. The matter submitted for censorship is every form of communication destined for publication in the Press, either in this country or in any other country, but no private communications of any kind are within the scope of our jurisdiction. It is a mistake to imagine that the policy of the office has recently undergone any modification or change. It has been and will continue to be the policy of publishing everything that can be made public without danger to the State.
    Mr. D. HALL: What reasons have been adduced why the gallant actions of our troops at the front at the beginning of the War were not mentioned with the names of the regiments?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The question makes me think my statement has failed to convey the true position of my office to the hon. Member. I regret it. I thought I had made it plain that such a question must be addressed to the War Office and not to myself.

    TRAVELLING FACILITIES FOR SOLDIERS.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether some additional facilities will be given to officers and men of His Majesty's Forces training throughout the country for travelling to their homes when on leave of absence beyond the charge of single fare for the return journey, especially where the training camp or depot is more than fifty miles from the place at which their homes are situate; and whether he will consider the desirability of affording recruits for the New Army the opportunity of visiting their relatives without being called upon to pay substantial sums for railway fares due to the distance of the depot from the recruiting centre?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the inequality in the cost of railway fares to the different homes of men now in military training, he will consider the possibility of supplying cheap tickets at a uniform rate to those who are granted leave at Christmas, or of allowing them to travel free on that occasion?
    Mr. BAKER: The question of giving transport to their homes at Government expense to all men after they have done a certain period of training is under consideration.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that there are a great number of questions, and that some of these towards the end of the Paper are considered of great importance.

    FRENSHAM CAMP.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that recruits stationed at Frensham Camp are writing home to their friends complaining of the conditions under which they have to spend the long winter evenings in camp, without fires or seats, and therefore always miserable and often sick; and if he will take steps to remove the cause of these complaints?
    Mr. TENNANT: No complaints have been received from the friends of troops stationed at Frensham, and the medical reports as to their general health are very good. These troops will be moved into barracks in a few days.

    NEW ARMIES (TRAINING COOKS).
    Mr. GRANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the lack of facilities for the training of cooks in the new regiments of His Majesty's Army; and if he can see his way to sending instructors in cookery to the various centres where such regiments are stationed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Aston Manor yesterday.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the reports from the front emphasise the importance of making trenches in the training of men for modern warfare; and whether he is satisfied that adequate facilities and equipment for digging are being provided at all the places of training in this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. The reports from the front do emphasise the importance of training in field entrenchment, and steps have been taken to ensure that all troops receive adequate training in this branch of work before being embarked for service on the Continent.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether they have got sufficient equipment?
    Mr. TENNANT: If they have not got it, they are getting it as fast as possible.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the number of places marked out of bounds in the manœuvre areas and other training centres impair the practical value of training for war by excluding woods, golf links, football grounds, etc.; and if he will consider the advisability of giving a general War Office order that troops must avoid all possible damage of property and especially to growing crops?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the instructions woods are allowed to be used and there is no mention of either golf links or football grounds being excluded. The instructions do enjoin that crops and tillage should be treated with the utmost respect and farmers with all possible consideration. Troops are forbidden to pass through uncut corn and over sown land.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would it not be possible to do away with all "out-of-bounds" orders and simply rely on a general order not to damage property?
    Mr. TENNANT: There would be no great advantage in that course. Certain things are excluded.

    WINTER CLOTHING FOR BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked what steps the War Office have taken to secure that the British soldiers who are prisoners in Germany are provided with the warm clothing necessary for the winter season?
    Mr. TENNANT: By Article 7 of the Annex to The Hague Convention (1907) the Government which holds prisoners of war is responsible that they are treated as regards clothing on the same footing as its own troops. This was ratified by the German Government as well as by our own. It having been reported about the middle of October that some of the troops interned in Germany were much in want of clothing, a sum of £3,000 was placed at the disposal of the American Ambassador at Berlin, he having kindly consented to disburse this for the benefit of our soldiers.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the troops have got the necessary clothing?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will make a few remarks later on if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait.

    ARMY CANTEENS.
    Mr. COTTONasked whether the Central Board recommended to be set up for the control of Army canteens will include civilian as well as military members; if so, whether the civilians will be drawn from the War Office or from outside; whether there will be any Irish representatives on the Central Board; and when the Board is likely to be set up?
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot at present make any statement as to the constitution of the Central Board. My Noble Friend has the matter under consideration.

    MILITARY HUTS.
    Mr. D. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is prepared to put a wooden or other

    1315
    inside lining to the huts which are now being constructed for the troops, in view of the thin nature of the present match-boarding used for the outside walls?
    Mr. TENNANT: Arrangements were made some time since for inside lining to be put in the huts occupied by troops at night, for at least some distance from the floors. In exposed situations the whole of the walls will be lined. All efforts have been concentrated, in the first instance, to get the troops under cover.
    Mr. D. HALL: Arising out of the answer, are we to understand that it is entirely unnecessary for officers to pay for the lining of these huts out of their own pockets or out of regimental funds, as they are doing now in a great many instances?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that is so. We shall do it as soon as we can find time and get the material, but our efforts are being concentrated, in the first place, in getting the huts.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RELIGIOUS MINISTRATIONS).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked what provision is being made in the various hospitals throughout the United Kingdom for giving religious ministrations to wounded soldiers who have returned from the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: At the larger and more important hospitals chaplains are appointed to give their whole time. At the other hospitals formed during the present emergency the ministrations are given by the local clergy of the various communions, who are appointed by the military authorities as may be necessary.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Are any provisions being made for religious services being held in the wards?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must ask for notice of that question.

    DENTAL SURGERY.
    Mr. BOYTONasked whether a number of recruits are suffering from defective teeth, and, if accepted, this leads to early disablement, particularly when serving at the front; and whether the War Office will appoint dental surgeons at
    1316
    the depots, who will give the necessary preliminary attention to this branch of the health of the Army and Territorial Forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am, of course, aware that defective teeth are common amongst recruits as amongst other categories of persons. General Officers Commanding are already empowered to spend money on any man's teeth to fit him for service. A large number of dental surgeons and dental institutions have patriotically arranged to treat, free of charge, recruits who would otherwise be rejected on account of their teeth. I gladly recognise what has been done in this respect. Finally, dental surgeons are being appointed to all the larger military stations at home. They will devote their whole time to work with the troops.

    ARMY CATERING (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether any contracts and, if so, how many, for the feeding of large bodies of troops in this country have been entered into with contractors without the opportunity of competition being provided; and, if so, why this has been done?
    Mr. BAKER: Numerous contracts for the feeding of troops have been made by the headquarters of commands and by committees which have raised local battalions. I fear that to obtain from them the information for which my hon. Friend asks would entail the preparation of an elaborate return. I hope that he may therefore not press for it.

    SOLDIERS' FAMILIES (POLICE SUPERVISION).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Home Secretary whether he will, before the adjournment of the House, state the terms of the revised circular on the subject of police supervision of the wives and families of soldiers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I hope to be able to comply with my hon. Friend's request.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a representative meeting

    1317
    of sugar-using manufacturers held in London on Monday, at which it was stated that His Majesty's Government are asking from 5s. to 6s. per hundredweight more for sugar than the world's price, as shown by the American market; and whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to supply sugar at a natural price, leaving the nation as a whole to bear whatever loss there may be on the purchases made by the Royal Commission on the sugar supply?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been drawn to the report of the meeting in question. I am informed that the difference between the price of sugar in the American market and that charged by the Royal Commission is not so great as stated. There have been remarkable fluctuations in the price of sugar in the American market since the purchases were made by the Government—for instance, at one time raw sugar was selling in New York at 24s. 9d. per hundredweight, nearly double the present price. It would be impossible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, owing to the difficulty of raising the price of Government sugar to follow the fluctuations of the American market up as well as down.
    Mr. PRICE: If it is known that there is a market at that price will the right hon. Gentleman give a rebate on the export of these sugar goods?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that point will be considered.
    Mr. HINDSasked whether the sugar acquired by the Government is insured against loss by fire; and, if not, having regard to the values represented by the stocks of sugar stored in the various ports and particularly in the London docks, whether he will consider the desirability, in the interests of the community, of the same being so insured; and has he considered this matter from the point of view of maintaining, as far as possible, the customary usages of business in regard to all such temporary purchases made by the Government on behalf of the nation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In accordance with the established policy in respect of Government property, the stocks of sugar warehoused by the Royal Commission are not being insured against fire, and I am unable to see any sufficient reason for departing from that policy.

    ARMY SADDLERY (WOMEN'S WAGES).
    Mr. YEOasked the Home Secretary if it has been brought to his notice that women engaged on making saddle-covers for the Army are earning about one penny per hour, and 2d. to 3d. per hour on ground sheets, working about 59 hours per week, and that those in clerical work earn about 9s. 10d. per week of 59 hours, at a well-known firm doing Army work; and if he will cause inquiries to be made with a view that such a state of things should at the earliest possible moment be put an end to?
    Mr. BAKER: I have not received any complaint, but if the hon. Member will furnish particulars of the firm referred to, and of the rates paid for the operations involved, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.

    LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Local Government Board, if eligible men engaged in the Government valuation work are at liberty to join the Army or have they been refused the right to do so; is he aware that in consequence of many land agents having let their clerks join the Army it is impossible for them to make the necessary appeals within the prescribed time; and, under these circumstances, will he take steps to provide that longer time shall be given during which appeals can be made.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 16th instant, and to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oxford University on the 26th August last.

    WHEAT GROWING (INDUCEMENT TO BRITISH FARMERS).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the Government will offer some extra inducement to British farmers to put more land under wheat, seeing that the imports from some of the countries from which we drew four-fifths of our supplies will be much less, owing to the fact that many of their male workers on the land are at war?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wilton on 9th September.

    RETURNS FOR INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities exist to enable assessors and surveyors of taxes to ascertain particulars of returns for Income Tax made by taxpayers who disclose their place of residence as well as the place where the taxable profits are made and so prevent the annoyance to taxpayers of being called upon to make several returns; and what is the reason for additional demands for returns as to Super-tax being made upon persons whose returned income is far below the minimum amount upon which Super-tax is chargeable?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Records of addresses are kept in the offices of the local surveyors of taxes, and when a taxpayer makes it clear in a return rendered from his place of business that no income is directly chargeable upon him at his private residence these records are available to prevent unnecessary further applications. Forms of return for Super-tax are issued not by the surveyors of taxes, but by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax within whose discretion it lies to make application in any case where they are not possessed of information satisfying them as to the absence of liability.

    DEATH DUTIES (KILLED IN ACTION) ACT, 1914.
    Mr. PROTHEROasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of extending some measure of the relief granted by the Death Duties (Killed in Action) Act, 1914, to cases where, in consequence of the War, estates pass in indirect succession?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on this subject in the course of last Tuesday's Debate on the Clause put down by the hon. and learned Member for York City.

    ASSISTANCE TO COTTON TRADE.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance had been rendered by the Treasury to the cotton trade during the present period of depression?
    Mr. MONTAGU: His Majesty's Government have agreed to guarantee, jointly with the Liverpool Cotton Association and the Liverpool banks, advances made to merchants by those banks in order to enable them to meet market differences on raw cotton from 5d. per pound downwards which have been paid, or may have to be paid, in respect of cotton future contracts. Details of the scheme were announced in the Press on the 16th instant.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Will the hon. Gentleman give us any estimate of what will be the extent of that liability?
    Mr. MONTAGU: We hope it will amount to nothing, but perhaps my hon. Friend will raise that question in the Debate this afternoon.
    Mr. HIGHAM: Are we right in understanding that no assistance has been given to the spinning and manufacturing sections of the trade apart from Liverpool?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That I am not aware of.

    CONSOLS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the apprehension felt that the price and value of Consols has been, or will eventually be, greatly depreciated by the issue of the War Loan and by other actions of the Government; and whether steps are in contemplation to mitigate the effects of a heavy and lasting depreciation of the Consol market?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Depression in the prices of the public securities of a belligerent country is the inevitable result of extensive borrowing to meet war expenditure. This must be regarded as one of the risks accepted by the investor in such securities. The special steps taken by the Government in connection with the crisis have been largely concerned with preventing the forced realisation of securities and thus have directly tended to the maintenance of prices. It would be quite impossible in view of the calls upon the

    1321
    country for the prosecution of the War to give uncovenanted benefits to the holders of Consols with a view to maintaining artificially the price of that security, even if such a course could be adopted consistently with justice to the taxpayer.

    Government Buildings (Construction).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for Dumfries, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that bricklayers and masons are being discharged in considerable numbers from buildings that are in course of construction for the Government; and whether he will take steps to prevent further discharges and, if possible, have the men recently discharged reinstated and by so doing prevent unemployment and distress in these trades?
    Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The number of masons and bricklayers employed on Government buildings has increased rather than diminished and I am, therefore, at a loss to understand to what my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: If I furnish the hon. Gentleman with evidence, will he take some action in the matter?
    Mr. GULLAND: I shall be very glad to communicate with my right hon. Friend.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Nicholas Gaffney, of Crowenstown, Delvin, Westmeath, who applied for an old age pension some time ago and was found not to be seventy until November, 1914, will now be given a pension without further application?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Nicholas Gaffney's case has not been referred to the Local Government Board for decision, and therefore they have no information in regard to his age. If this man has been refused a pension, he cannot legally be granted one without making another application.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary on what evidence the Local Government Board for Ireland disallowed the old age pension granted by the Coole pension sub-committee to Michael Martin, of Streete, Westmeath; and, if only the opinion of the pension officer, will he say on what ground that opinion is held to
    1322
    displace the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee, the evidence of Michael M'Govern, aged eighty-three, the evidence of Charles Shannon, aged seventy-two and receiving an old age pension, that Martin is older than himself, and the opinion of Mr. J. Granville Wilson, J.P., landlord, of Streete, before whom Shannon made a statutory declaration?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The evidence of age submitted in connection with Michael Martin's application for an old age pension was not sufficient to justify the Local Government Board in holding that he had attained the age of seventy. He could produce no baptismal or other documentary evidence of age; and expressions of opinion not based on sufficient means of knowledge or other definite evidence are insufficient to prove that a claimant has reached the statutory age for pension purposes.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the question on the Paper: what evidence the pension officer gave to displace the evidence of the man aged eighty-three, and the others, and endorsed by the magistrate of the village?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The onus is upon the applicant, and the pension officer was not satisfied that these gentlemen had the means of knowing.
    Mr. GINNELL: A man eighty-three years of age?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That does not matter; it depends how long he knew the pensioner. He may be eighty-three years of age, but he may only have known the man of whom he was speaking five years.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that Christmas Day falls on a Friday this year and the following day being a Bank holiday will be an inconvenient day on which to pay old age pensions, he will arrange with the Postmaster-General for old age pensions to be paid on Thursday in Christmas week of this year, to prevent the old people concerned being left without their pensions until Monday in the following week?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Old age pensions are normally paid in advance on the first day of the week (Friday to Thursday) for which they are due. In ordinary cases, therefore, it cannot be regarded as a hardship if when the Friday is not a

    1323
    business day the payment is postponed until the Saturday. As, however, in the present case the postponement would be until the following Monday, it has been decided to give directions for payment on Thursday, 24th December.

    Lottery Circulars (Censors).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that lottery circulars are now being delivered in this country from abroad marked passed by the Censor; and whether, now that all such letters are opened, he can say why the Post Office takes part in this distribution of lottery circulars?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The censorship was established with a view to military exigencies and is not under my control. I think there may be difficulties in adopting my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I will consider it in conjunction with the censorship authorities. The Post Office has no knowledge of the contents of postal packets which have been opened by the Censor.

    Post Office Girl Clerks (Glasgow).
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the unemployment insurance section in Glasgow drew a large number of girl clerks from the post office there; whether these girls stipulated on their engagement that they would be continuously employed in Glasgow and not transferred to any other town; whether there is now an intention of changing the headquarters to Edinburgh, necessitating also the transfer of these girls; if so, whether he is aware that removal has the effect of reducing their remuneration in that lodgings have to be paid for; and what compensation is proposed for this breach of contract?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): A number of clerks in the employ of the General Post Office applied for and received appointments as women clerks in the Glasgow Divisional Office of the Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance Department of the Board of Trade in the summer of 1912. But so far from any undertaking having been given as to continuous employment in Glasgow it was one of the conditions of appointment to each new post that it should be "In such place or places within the
    1324
    United Kingdom as the Board of Trade may determine." As a matter of fact out of forty-three officers so transferred to the Glasgow Divisional Office only thirteen came from Glasgow offices, nine of the others coming from Edinburgh, and nineteen from London. It has been decided to transfer the work of the Divisional Office from Glasgow to Edinburgh for reasons given in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, on the 23rd November. I should regret if hardship were caused to any of the officers concerned, but although due weight is attached to the convenience of the staff, consideration of the general administrative needs of the Department must prevail. Officers transferred will have their travelling and removal expenses paid on the usual scales sanctioned by the Treasury, but no compensation will be payable.

    Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty.
    Mr. WATT: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) I beg to ask this silly Question 33—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty will apply to Scotland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Both the advantages and the obligations of this Treaty will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Stationery Office Contracts (Messrs. Reed and Smith, Cullompton).
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Stationery Department has completed the inquiry promised in reply to questions put on the 15th of June last with regard to certain Stationery Office contracts; and, if so, whether the statement then made as to the wages paid by Messrs. Reed and Smith, Cullompton, has been proved to be both misleading and incorrect?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The inquiry has been concluded, and I am communicating the results to my hon. Friend.

    Undefended Divorce Causes.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Attorney-General how often a Court has sat this term for the trial of undefended divorce causes; and whether the possibility of borrowing a judge from the King's Bench Division so that these cases can be heard without further delay will be considered?
    Sir J. SIMON: A Court has sat this term on eight days for the trial of undefended divorce causes. The work of the Division is, I am informed, proceeding normally, and there is at present no unusual number of cases in arrear, and according to the present prospects there will be no difficulty in dealing with the present list. Both judges of the Division will be sitting next week taking divorce causes.

    Loans (Ireland).
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table the instructions recently issued by the Treasury to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland on the subject of loans in Ireland?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I would refer the hon. Baronet to my answer of the 19th inst., in which the present position is fully explained. I see some inconvenience in laying on the Table Departmental correspondence which, as I have already stated, is still proceeding.

    Glasgow Cathedral (Repairs).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the accounts for the repairs executed on Glasgow Cathedral have yet been passed by the Edinburgh office; if so, at what date; whether these have yet been paid by the Comptroller of Accounts; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay?
    Mr. GULLAND: The contractor's account was paid on the 15th of October.

    Street Traffic Fatalities (Metropolis).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many street traffic fatalities have occurred in the Metropolitan Police district and the City of London since the beginning of November this year; and how many occurred during the corresponding period of last year?
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I cannot give the information required as the figures are not yet available.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many street traffic fatalities occurred in the Metropolitan Police district and the City of London during the months of September and October of this year; and how many occurred during the corresponding months of last year?
    Mr. McKENNA: There were 101 fatalities in September and October last year, and 163 in the corresponding months this year.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: May I ask my right hon. Friend if these are the figures which he depended upon for his statement that there had been no increase in fatalities recently?
    Mr. McKENNA: I was then referring to a question which was addressed to me earlier, which included all accidents, but I was very doubtful about it all through. I had understood that he was referring to the Metropolis. I should have refrained from answering as I had not got the figures then before me. As regards all accidents, my answer was right.

    Flogging Sentences (Boys).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the sentence in Edinburgh Police Court of six stripes on two lads of eleven and twelve years of age, respectively; and whether, in view of recent legislation, he has sanctioned the carrying out of sentences of this nature?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): My hon. Friend surely does not suggest that my sanction is required to the exercise of ordinary criminal jurisdiction. I cannot understand to what recent legislation he refers.

    Court of Sessions Clerks.
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether any vacancies occurred either by death or otherwise among Court of Session clerks during the last year; if so, how many, and were these vacancies filled by promotions from within or by importations from without; and, if the latter, will he say who were appointed and what positions they formerly held, and what were the qualifications for their new posts which were not possessed by those who had long been engaged in Court of Session work?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): Two depute and one assistant clerk of Session have died during the past year. One of the vacancies in the office of depute clerk and the vacancy in the office of assistant clerk thus created were filled by the promotion of the ordinary or assistant clerk in the First Division of the Court of

    1327
    Session, and of the ordinary clerk in the Bill Chamber respectively. The vacancy created by the first-mentioned promotion was filled by the appointment of Mr. R. A. Hannah. Mr. Hannah for years held a responsible position in a legal office in Edinburgh and had acquired an intimate knowledge of Court procedure and practice. The office of ordinary clerk in the Bill Chamber is at present vacant. The remaining vacancy in the office of depute clerk was filled by the appointment of Mr. John Smart, formerly clerk to the Lord Advocate. With respect to this appointment and to the last part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, I beg to refer him to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Minor Legal Appointments.
    Mr. WATT: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman referring to himself or to a former Lord Advocate?
    Mr. MUNRO: I may remind the hon. and learned Member that the Committee to which I have referred with definite clearness, singled out Lord Advocate's clerks for preferential treatment. It is quite true my learned Friend differed from the Report of the Committee, but he can hardly expect me to follow his dissentient views rather than the Report of the Majority.

    Sheriff Clerk Deputies (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he proposes to introduce this Session the Bill dealing with sheriff clerk deputies, in view of the fact that it is a non-party measure?
    Mr. MUNRO: I hope that it may be possible to introduce during this Session legislation dealing with the subject referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, but it will be manifest to him that it is not possible to make a definite statement on the subject now.

    Retailing of Spirits and Medicated Wines.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of making it illegal to retail any spirits under thirty-three under proof instead of twenty-five as at present; and whether he will consider the advisability of enforcing, as in patent medicines,
    1328
    a Stamp Duty of 1s. per reputed bottle and 6d. per reputed pint on all medicated wines?
    Mr. MONTAGU: As regards the first part of the question, I may point out that it is not illegal to sell spirits below a particular strength. All that the law provides is that this must not be done to the prejudice of the purchaser, i.e., without proper notice. As regards the second part of the question, I would point out that the whole question of patent medicines (including medicated wines) has recently been reported on by a Select Committee, and my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion apart from the general questions raised in their Report.

    Subventions to Local Authorities.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his new Budget proposals, provision is being made to enable him to grant the subventions to local authorities which were outlined in his Budget statement last Session?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make any proposals in regard to the matter referred to.

    Seamen's Dispute (Liverpool).
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is aware that, in connection with the seamen's dispute at Liverpool, three Board of Trade officials went to Birkenhead on Monday last and transferred part of two Chinese crews on to two boats in the river; whether this interference in the dispute was done with the sanction of the Department; whether as regards these Chinese seamen the language test was put into operation; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter and take steps to prevent a repetition of such action?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I received this question just before three o'clock. I communicated with my Department, and I am told there that they have no knowledge whatever of the facts which are stated in the question of my hon. Friend. If he will allow me, I will make a further communication with Liverpool and communicate with him.

  H.M.S. "BULWARK."
    DESTRUCTION AT SHEERNESS.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret to say that I have bad news for the House. The "Bulwark" battleship, which was lying in Sheerness this morning, blew up at 7.53 a.m. The Vice and Rear-Admirals who were present have reported their conviction that it was an internal magazine explosion which rent the ship asunder. There was, apparently, no upheaval of water. The ship had entirely disappeared when the smoke had cleared away. An inquiry will be held to-morrow, which may possibly throw more light on this occurrence. The loss of the ship does not sensibly affect the military position; but I regret to say that the loss of life is very severe. Only twelve men are saved, and all the officers and the rest of the crew, which, I suppose, amounted to between 700 and 800 persons, have perished. I think the House would wish me to express on their behalf the deep sympathy and sorrow with which the House has heard the news, and the sympathy they feel with those who have lost their relatives and friends.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Committee of Supply.—[The Prime Minister.]
  Ordered, That the Third Reading of the Government War Obligations Bill may be taken immediately after the Consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Third Reading stages of such a Bill.—[The Prime Minister.]

  WAR IN EUROPE.

    EAST INDIA (EXPENSES OF INDIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE).
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): I beg to move,
    "That, His Majesty having directed military forces charged upon the revenues of India to be dispatched out of India for service in the War in which this country is engaged, this House consents that the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of any troops so dispatched, or that may be so dispatched during the continuance of the War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that may be employed in these expeditions which would have been charged upon the resources of India if such troops or vessels had remained in that country or seas adjacent, shall continue to be so chargeable provided that, if it shall be necessary to replace the troops or vessels so withdrawn by other vessels or forces, then the expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such vessels and forces shall be repaid out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the said expeditions."
    Two months ago the Prime Minister moved a Motion in this House relating to the dispatch of the Indian forces to Europe. Under it the House of Commons gave its assent to the payment from Indian revenues of the ordinary charges of a force of British and Indian troops to be dispatched to Europe for service during the present
    1352
    War. That Resolution, however, did not sanction the application of Indian revenues to defray the cost of military operations outside India in non-European areas of the War, and it is therefore necessary to pass the present Supplementary Resolution, which gives a general assent to the contribution which India wishes to make to the expenses of the Indian forces employed in any of the theatres of War, wherever they may be. It was not an oversight that the original Resolution did not cover the whole ground. Parliament has rightly surrounded with constitutional safeguards the application of Indian revenues to pay the cost of Indian expeditions outside the confines of India except in cases of invasion or unforeseen sudden emergency, and therefore it has been thought necessary to get the assent of both Houses of Parliament to meet the gap which is now proposed to be covered.
    I ought to add one word as to the finance of this proposal. As has been already explained, India does not seek to make any profit or saving out of the absence of the troops which she would otherwise have to pay for if they remained in Indian cantonments. Therefore it has been agreed, with the unanimous consent of the Legislative Council, that Indian revenues should continue to bear the normal expenses which they would have had to bear if the War had not taken place, while this country pays the extraordinary expenses involved in the dispatch of troops to the theatre of War. That was the financial arrangement under the previous Resolution. It is proposed to follow that precedent in the present Supplementary Resolution, but it must be understood that it is not a hard and fast rule, but is liable to subsequent modification by agreement, and with the assent of Parliament, according to the nature of the operations in which the Indian troops may be engaged. In any case, we have warmly to recognise the substantial help which is being afforded to the Empire by the appearance of Indian troops at a great number of points in a battle line which extends from Tsingtau to La Bassée across the breadth of three Continents.
    So much for the purely technical and formal aspect of this Motion. But I was asked a little while ago to explain the absence of the customary Budget statement in reference to Indian finances, and I should like to take this opportunity of making it plain that the postponement

    1353
    was not due to any inattention or indifference to Indian questions. Indeed, I think there never was a time when the interest in Indian questions and the feeling? of goodwill between England and India was more widespread or more strong than at present. All the documents required by Statute have been presented to Members of the House of Commons, but, just as our own domestic discussions have had to be postponed, so the discussion on some Indian points had better be taken at a later date. But I do not think they will suffer by the delay, and I hope that circumstances may admit that, later on in the present Session, the customary Budget discussion on Indian affairs will take place. I should like also to take this opportunity of mentioning that there have been some complaints in the papers, both here and in India, as to the meagre details which have been given of the work of the Indian troops. It is known, of course, that they have taken part in the reduction of Tsingtau, in the rapid and successful occupation of Fao and Basra, in the Persian Gulf; they are in force in Egypt, they took part in the landing at Shaik Said, and, sharing the vicissitudes of war, they were present at an attack against great odds, in East Africa. Of course, the main force is in France, taking part in battles which are taking even longer to decide than the famous battle of the great Indian epic, which lasted eighteen days before it was concluded. We all agree that it is exceptionally necessary in the case of India that full details of the work of the Indian troops should be given, and arrangements have been made towards that end. There are official reporters who send summaries of the doings of the Indian troops, which are telegraphed to India, and we plead with the Military Censor to give us as much information as military necessities will allow. On the other hand, everyone recognises that ever since the debacle at Sedan, which was undoubtedly facilitated by the publication of news in the London newspapers, the military censorship in all countries grows stricter and stricter. It is, of course, a strain on our natural anxieties, but we are endeavouring to give as much news as we can.
    There is also one special disadvantage in reference to the Indian troops. The newspaper accounts have mainly referred to gallant behaviour on the part of the Sikhs and Gurkhas, and they fully deserve all the recognition which they have obtained. But there are other Indian races who are represented—Pathans, Jats,
    1354
    Dogras, Mussulman Punjabis, and others—whose doings have been somewhat overlooked. Of the actual exploits of the troops the official reports, private letters and the accounts of eye-witnesses all tell the same story. There is no need to speak of the quality of the British units in the Indian Army, or of the very gallant leadership of the officers with the Indian troops, but the Indian troops themselves have by all accounts acquitted themselves in accordance with the expectations of those who best know their courage and training. They very soon adapted themselves to conditions of fighting which are as novel to them as to the British troops. They have stood the shell fire steadily, and when the time comes to give the details of their action in the recent fighting it will be, I am sure, a record of which both India and England will be proud. I hope I may also be allowed to bear testimony to the energy of the Viceroy during the outbreak of this War. The varied expeditions which have been dispatched from India show the energy which he has displayed in the midst of personal griefs and anxieties, for the organisation of the Lady Hardinge Hospital in this country reminds us of a sorrow which is still recent, and the House knows that his son, on whom the D.S.O. has been conferred, has been severely wounded. We have to express our sincere sympathy and our admiration for the energy with which the resources of India have been marshalled in the service of the Empire. Perhaps I may also be allowed to bear testimony to the invaluable services of the Commander-in-Chief, Sir Beauchamp Duff, and to express also our great sympathy with him in the loss which he has sustained in the death of his son in the War.
    I hope the House wall bear with me also if I say a word or two about the loyalty which India has displayed during the dispatch of these expeditions. It is always difficult, at a distance from any country, to be sure that one gauges and interprets rightly the feeling of that country, but I think one distinguishes certain different notes as one reads the mass of telegrams, resolutions, manifestos, speeches and newspaper articles in which Indian opinion has expressed itself. It is quite impossible to summarise them, but I think one notes first the fighting spirit of many of the Ruling

    1355
    Chiefs who at once dispatched telegrams pleading in urgent and insistent terms their personal claim to serve the King-Emperor upon the battlefield. I quote one picturesque phrase which struck me in one telegram. It ran as follows:—
    "The noise of battle is lulling music to Rajput blood."
    4.0 P.M.
    That is the spirit of the Maharajahs who are at the front—the veteran Sir Pretab Singh and his young nephew, and the Maharajahs of Bikanir and Kishengarh. Will the House allow me to quote a telegram which the Maharajah of Bikanirsent:—
    "I and my troops are ready and prepared to go at once to any place, either in Europe or India, or wherever services in got be usefully employed in the interest of safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and his Dominions. Your Excellency knows the traditions of the Rathor Bika Rajputs. We long to be early at the front, but whether my troops can be used at present or not, I would earnestly ask your Excellency at least to give me myself an opportunity for that personal military service of the King-Emperor and the Empire which is my highest ambition as a Rathor Chief and as a member of His Imperial Majesty's Staff."
    The Maharajah of Bikanir has had his wish. He is in France at the front, and his Camel Corps has been doing very useful service in the peninsula of Sinai. Might I add one other telegram? This was sent by the Nizam of Hyderabad, the ruler of a Mahomedan State, who said:—
    "At this crisis I beg that your Excellency will lay before His Majesty the King-Emperor the assurance that my heart beats at one with that of all the loyal people of Great Britain and her Dominions throughout the world, and that my sword and the whole resources of my State are His Majesty's to command for England and the Empire."
    It is very difficult to acknowledge adequately all the princely munificence of the ruling chiefs in connection with the expedition. The generosity of the Maharajah of Jaipur and that of the Maharajah of Gwalior may be mentioned as instances. The Maharajah of Gwalior, besides princely contributions to every fund started in England or India, running into many thousands of pounds, organised, jointly with the Begum of Bhopal, a hospital ship and has given a large contribution of horses. His latest munificent gift is a fully equipped motor ambulance fleet. Ill-health alone, to his grievous disappointment, has prevented him from taking the field in person.
    There is a wave of loyalty, instinctive and emotional loyalty, which has swept over the people of India. But it would be unfair not to recognise that besides this, there is among the Indian educated classes
    1356
    a loyalty based on reason and the recognition of facts. It is at times less warmly expressed, but it is none the less substantial. It is sensible of the undeniable benefits conferred by British rule. It regards—not to put the case too high—the present regime as the best working arrangement for India. It is satisfied that within the framework of the Empire legitimate hopes and aspirations can in due time be met. I think also that this more sober sentiment finds expression also among those Moslems who cannot but feel the strain on their religious sympathies imposed by the insensate folly of Turkey's attack upon the British Empire. Men like the Nizam of Hyderabad or the Aga Khan have been unhesitating in the advice they have given to those with whom their views naturally carry weight. Indian Moslems have, I believe, made up their minds that their secular allegiance is due to the King-Emperor. They know that their religion obtains the amplest toleration and respect in the British Empire, and that the idea that the present War is a religious war is an absurdity. The matter is perhaps summed up in the remark of a Mussulman Indian:—
    "Why should anyone question the loyalty of India? Is it not our Empire too?"
    What is happening before our eyes does, at all events, vindicate the policy that has been adopted and is being worked out in India—the policy of enlisting the co-operation of Indians in the work of government. There is no finality in the task of adjusting the machinery of government to Indian conditions and to the new forces that our own action has evoked. For the time being, as everyone recognises, administrative and constitutional problems are necessarily in abeyance, but I wish to take this opportunity of announcing a change in the Constitution of one of the provinces which was in course of settlement before the outbreak of the War. It is not a change of a very far-reaching character, and the Secretary of State and the Viceroy see no reason in the existence of the War to postpone the announcement. The Secretary of State has asked me to state that he has approved the proposal of the Governor-General in Council to create a small Council in the United Provinces to assist the Lieutenant-Governor in the executive government of the province. A draft of the necessary Proclamation will be laid in due course before Parliament. This will give to the United Provinces a machinery of government similar to that which obtains in the larger provinces of India. It will, incidentally,

    1357
    enable an Indian to serve as a member of the highest Executive Council in the province. I should add that the establishment of the council has the support of the Viceroy and of the Lieutenant-Governor. For the rest, it is premature to attempt to anticipate the consequences that may follow from this striking and historic event—the participation of India in force in the World-War of the Empire. The results will not be fully seen until the War is over. But it is clear that India claims to be not a mere dependent of but a partner in the Empire, and her partnership with us in spirit and on the battlefields cannot but alter the angle from which we shall all henceforward look at the problems of the government of India.
    I think I may call the attention of the House of Commons to one possible illustration of this change in the point of view. It must be a source of pride and satisfaction to India that she has sent the first of the great contingents from the Over-Seas Dominions into the European theatre of War, and that one of her brave soldiers, if the newspaper statements are correct, has been recommended for the coveted distinction of the Victoria Cross. The Indian Armies are soon to be followed by troops from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. I need not allude to points of friction that have existed between India and some other parts of the Empire, though I am glad to remember that the difficulties in South Africa have been overcome. But I should wish to refer to the summary of the Viceroy's speech in the Legislative Council during the Debate on the dispatch of the troops a few weeks ago. He said:—
    "There is nothing like comradeship in arms and joint participation in the dangers and hardships of war to level distinctions, inspire mutual respect, and foster friendship."
    He added:—
    "I cannot help feeling that as a consequence better relations will be promoted amongst the component parts of the British Empire. Many misunderstandings will be removed and outstanding grievances will be settled in an amicable and generous manner. In this sense, out of evil good may come to India, and this is the desire of us all."
    I am sure that that wish is shared also by the Secretary of State and will be echoed in the House of Commons. In the atmosphere of friendship and goodwill which unites India and England to-day there is surely a bright hope for the future. India must feel that East and West are engaged in a military partnership which, as we believe, is both for the benefit of the Indian peoples and for the Empire as a whole, and I cannot but trust
    1358
    that the common endeavours of these days will enable India to realise that she is occupying, and is destined to occupy, a place in our free Empire worthy alike of her ancient civilisation and thought, of the valour of her fighting races, and of the patriotism of her sons.
    Mr. H. W. FORSTER: The willingness of India to continue to shoulder the financial burdens, the cost of the Military Forces which are fighting for the King-Emperor in many quarters of the world is only characteristic of her splendid and unswerving loyalty, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for India has given full recognition to it. It is only right that we in our turn should bear the cost—and I am sure we shall not grudge it—of the troops that we send to India to take their place. The hon. Gentleman has paid an eloquent and well-merited tribute to the Indian troops and to the Indian native princes, and I have risen at the request of my right hon. Friend to say how closely we associate ourselves with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken of the valuable assistance which the Indian troops have been giving on the battlefields of Europe, of their valour and their unfailing courage. None of us ever doubted it, because we knew their history, because we knew that as fighting men there are no better fighters in the world, and in spite of the withering influence of the censorship, we have been able to read something of the prowess of the Sikhs and Gurkhas, and other of the native troops in Europe.
    I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman remind us—which many of us do not forget—that glorious as are the deeds of the Sikhs and Gurkhas, those feats of courage are emulated by the representatives of many other native races who are serving with the Indian troops. I am not going to attempt to enumerate them, lest I should omit even one that was worthy of honourable mention, but I will only say—and this applies to all of them—that they came from the land of their birth, which few of them had ever left before, inspired by the deepest devotion and loyalty, to fight for the Empire. The conditions and circumstances in which they are called upon to fight are wholly new and wholly strange to them, but they have changed their skies only and not their spirit. The fighting men of the Indian Empire, remembering the splendid history of their fathers, have by their valour, by their stedfastness,

    1359
    by their endurance, proved themselves worthy of their ancient and honourable traditions. For them as for us, for their sons as for ours, the highest honour to which any man can attain is to do his duty in the service of the King, laying down his life if necessary. They have declared their pride in being allowed to fight for the Empire, and this, the Mother of the Empire, may well declare her pride in them.
    Colonel YATE: May I, as an old Indian officer, be also permitted to associate myself with what has been said by the Under-Secretary of State for India. May I also say, how proud and rejoiced I am to see Indian soldiers now serving in all parts of the world, and to see them taking a fuller and fuller share day by day in all our Imperial burdens. I would like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his references to the valour and fighting qualities of the Indian Army. We have seen Indian troops fighting now in all parts of the world. We saw the other day that they took an active part in conjunction with the Japanese in capturing Kiaochau, in China, from the Germans. We see them defending our possessions in East Africa from the attacks of the Germans in that part of the world. They have captured Fau and Bassarah at the head of the Persian Gulf, and the Bikanir Camel Corps only the other day fought a successful action against the Turkish forces advancing on Egypt. Not only the Regular regiments of the Indian Army are fighting for us all over the world, but there are as well other regiments, known in India as the Imperial Service troops, which belong to Native States in India, and which are joined with us in all these enterprises. No complete list of these Imperial Service troops has yet been published, but we know that the Jodhpur Lancers, the Haidarabad Lancers, and regiments from various other Indian States are serving in France and Belgium, in addition to the Bikanir Camel Corps in Egypt, and the Kashmir Rifles in East Africa. The eagerness with which all the Indian Rulers offered the services of their various regiments has been already touched upon by the Secretary of State for India. The one point necessary for us to see to in this connection is that these Imperial Service troops belonging to the Native States of India are provided with properly educated and trained officers, so that they
    1360
    may be able to take their place in line with the Regular regiments of the Indian Army on terms of perfect equality.
    I am glad to say that the Imperial Cadet Corps, which was founded by Lord Curzon some years ago, has been a great step in advance in opening up a military career for so many of the young aristocracy of India who desire it. I may call this institution the "Sandhurst" of India. This Cadet Corps will, I hope, as time goes on be greatly enlarged and will thus be able to provide a full and constant supply of young officers for these Imperial Service regiments. All cadets in this Imperial Cadet Corps should, I think, be placed on the same footing as cadets from Sandhurst in England, and should be granted commissions as lieutenants and captains in a similar way, and take rank with them equally when on service with them. I know that it will take a considerable time to find a full supply of officers to fill all the Imperial Service regiments but the work will be taken in hand, I hope, without delay so that these officers may be able to serve side by side with our own officers on terms of perfect equality. Some 250 years ago in the time of the Emperor Aurungzeb, the Maharajah of Jodhpur, led his victorious Rajputs to Kabul; at that time you may say the furthermost limit of the Indian political horizon. To-day, under the ægis of the British Empire, you see the present Maharajah of Jodhpur, with that gallant uncle of his, the Veteran Maharajah Sir Pertab Singh, together with the Maharajahs of Kishengarh and Bikamir, and many other Chiefs, leading their Rajputs to serve with us in France and Belgium. And I hope that the day is not far distant when those Chiefs will lead their Rajputs victorious to Berlin. There is one point which I should like to mention in connection with the Indian Army. I am not sure whether the Government have been able to supply a proper reserve of British officers for the Regular regiments of the Indian Army. We see an enormous loss of officers day by day. We see what a necessity there is to have a large reserve, and I would ask the Under-Secretary to see that the Government of India should take up this question in all seriousness. You cannot post officers to Indian regiments without a knowledge of the language and customs of India, as can be done from the Officers' Training Corps to regiments in England, and I trust that opportunity will

    1361
    be taken without delay to try to secure an adequate reserve of officers for the Army in India.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I only rise to ask the Under-Secretary if he will tell us whether any provision has been made for assistance to relatives and friends of Indian soldiers on lines similar to those arranged in the case of our own troops, or whether any arrangement has been made for pensions in the event of their being killed. I would ask, if such arrangements have been made, whether the expense is being borne by the Indian Government or as part of the grant that has been made. I do not know whether he will be in a position to answer the question now. If not, I shall put it down.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down. I have not got the full details in my mind.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. LONG: There are a few observations which I desire to make in regard to the general situation. My first duty is to thank the Prime Minister for arranging to have the Third Reading of this Bill down to-day, as practically the first Order, in order to give us the opportunity of saying what we have to say. I am sure the House will realise that the Third Reading of the Bill is a more appropriate and convenient occasion on which to say anything that has to be said in regard to the situation than the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I may also be allowed to say how entirely we on this side sympathise with His Majesty's Government in the an-announcement which the First Lord of the Admiralty had to make to the House to-day, and how deeply we sympathise with the relatives of those gallant officers and men who have offered their lives for their country, no less than those who have been engaged in actual combat. I believe that it is the unanimous opinion of everybody in this great Empire that this lamentable and terrible War should be brought to a conclusion, the only one conclusion that we choose to contemplate, as speedily as may be possible. To effect that desirable
    1362
    end it is also the unanimous opinion that a constant supply of men to our gallant Army at the front is absolutely necessary. More men, and more men at once, is the cry which reaches us from all that are engaged at the seat of war. That is an object on which I know the Government have embarked. I know that they are doing all in their power with unfailing energy to supply our Army in France with all the reinforcements possible, but if these reinforcements are to be sent, and if the supply of them is to be continuous, it is obvious that we must seek a continual supply of the troops; and in this respect I would venture to urge once again, because this is the last occasion on which it will be possible for us to make representations of the kind, the pressing necessity of giving to the country some further information than that which we have received. I know the difficulty, and fully appreciate it, to which the Prime Minister referred when he was good enough to reply to some remarks of mine a few days ago. I fully appreciate the difficulty of an embargo laid upon us by our Allies. I fully appreciate the difficulty of fearing to do anything which is contrary to their wishes. But I would desire most respectfully to suggest that there is all the difference in the world between our Army and the armies of our Allies. Ours is happily to-day a voluntary Army, recruited without any pressure, and in order that we may keep it as strong as possible we want first to keep up the enthusiasm of our people.
    The news that we have received from time to time can hardly be called news. In the first place, it arrives as a rule very late in the day, and, secondly it is the most partial kind. I appreciate the difficulty to which the Prime Minister referred, and which is present in everybody's mind, namely, that we must do nothing which would play into the hands of the enemy. I believe that there is no sacrifice that the people of this country are not prepared willingly to make rather than give one fraction of aid to the enemy by receiving news or in any other way. But the news might be supplemented very largely without giving any possibility of advantage or even valuable information to the enemy. The other day there appeared in the newspapers an inspiring address by Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, a most distinguished general, to the West Kent Regiment, of which he spoke in terms which I am sure were fully deserved. But what

    1363
    was the thought that arose in the mind of everybody who heard those inspiring words? It was not one of envy or jealousy? of the West Kent Regiment; it was not that they regretted that it had come in for a full meed of praise, but it was that, gallantly and nobly as this regiment may have done, still, in all probability, it was very little better than the conduct of any other regiment in the whole of the gallant British Army which is now upholding the honour of the country with so much credit and distinction. The mere fact of one regiment being mentioned makes it inevitable that others feel a longing for recognition. I do not mean the regiment themselves, and I am not speaking on behalf of the men fighting, for they put aside all questions of this kind; but I am speaking of the relatives and friends here, and I am speaking of the effect that this kind of news must have on people when we want recruits.
    I am convinced it must be possible to give us news of a more ample character without any risk of giving information to the enemy, and I believe that until we do that you will not find that unanimous and general response on the part of the people in regard to recruits which is desired. Recruits we must have if we are to get a continuous supply of men sufficient in numbers to fill up our regiments at the front, and keep on filling them up until this War is ended. Therefore, I most earnestly hope that there may be a change for the better, and that we may be given fuller information. I venture to repeat the suggestion made the other day, namely, that some special correspondents should be sent out from this country to different parts of the scene of War, and to them should be entrusted the duty of sending to us information—at all events as to our own Army—information which would be welcomed here, and which I hope will be given. For a reason which I confess I fail altogether to understand, the Under-Secretary of State for War has up to the present declined to tell us what is the number of recruits. We have never yet had the information, and the right hon. Gentleman especially declines to give the figures in detail. The actual number can only be given as a general figure, because, of course, it naturally varies from day to day, returns not coming in, I imagine, regularly or simultaneously, and therefore the total figure could only be given approximately. But I think it is
    1364
    really of vital importance, if I may say so in the presence of the Prime Minister, that the figures should be given for certain areas of the country. I would like to see those areas made as small as possible. I will only take one case as a fair illustration, and any Member of the House will be able to supply similar cases from his own experience. This is one which has come within my own personal experience in regard to two villages, the population of which is somewhere about 800 or 900. Those two villages have sent to the Colours about 120 men—a very large percentage, and if the House deducts from the population the men over age and the boys under age, and the women and children, it will be found to be a very startling percentage of the available population that has joined the Colours.
    Close by there are two other villages precisely similar in population, in their history, and in their surroundings. What do you find? You find that only one or perhaps two men have gone to the War. I have not the smallest doubt that there is a reason for this, and if this question of recruiting is thoroughly and persistently perused, those reasons may be met and the difficulties may be overcome. In the first instance, it is desirable to know what the various districts have done and are doing. I do not want to refer to any particular district, because one must look into the facts of each district before condemning a particular one for not sending up a larger number of men. It does not at all follow, because they have not sent up men, that they have not done so for some unsatisfactory reason; there may be very good reasons to account for it. I am sure the House will feel the force of this remark. You have got a great many recruits, but you are going on to get more. We have got to get men. We have written off the word "impossible"; it is taken out of the dictionary for this purpose; it does not exist for us at this moment. We have got to get the men. It is obvious that in those districts from which a very large number of men have been sent that the feeling should exist, as it does to my knowledge, that it is not fair to ask them to send more men from those districts until an effort has been made to bring other districts up to a level with them by sending larger numbers of men. We want to see what they are doing, and, if we had that information, I am convinced it would aid recruiting, and tell us what we do not know at the present moment.

    1365
    Therefore, I respectfully and earnestly urge on the Government that they should give us these figures, if only in an approximate form, and if they have no other effect they would, at all events, have this effect, that they would create a healthy spirit of emulation as between different parts of the country. What one district is doing will be heard of outside it and each district will at least try to do as well as the others, and this competition would aid us in the work in which we are engaged, namely, in getting enough men. The War has brought with it naturally and inevitably a demand for money. I am not going, I hope, in anything I say—certainly not in these remarks—to criticise adversely the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in finding this money. Enough has been said on that subject, and so far as I am entitled to speak for one of the greatest industries in this country, the agricultural interest, they are ready to bear, without a murmur, any burden placed upon them, and which they can bear in their strong desire to do at least their full share in helping the country to face the present situation. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not consider, when he was devising his taxation, the effect it was bound to have upon the agricultural districts. By putting an increase upon the Beer Duty he has—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question would be more appropriate upon the Finance Bill.
    Mr. LONG: I beg pardon; I understand that the subject is not in order, but I will pass on. I thought that it perhaps might be convenient to make my remarks at this time as leading up to a suggestion I am going to make, apart altogether from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course we are bound to contemplate the possibility of a raid by the enemy in this country, and whatever may be the view as to the possibility or impossibility of it, our duty, no doubt, is to make provision against that possible eventuality. I am not a soldier or a sailor, and therefore I only speak as a civilian in this matter, but I imagine that one of the duties which the Government would have to see carried out would be the destruction of foodstuffs in the immediate vicinity of the coast or for some distance on the coast where it was feared that a raid would be attempted. I wish to make this suggestion or recommendation to the Government, that they should at once collect the food supplies on the coast, which are now in stacks, and
    1366
    which could be threshed by the farmers at an average price to store in some of the inland cities, where they would be perfectly safe in the event of an invasion. In doing this the Government would not only be spending the money well, but they would be securing this very large amount of food supply against possible disaster in the future; because, if an invasion did take place, it is quite obvious that the destruction of these food supplies would have to be wholesale and immediate, and they would be absolutely lost to the country. It would be, of course, an advantage—I do not think a great advantage, but it would be an advantage—to the farmers in the particular areas if they sold their corn supplies at once at, say, an average price, and that food supply would be here for the country, and, if happily there was no invasion, it would remain in absolute security as a portion of the food supply that otherwise might have been lost altogether.
    I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture in his place. I confess I regret that at this particular moment his Department have chosen to allow foreign cattle to come into the country, even under the precautions which he told us in the House they have adopted. Hitherto we have been saved in a most remarkable way in this country from disease. I have had myself to resist pressure brought upon me to allow this thing to be done, and I am very sorry indeed that it has been done at this moment, when every effort ought to be made to secure the interests of the agricultural community, who are so largely dependent upon that part of their industry. I regret that the Board have departed from a well-established principle, really the only one which is prudent and absolutely necessary in present circumstances, because it has occurred at a time when the country is in a totally different condition from what it was.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The importation was made before the outbreak of the War.
    Mr. LONG: No; and according to the information given, the permission was not granted for the importation of the cattle, until afterwards.
    Sir H. VERNEY: The cattle were imported on the 1st August.
    Mr. LONG: Yes, but I understood the information given to the House was that

    1367
    the cattle were brought here and were kept for a considerable period in the river in quarantine. Surely the hon. Baronet knows that we have before now held up cattle and refused to allow them to come into the country. I am afraid I cannot allow that as an argument in variation of what has happened. I am not going to carry the question any further now; this is not the time, but I do profoundly regret that such a very large interest as the agricultural interest should be exposed at this time of all others to the undoubted risks to which we are exposed by what the Board of Agriculture has done. I desire to say one word about a question which has often been discussed here, namely, as to the action of the Government in regard to spies and alien enemies. The other day the Home Secretary made a speech which I confess, as far as I was concerned, did not leave me much wiser than I was at the beginning. It was very difficult to ascertain where the responsibility for dealing with this very difficult question really rests. But it was clear that the Home Secretary resented very much the attack that had been made upon him in newspapers, and he defended himself. I do not think the Home Secretary has been attacked with anything like the ferocity with which some of us have been attacked. Certainly I myself, nearly twenty years ago, was attacked not only, as the Home Secretary told us he is, by a section of the Press, but practically by the whole Press, and I enjoyed what I believe is the unique honour amongst all Ministers, and certainly has not fallen to his lot, namely, that a petition signed by 80,000 people was presented to the then Prime Minister praying that I should be removed from office. As far as I know, whatever may be the feeling about the Home Secretary, I do not think that he has been attacked in that way. But he and I adopt different methods. I read the attacks which were made upon me—some of them with great amusement, and some with great interest, and some with great advantage—but I never defended myself. The Home Secretary defends himself, but he does not read the attacks.
    I venture to suggest to him that he should alter his policy, and that he should read the attacks upon him and should not defend himself, because I can assure him I know what an attack in a newspaper means. When people sit down to write articles, although I have never done it
    1368
    myself, as it does not come within our public life—when they sit down to write those articles about people they have a very strong grudge against for some reason, sometimes there is more ink on the pen than is absolutely necessary. Nobody is very much the worse for it so long as the person attacked is really doing his best to the utmost of his power and is confident that he is going to secure satisfactory results. That is the only question I think the Home Secretary has got to answer. What has been the complaint which has been made in the newspapers and which has been urged from these benches repeatedly? It is that there has not been a really definite policy, and nobody really and clearly responsible for the prosecution of that policy, and that there has been great want of energy in dealing with these people throughout the country. In the speeches of the Home Secretary, and in those which were made yesterday in another place, the mind of the Government seems to run eternally upon the spy. The spy is a very courageous person because he does his work under the most terrible difficulty and with the greatest possible risk. He must be a very clever person and a highly trained person to be of the smallest use in the profession he has adopted. But the alien enemy is a totally different person. I could not follow the Home Secretary the other day. He told us that in dealing with the herds and crowds of alien enemy that had been dealt with by the Government, and that had been swept into the enclosures where they are interned, that he had acted on the advice of the Secretary of State for War and not on his own initiative. Presumably the Secretary of State for War, holding the opinion that a large number of alien enemies might at some moment become a danger to this country by their presence in our midst, asked the Home Secretary to deal with them, and he consequently sweeps them into enclosures.
    But in addition to the alien enemy there are undoubtedly in the country, and we are not singular to it, a great many people who are mere tools in the hands either of the spy or of the alien enemy who wishes to do this country harm. They are people who are subject at any moment to be employed by them for mischievous purposes. I read to-day an account of a Debate which took place in another place and in which the Lord Chancellor complained of the action of some of the Noble Lords there, and of many of us here and elsewhere, on

    1369
    the ground that our information is not sufficiently definite, and I rather gathered the other day from the Home Secretary that that was his view.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)dissented.
    Mr. LONG: I thought you had taken that line, but it was clearly the line taken by the Lord Chancellor, and I say that it is a preposterous line for any Minister to take and for this reason: As the Government themselves have shown, investigation into allegations against individuals is a most difficult task, and if you are going to proceed on the lines that only those people are to be dealt with against whom a definite case can be determined, then I say you will not deal with the danger in anything like a practical or satisfactory manner. I began my remarks by referring to the work which our soldiers are doing abroad, and to the enormous strain laid upon them, and to the heroic character of their services. I submit with confidence to this House, and I believe that irrespective of party, in or out of this House, the great mass of my fellow-countrymen believe with me, that you ought to run any risk in interning or shutting up innocent people lather than run the smallest risk of exposing our men on sea or land to any additional risk, or any additional labour because of the machinations of men who are enemies to this country. I do not blame them, if they get the opportunity, that they would rather help their own country. I have never been able to see why that is thought to be an offensive tiling to say of those people. Surely all we mean is that when they have to make a choice between the two lands and the two causes their hearts and their powers and their brains turn to the soil of their own birth and blood rather than to the other side. I do not blame them for that, although I think it would have been better for them to have gone out of the country, though perhaps that was not possible.
    I have said I do not believe that the policy of the Government in this matter is satisfactory, and for three reasons: First of all, they have not got a definite policy. That, I think, is clear to anybody who will read the speeches made by Ministers in this House and in another place. Another reason for failure is this: That the responsibility evidently does not rest on one set of shoulders. It is clear from the speech of the Home Secretary
    1370
    that the responsibility is divided as between the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Home Secretary. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory arrangement. The whole responsibility for administration should rest with the Home Secretary. I should have thought that he was the proper person. No doubt he could act on the recommendation or at the request of one of the Ministers of Defence, but he ought to be the Minister, unless there was some reason why somebody else should be selected, responsible for the general administration of all the laws in regard to spies, alien enemies, or their tools. Below him there should be, in my humble opinion, one or more men appointed to do the work for which he was to be responsible in this House, and to them he would in all probability delegate the actual performance of the duties. What did we read in the account, rather fuller than anything we have had yet, of the Debate in the House of Lords. We were told that the Home Secretary is the Minister in control of the Metropolitan Police, and that he was responsible within the Metropolitan area, but that in the rest of the country the chief constables are responsible.
    I do beg the House to realise what this means. In the Metropolis the position is satisfactory, thoroughly satisfactory, although I will give the Home Secretary one case, though I shall not mention names, which I think shows that in the Metropolis there has been a want of energy and want of care in the administration of the law. At all events, there you have got a Minister who has direct control over the police who act under his orders. The Chief Commissioner is directly responsible to him, and the Metropolitan Police is a magnificent organisation with a Minister in this House responsible to this House and having power to give them orders, and to see that things are done. As to the chief constables, to whom are they responsible? I have often said before in this House when we have been discussing local government that this is the most unsatisfactory part of our local government system. The chief constable is to all intents and purposes an independent person. He is not responsible to the Lord Lieutenant or to the chairman of the county council, or to the county council. He is nominally controlled by a body called the Standing Joint Committee under the Act of 1888. Is it suggested to us that we are to look to this Standing Joint Committee to meet

    1371
    from time to time and control the chief constable in dealing with the question of spies, alien enemies and their tools, because, if so, the machine would break down on the first attempt to try and get the work done in that way? I am only here dealing with statements which come to me in a general form, and I purposely refuse to investigate them, because it is impossible for a private individual, and particularly one who has a good deal to do, as I have, to go into these particular cases.
    5.0 P.M.
    We have this constant evasion of responsibility. I do not wish to use an offensive word, but one is constantly engaged in trying to find the person who is really responsible. You are told the Home Secretary is not responsible, because he has no direct control over the country police. In fact, he has no control, because all he can do is to issue the certificate, or refuse to do so, and having done that he has no more control. They are essentially a local body. Since the Home Secretary has no control, you go to the chief constable. What has happened in a great many cases? People have gone to the chief constable and his answer has been, "I am assured that so-and-so is perfectly right and perfectly safe, and there is no reason why I should search his house or proceed against him." I do not think the chief constable ought to be approached by anybody. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I will say what I have done myself. I have, like most of us, got a few men who are of German origin who are friends of mine, or who were previous to the War, and I hope they may continue to be, though I will say nothing about that. They are men of German origin, and, so far as I know, they may not even have been naturalised. I can say in some cases where there has not been naturalisation they have approached me since the War and have asked me to approach the Home Secretary to endeavour to secure letters of naturalisation for them. I have declined to do so in every case. I have declined absolutely to take upon myself the responsibility of guaranteeing any man over whose general action and course of life it is impossible for me to maintain supervision. Why have I done it? What are the stories we have heard from Belgium and France? Are we not learning from them? There is a story which came to my knowledge the other
    1372
    day at first hand. A man said that one of his most intimate friends in Brussels was a man with whom he had been so intimate that not a week passed but on one or two days he joined him at some meal. He looked upon him as one of his most intimate friends, but we had not been at war a month before it was his duty as a staff officer to try that man as a spy and order him to be shot. It follows, from what we know about spies, if they are to be successful, that is one of the parts they have to play. They have to worm themselves into our private life, they have to appear to be our most reliable friends, they have to present to us and to all the world an appearance which will lead everybody to have confidence in them. For this reason, however firmly I may have believed in my friends, I have said, "No; you have taken upon yourself this liability; you have taken advantage of our land; you have come here, I presume, because it suited you; you have been able to prosper here; you have made full use of all your opportunities, industrial and otherwise; you have thriven greatly. Now comes the time when you regret having done that without having naturalised yourself as a British citizen. You are now suspect, not because of your own acts, but because of the accident of your birth or the previous circumstances of your life."
    Whatever may be our opinion of individuals, we ought not to let them interfere with what is our bounden duty to-day, and that is to lay down a clear, definite policy and follow it up, whatever it may entail upon us in regard to those whom we consider to be our friends. I will give one case—it is one out of many, but it is one of the most remarkable. It is that of a gentleman who was the head of an institution well known both here and all over Europe. At the outbreak of war he was, as I am informed, interned for two days. He was then let out and he left at once, I imagine, for Germany. That shows, to my mind, the inevitable result of the lack of a definite policy and the absence of individual responsibility. This man may be perfectly harmless, I cannot say whether he is or not. But the circumstances are at all events suspicious. I defy anybody to have been able to say when that man was let out that he could be let out with absolute safety to the country. How could any man commit himself to a statement of that kind? The only time when you can say that this man is harmless is when the War is over, and you are able to say that he

    1373
    has not interfered at all. Therefore I maintain that our policy ought to be perfectly clear and simple, one which we can all understand, and one which is carried out by one responsible Minister.
    Is it not possible to have such a policy? I do not know precisely what powers are conferred upon the Government by the Defence of the Realm Act, but I gather from various things that have been done and various communications made to me in my capacity as a magistrate that those powers are pretty strong, and that the Government could do almost anything they liked. I will say without any fear of challenge that if the Government, acting on their honest conviction that in the interests of the Realm it was necessary to do so, they could put the whole Front Opposition Bench into prison, and they would have the whole country behind them. I dare say many hon. Members would welcome such a proceeding. My meaning is that I am convinced that the country is behind the Government so long as the Government goes steadfastly forward in their policy of fighting this War with determination and doing everything that is necessary in support of those who are fighting for us. Are we doing everything that is necessary or possible when we are undoubtedly allowing a great deal which is unsatisfactory to go on in this country? We had evidence of this the other day. The Secretary for Scotland made a defence of his position. What happened? The very next speaker was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel), who reeled off a whole series of facts to show that the policy of the Government had not been satisfactory in Scotland. There have been suspicious cases in England. I myself have sent more than one case to the Home Secretary. I maintain that if the powers were sufficient, if there was one Minister responsible, if below him there were one or two people responsible to him for dealing with aliens throughout the country, such questions as I have sent to the Home Secretary could be answered within twenty-four hours, either, as I should prefer, by prompt action being taken on the spot, or by thorough investigation being made. If the Government's policy is clear and vigorous, they will have neither criticism nor attack.
    I have not spoken in the way I have because of any hostility to the Home Secretary. Nothing of the kind. Nor have I any hostility to the individuals who now
    1374
    come within the category either of spies or of alien enemies or their tools. I have spoken as I have because I believe it is the duty of this country to take prompt and energetic steps in this matter. There may be men in this country whose whole stake is here, and who, for their own interests, quite apart from their feelings and inclinations, would run no risk of doing anything that could be construed into aiding the enemy. But we have to remember that that does not exhaust the case. You have to think of their womankind, sometimes of their servants or their dependants, and those with whom they are corresponding abroad. I say, therefore, err on the side of too much precaution, but do not err on the side of letting anybody live in any part of the country who is likely in any way to be able to aid our foes. I hope that even now the Government will see fit to centralise the authority in the hands of one Minister, and, if necessary, to take further powers—they could get a Bill through the House in one day—enabling them to control the chief constables and the police in the provinces as they do the First Commissioner and the police in London. For heaven's sake let us have a definite policy, and let it be understood that that policy is going to be vigorously pursued. Let one Minister be responsible I am not dealing now with the joint responsibility of the whole Cabinet; but let one Minister be responsible in this matter, just as one Minister is responsible for the Army or for the Navy, and let him have one or two people below him to conduct the general work.
    If you had such a policy and such a Minister, I believe that within a fortnight you would put an end to what is certainly an unsatisfactory state of things in some parts of the country. If it be that there is only suspicion, it is wrong that at this moment of supreme crisis there should be even a suspicion as to what is going on in some parts of the country. This would be prevented if you centralised the authority in one Minister and took powers, if you have not got them, enabling you to apply the same policy to the yhole country without fear or favour, above all, avoiding what I am sure has not been intended, but is none the less obvious from what has happened recently, the suspicion of favour to those who are better off. I am not charging the Government with this; I am not making charges of any kind; I am not here to make charges. It is the inevitable result of the lack a definite policy.

    1375
    While you have been putting waiters, hairdressers, and other people of that sort into wire-enclosed pastures, or whatever they are—racecourses and other places—it has not been apparent that the same policy has been pursued in regard to those who are better off. Let there be no appearance of discrimination and, above all, no want of energy, and I am satisfied that the whole House will support the Government, and the country will feel that they are making a determined effort, which will be a successful one, to get rid of a pest which we ought never to have suffered and of which, if we are wise, we will now rid the country for ever and a day.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) in the earlier part of his remarks thought it right to go back upon what he had already said in regard to the absence of information about the operations of our troops at the front, and to criticise, as I understood him, the policy of the War Office and of the Admiralty in this respect. I understood him to differ from the policy of those two Departments which think it right to use such an economy of statement, as I think it has been called, with regard to what is happening to our troops. The Government are about to draw down the blinds—to-morrow, I suppose—and for two or three months they will be carrying on their business in camera, free altogether from any criticism which might come from the House of Commons. That is my excuse for troubling the House for a few moments on this subject. I do not want to see the War carried on in camera. Its fortunes and misfortunes should not be hidden from us. Thousands of incidents of bravery and heroism are achieved by our soldiers, by men who are our friends and neighbours, men who have gone from our side, men from the streets of our villages, men with whom their neighbours have worked side by side at the loom or the lathe: I want their deeds of bravery and heroism to be known in detail to the public. I do not want these things to be hidden from public knowledge as far as Whitehall can do it. The parents, relatives, comrades and friends of our soldiers, are all hungering for this news. I read in the "Times" this morning a short article upon the life of Benjamin Disraeli. In that article this sentence occurs:—
    "If Disraeli had lived in this crisis, he would have laboured to make the heroism of our arms, not a mystery, but a spectacle to us all."
    1376
    I agree very much with that observation. I am not going any longer to criticise the Press Bureau. Time after time we have been told that it is not their fault. I presume that the Press Bureau is only an instrument to prevent mischievous, erroneous, and indiscreet news or opinions which would be injurious to us and helpful to our enemies from appearing in public print. None of us, either on this side of the House or on the other want, I am quite sure, anything to appear which would help our enemies. But I suggest, taking that argument, that by inference anything which would not have this effect of helping our enemies ought to pass the Censor. The journalist should not be made a victim in the matter; he ought to be allowed to explain his eloquence in the columns of his newspaper. There is a tremendous thirst for news. Everybody wants to know. You see evidence of that in all our streets, which are crowded with persons wishful to know what is going on. Most of us have relatives at the front. They are in great danger. We are being protected by them. Why may we not know what they are doing? The right hon. Gentleman suggested—and I think it was a very wise suggestion—that the policy of refusing officially accredited newspaper correspondents to go to the front should be reconsidered. I understand that the German authorities give every facility to the war correspondents, and certainly, the Germans are most diligent in disseminating news, which I am afraid sometimes is mainly put together in their own interests. Our public are not getting the news of their dear ones, or they are getting it, as the right hon. Gentleman said, belated, meagre, and scrappy. None of us want to help the enemy. Journalists of reputation are just as anxious to serve their country and not to injure it. I do not want these brilliant deeds of bravery to go officially unrecorded. The Archbishop of York, speaking I think at the recruiting meeting in York the other day—and the right hon. Gentleman laid emphasis on the fact that this dearth of news was a hostile influence to the recruiting which we all desire to see successful and increase—the Archbishop said:—
    "The only way to get the real strength and the real self-sacrifice out of the British democracy is to trust it and let it know the facts."
    I agree with that. So long as you muzzle the mouth and deafen the ears of the public you will have a great deal of dissatisfaction. There is another point which perhaps has been sufficiently referred to

    1377
    in Debate—public criticism of the Government, which the Government has taken great powers to check. I am a great believer in the perfect freedom of the Press. Experience of past wars does not encourage us to put a blind faith in Government Departments, and some of the rumours which have been creeping into the newspapers already about Government contracts take one's memory back to the rather bad revelations of the past. Public criticism is a searchlight which is a great safeguard to the public, and is a stimulant to right conduct on the part of the authorities. A free Press is the oxygen of party politics. The only effect of denying news to us is to produce a crop of guesses, speculations, and rumours. There is no easier way of creating false news than by withholding true news. Erroneous impressions, if they are conveyed, have to be answered, and if they are neither conveyed nor answered then their place will be taken by whispers, and matters will be whispered about and magnified and distorted. In that way we are reduced to relying upon club gossip, dinner table conversation, and what I think Disraeli called coffee-house babble. I would, in conclusion, plead for a reconsideration of the present restrictive, conservative, and obscurantist policy in regard of the War, and criticism of the operations of the Government, which has been adopted by the two great spending Departments of the State.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, and with my right hon. Friend, in one criticism of the censorship of the Press. It is most desirable, especially in a War of this character—a War that has never had its equal in history so far as the heroism of our men, or any men—that the gallant deeds of our regiments should be made known to the country. It is only fair to the men and to the officers. Everybody likes appreciation. Those at the front are risking their lives by thousands. Thousands have been killed. The least we can do out of respect to their memory is by recording the gallant deeds they have performed. The present situation is made more particularly invidious because unintentionally one regiment has been mentioned. I can tell the House this, after many years' management of men, that if you hold a regiment or a ship up to great praise and make it invidious to the other regiments or the
    1378
    other ships, which have done the same, the regiment and the ship resent it themselves because they know it is unpopular. Their chivalrous sentiments resent it. I do hope that the Home Secretary, or whoever represents the Press Bureau, will see that in justice to the officers and the men, and in justice to our own countrymen here who want to know of the gallant deeds of our gallant regiments, that these would be made public more than they are at the present time.
    I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman a few words on the question my right hon. Friend took up. It is a question which I consider even a more vital danger to us than the bullets of the enemy. We can face the bullets and provide for them, but you cannot face a danger which amounts to being stabbed in the back—which the spy danger really is There is no doubt, and I acknowledge it, that something has been done, but I maintain, as opposed to the Home Secretary, that that something has been done by the irresistible force of public opinion, and I do not think that enough is being done. I think that public opinion ought still to exert its pressure to remove this what I believe to be a very dangerous state of affairs in our midst. I consider that safety of the country is imperilled by the spy danger. I am perfectly certain of this, that although something is being done, there is great uneasiness in the country at the present time, the people believing that enough has not been done. I put it down to mismanagement. My right hon. Friend has spoken of divided responsibility. In any circumstances divided responsibility is bad. But in the serious circumstances in which we are it becomes a danger, and a very vital danger. I understand the responsibility is divided between the Home Office, the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Chief Constable. When the Home Secretary was tackled on this point he tried to throw the responsibility on one of the other Departments.
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the Noble Lord quote the words in which I tried to throw the responsibility on someone else?
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I do not think I can quote the right hon. Gentleman off-hand, but the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to throw the responsibility on the War Office. He said, if I remember rightly, "I have nothing to do with that: that has to do with the

    1379
    War Office." I call that throwing responsibility on another office, and on the chief constables. Anyway, did or did not the right hon. Gentleman say—
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the Noble Lord quote the words in which I tried to throw the responsibility on another Department? The implication of that language is that I did so wrongly. One does not use the words "tried to throw responsibility" unless the Noble Lord means to imply that I did so wrongly.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Really, the right hon. Gentleman must not lose his temper. I do not want to make any invidious remarks; if I did, I should do so in a more amiable way. It was just the same the other day. The right hon. Gentleman lost his temper when he was asked about something. This is a very serious question. We want to keep our tempers. We do not want any personalities or anything of that sort. I think I am within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman said that certain circumstances which we asked him to account for he was not responsible for. I think that is correct. I do not want to say anything offensive in the matter; it is far too serious for that. This is not the time to be offensive. But it is difficult for any of us to know, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, whether the War Office is responsible or the Admiralty or the chief constable or who, and those of us who take an interest in this matter—and a great number in the country do—desire to know which one of these officers we should approach. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under what law he has to take action in regard to these spies? I do not think that it is clear to anybody. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the War Office had martial law they would be directly responsible, and I believe it would be an easier method of settling the case than the present method. The Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) showed the House the other day how easily spies can act. They have only to get a passport to Holland, and when they arrive in Holland have only to get a passport back again. Anything they have got to say is far better said verbally than by way of paper or pigeon post, or whatever other methods there may be. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy of his own knowledge showed the House how easily information could be conveyed to
    1380
    the Germans from this country. I ventured to say some time ago that I was satisfied that three cruisers and 1,400 men were lost through the action of spies. The evidence, as far as we can get it, goes in my favour, and the common sense of it goes in my favour, but all the right hon. Gentleman says to me is, "You are wrong," but he never produces any evidence that I am wrong. It is a case of one opinion against another. The common sense of the matter is that we knew there were spies upon the coast, we knew that there would be rough weather, we knew that the torpedo-boat escorts did not go out, and the information could easily be brought over on the liners, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy suggested. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said to me that I made most terrible charges against him and that I charged him with making widows and orphans, I must tell him I did nothing of the sort, but I still maintain that the evidence and common sense of the matter—moreover, after the evidence of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy—is more in my favour than in the favour of the right hon. Gentleman. That there are spies everybody knows. The right hon. Gentleman is taking precautions, but my point is that his precautions are not enough. The right hon. Gentleman is always asking for evidence. What evidence? I maintain you have the evidence. You have the spies, and surely when you are at war and you find men going about the country saying they are going to do so-and-so, as has been said by German writers, it is not wise to wait until they do those deeds before you lock them up. It is not fair to our officers and men who risk their lives that some Department of the Government does not take proper precaution to prevent their losing their lives. I have now got the passage to which I referred in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said:—
    "I begin with that because throughout the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech in every particular there was hardly a single matter in which I am responsible—hardly a single point. He seems to be quite unaware that the civil authority has not initial responsibility either for the internment or the release of any aliens; it is purely a military matter."
    I am very sorry if I misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman, but I think these words bear out what I intended to say. I certainly never intended to say anything offensive. May I make a remark about that passage in his speech? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. Supposing a soldier sees a light in a house, and thinks it is a signalling light—it may

    1381
    not be—he has got to call the nearest policeman before he can do anything. The soldier can do nothing without the police, and therefore the eventual responsibility is with the right hon. Gentleman, and I quite agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) that there should be no question as to who is responsible. There ought to be one person responsible when it is a matter which affects the safety of the nation.
    I turn now to the question of naturalisation of Germans. The naturalised German is really a far more dangerous man here than the one who is not naturalised. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, he is able to get into a number of places in society and military, naval, and Governmental circles, where, owing to his position, his ability, his education, and very likely his wealth, he can get to know things. We have no right to let these people go about so freely. A friend of mine knew a man in Antwerp. For forty years he was in good society in Antwerp, he was a member of all the clubs, and people absolutely regarded him with affection. He was a generous subscriber to all the Belgian charities, and he was what we would call in this country "a really good fellow." Directly the Germans came he turned round and gave them all his local knowledge of military and naval affairs, and politics, and was eventually more use to the German Army than the ordinary hairdresser or waiter, or somebody in a subordinate position could be. Having seen these things occur in Belgium and the shocking and awful state to which Belgium is reduced now, owing to the local knowledge of those naturalised people in Belgium, we have no right to allow any false sentiment or idea of friendship to influence us. I have lots of friends amongst those naturalised Germans, but I put my country before my friendship. I would not treat them harshly. All I would say is, "You must be interned until the War is over, and we will make you as comfortable as we can." That is the view I hold and I believe it is the view my countrymen hold. It is for these gentlemen's convenience that they come over here and become naturalised. I ask, is it for our advantage or theirs? If they become naturalised and events occur such as this War, they must be, to put it perfectly straight, either traitors to their own country or to ours. Whichever course of conduct they take they are naturalised over here for their own advantage, they
    1382
    cannot be for ours, and if they remain here for our advantage they are traitors to their own country.
    On the other hand, if they do as this gentleman in Antwerp did and use the advantages which naturalisation has given them, to our hostility, then they are traitors to us. The best way is to remove them all, and have them secured, to do nothing brutal, but, on the contrary, to be generous to them until the War is over. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one of those naturalised aliens is a man named Ernst. He was naturalised, and swore allegiance to the Crown, yet he got seven years penal servitude. I do not want to be ungenerous, but I would have all spies shot; they are not cowards, they are gallant men who undertake a duty for the advantage of their country, just as much as a man who goes into the field, with this difference, that man who goes into the field may escape, but a spy cannot, whatever plan of campaign, either the Navy or the Military may make, the spy can upset that plan of campaign, and by his knowledge make it an absolute failure, resulting in tremendous loss of life for officers and men. I do not wish to say that if an English spy is caught in Germany, he should not be shot. I think he should, just the same as a German spy caught over here. No doubt some of our own people are spies, German gold has bought them. They are more contemptible than the German spy and they ought to have a very short drumhead court-martial. The work of the spy has gone on for years. The man who used the most of them was Napoleon, and they always knew in those days that penal servitude was not sufficient. By their action they risk the lives of our people; it is a back-handed action; but the spy is not devoid of pluck, but he should be tried by court martial and shot the next morning.
    I do not think that naturalisation can change a man's nature. I want to know why do a number of those people change their names, as the right hon. Gentleman knows they do. Is that for our benefit? Of course, it is not, and it is very suspicious. Why should they not hold on to their German names? They ought to be just as proud of being Germans as an hon. Gentleman in this House should be of being English, or as I am of being Irish. I am not attacking individuals. I am attacking a system. We ought to make our system stronger, and

    1383
    we ought to have one person to carry it out. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy advocated a spy bureau, with branches in various centres. What could be more common sense than that? The Prime Minister, in reply to a question of mine, said it would not take the responsibility from other people. That is just what I would do. Put a gentleman at the head of it with legal knowledge—he would not do all the work himself, but the bureau would have the right to arrest and inquire, and then, rather on the lines of courts martial, they would send to the right hon. Gentleman the result of their inquiries. I think you would thus stop this spy system all over the country far better than you do at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman has always said he would like concrete cases. I have here a number of concrete cases, and I want to give them to him. I want to know why Julius Koch, an officer of the German Army, general manager of the Olympic Company, Selby, was arrested, taken to New York, and then let out again?
    Mr. McKENNA: He is interned now.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I protest most strongly against the principle of a man being arrested by the authorities, then let out by another authority, and then, owing to a public protest in the locality, arrested again. Surely that is very bad. It is very bad to have an authority in this country which, through its system does not satisfy the people and which then, when the people protest says they are right and has their protest given effect to. The result is you will have people taking the law into their own hands. I asked the right hon. Gentleman early in September whether he would not consider it deplorable if the people took the law into their own hands. After all, that is the most awful thing in the world. They would assault, burn, and kill the wrong people, but you will have mob law and you will have the people taking these things into their own hands if you go on arresting people, then letting them out and then, on a protest by the locality, arresting them again.
    Mr. J. WARD: Did the Noble Lord say that this man was an officer of the German or Austrian Army?
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Yes, I believe he was an officer of the German Army. When I spoke about the people taking the
    1384
    law into their own hands the right hon. Gentleman said he would deplore that, matter, but Deptford took the law into its own hands over this spy question. If I am wrong, let the right hon. Gentleman show me where I am wrong. I say it is a deplorable thing that such a course should be followed. Then there is August Reich-wald, of Finsbury Pavement, London, one of Krupp's agents in this country. Why is he allowed to carry on his business here? Next I would mention the case of Mr. Hatze, of the Station Hotel, Wick. He is naturalised, and at the time of mobilisation he was suspected of harbouring German spies. I have inquired personally into this case. When the police arrived at his place he declined to allow his premises to be searched without a warrant. The police went back to get the necessary warrant, and on their return all these Germans had gone. There is the case of Mr. Erridge, of Exeter, who took in paying guests. One of them was a German, a very suspicious character. His suspicious manner was reported to the chief constable, and two constables interviewed him. The next day he packed up all his maps, glasses, etc., and went to Plymouth. Why was he allowed to go to Plymouth, because he could do just as much harm at Plymouth as at any other place? [An HON. MEMBER: "More!"] Then there is the case of a man named Rosendale, near Norwood. His son is fighting with the Germans now, and this man has a refreshment room at Norwood. There is also the case of Mr. Lionel Pitt Taylor, of Rock-ferry, Cheshire, who communicated with the Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade. Mr. Taylor is the manager for an English firm which supplies composition for ships' bottoms, and he received the following answer from the Board of Trade in a letter signed "W. J. Glennie.":
    "I am unable to undertake the investigation of the nationality of the directors or shareholders of firms, or their finances."
    That was from Mr. Glennie, and the letter went on to say:—
    "And I may add I am unaware of any distinction between a naturalised British subject and a British subject by birth."
    If that is the sort of way the Board of Trade are treating this question, then it is not the proper way, and I do not think even the Home Secretary will dispute that fact. Then there is the case of the Royal Hotel, Dundee, which is occupied by British officers. The manager of this hotel was a German, and many of his

    1385
    employés were Germans. I want to know have they been removed yet? From this hotel they can look over a submarine base. The place where the "Niger" was blown up off Deal is within easy view of the Guildford Hotel, the proprietor of which is a German, although he calls himself a Swiss. There were seven or eight German waiters there at the same time, and it is believed that there was communication between a so-called Dutch ship off Deal which was supposed to be a battleship. It is believed that the submarine which blew up the "Niger" was alongside this ship, and that this so-called Dutch ship may have been supplying petrol to the ship that blew up the "Niger." You may say that there is no evidence of this, but I say that there is the evidence of common sense. The "Niger" was blown up; the Germans were in the hotel opposite, and the ship which was lying off Deal had Dutch colours, and went to sea nert day in a gale of wind. There is the case of Mr. Metzen, the manager of the powerful electric pumps and plant at Tilmanstone Colliery. He was ordered to move, and he has had an extension of immunity from the 16th to the 30th November. I should like to know why? I would like to ask if the German Consul at Grimsby has been removed and, if so, when?
    Here is another very important case—that of the Hull and Grimsby trawlers. Four magistrates were appointed as an advisory Court in conjunction with the military to deal with alien enemies, and they detained two skippers named Dettmore and Swolle. They were afterwards released, but they returned again to Hull, but a public protest had the effect of ordering them to leave that district. Where did they go? That is not the way to deal with aliens, and they ought to be locked up and interned. If the right hon. Gentleman had possessed a proper bureau those two German skippers would have been locked up. I believe that most of the mines in the North Sea have been dropped by men of that kind hoisting neutral colours, and the result has been that we have lost an immense amount of life and property, and this will continue if that sort of manipulation is allowed to continue. Mr. Bamburgh, of Exmouth, has been under police supervision, and he is a very suspicious person, but his house has not been searched. Hon. Members are aware of the case of Baron Schroeder and Julius Rittershaussen. Is it likely that Baron Schroeder, who has a son fighting
    1386
    in the German Army, will have sentiment, favourable to this country? These people should be interned. Baron Schroeder was naturalised three days after the War.
    Mr. J. WARD: I expect he is a very wealthy man.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Yes, he is very wealthy. I think the Prime Minister ought to give us more information about Baron Schroëder, who represents the wealthy class. He was naturalised three days after the War, and the right hon. Gentleman said that this was "clearly to the public advantage to naturalise him." I expect he will say that Baron Schroeder being a very rich banker if he was interned other people would suffer. I think we are all prepared to suffer from this War, and therefore that is not a good argument. No matter how rich a man is you ought not to allow any person to be at liberty who can put himself in the position of a dangerous spy in the present acute crisis we are in with regard to this War. Now I turn to the case of Mr. Thor, the chief engineer in charge of a large benzol plant at Littleburn Colliery. He was recently arrested, and he was afterwards liberated. Why was he liberated? There is the case of Mr. Swartch, the chief engineer of Messrs. Pease and Partner, who also have a large benzol plant at Littleburn. Ha was arrested on the outbreak of the War, and he was then naturalised. After this he was let go, and he has been recently re-arrested, and I understand that he has been again set at liberty. A public protest came, and now he has been arrested again. I think that is a most unsatisfactory and a most unsafe method to adopt. Then there is the son of the Sunderland German Consul who has been summoned for trial for high treason, and I believe he is at liberty. If that is so, I should like to know the reason why?
    My right hon. Friend spoke about arresting alien hairdressers, waiters, and other people. I think all these people should be arrested and interned. I have no personal enmity against them, but I do think that they are the most dangerous people you have got, and no hon. Member can deny that after what we have seen taking place in Belgium, and particularly in Antwerp. I think the poor wage-earners have every right to say that they are being persecuted whilst rich contractors, bankers and financiers escape, although they are by far the most dangerous to the nation. There may be a little more injustice in their case if

    1387
    what I suggest is carried out, but it is better to have a little injustice than have the chance of something terrible happening to our nation in the event of an attempted raid, or if we had a reverse. These things are possible, but do not let us have the danger at our rear and on our flank while our men are fighting for us away at the front. I think there ought to be a clean sweep of these people. The people on the East Coast recognise this danger, and they have taken action. In some cases lords lieutenant and chief constables have been far more active than in other cases, and those areas which have been inactive are more likely to contain the danger spies.
    With the proposal which has been put forward in force, this state of things could not occur, because you would have your Cabinet Minister in this House responsible for these bureaus in all these places, and they would all act in the same way, with the same fairness and justice. I am glad to say that there has been no more threatening papers. I thought that the threatening of the "Globe" newspaper was a great mistake. I am sure it was done honestly, but it was a mistaken policy, and was altogether wrong. I have been violently threatened myself on this question, and I laughed about it. It was on the spy question. I do not think these threats are any use, and I do not think any strong minded man or any patriotic man would take the slightest notice of them. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I have not made a single remark, either personal or threatening, or in a bad-tempered way. I think this question is most serious, and I am anxious as far as I can to help the right hon. Gentleman and to convince him how serious the matter is. I wish to strengthen him with all the power at my command, and I wish to have a system in which there is direct responsibility, under which the right hon. Gentleman can have a bureau or what he likes under him and under his authority, and by means of which the whole of this question right through the country will be conducted on totally different lines to what it is now conducted, and conducted similarly in all our ports so that we may get rid of this danger of public protests instead of locking these people up simply when the public take it into their heads that a man should be locked up. By taking the course suggested we get rid of all that danger, and
    1388
    if the right hon. Gentleman takes that view I will do everything I can to support him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise how serious this question is and how very differently he ought to act.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), who raided this question, made a speech for which I desire to thank him. It was extremely helpful and it brought into a narrow compass the issue upon this matter, as far as there is any issue at all. I know he will appreciate the fact that all Departments of the State who have anything to do with the perils which undoubtedly exist from the presence of a large number of enemy aliens in this country must be as fully determined and anxious as any member of the State to preserve us from those evils. No steps have been or will be left unturned in order to secure safety upon certain principles. I put in those words "upon certain principles" because I observe that there is some element of difference as to what those principles should be. I take great blame to myself if in any previous speeches upon this matter I have failed to make clear the principle upon which the Government is acting, as well as the various Departments who are immediately responsible for the different measures which have to be taken to secure the public safety. When a speaker is not understood, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is his own fault. I will endeavour quite briefly to remedy the mistake if I can this afternoon. The civil responsibility for protecting the public against all forms of danger rests, of course, upon the civil authorities. The Home Office is generally regarded as responsible for the safety of the public throughout the country, and the Home Office so far as it can accepts and acts upon the principle of that responsibility. But let me explain to an indulgent House the difficulties under which the Home Office acts. The instrument through which the safety of the public is secured is the police. In the Metropolitan area the Home Office is the head of the police, but when you leave London and get into the outside areas, whether county or borough, the Home Secretary has no real power. Let me give an instance to the House. Naturally, I regard it as my duty to take a constant survey of the manner in which local chief constables are carrying out their business, and recently I came to the conclusion that in one area—I will not

    1389
    name it—it would be advisable that there should be a change in the chief constable. He was an excellent man I have no doubt, but I did not conceive that he was quite equal to the special responsibilities and duties at the present time. I communicated to the Standing Joint Committee my opinion that another chief constable should be appointed. I received a reply from the Standing Joint Committee that in their judgment it would be inexpedient to make a change at the present time. There was an end of the correspondence. I have no power to remove him.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: That is why we want a change.
    Mr. McKENNA: The change would not give me the power. It would mean a very large Bill, a very big Bill indeed.
    Sir H. CRAIK: We would give it you.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am dealing with things as they are at the present time, and endeavouring to clear up what has been doubtful as to the degree of responsibility, where it lies, and how far matters are outside your power.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It wants changing.
    Mr. McKENNA: So much for the general responsibility for securing the safety of the public. Now you get a time of war, and a new element of danger arises which has not before existed. You have got the peril to life in the presence of enemy aliens, many of whom may be spies or a danger to the State in the event of a raid, or may in other forms injure us, and you have got to consider what steps you can take to deal with that peril. As far as the civil authority is concerned, and the police through whom the civil authority acts, they can immediately deal with all cases of suspicion. Where there is a case of suspicion, either brought by outside persons to the notice of the police authorities or detected by the police themselves, it is the duty of the police authorities to immediately inquire into it, and, where innocence beyond question is not proved, to take action. That is the civil responsibility of the police. I would ask the House to consider for a moment how far the police have carried out their immediate duties in searching and detecting dangerous cases. They were mentioned last night in another place, and, if the House will allow me, I will repeat the figures now. Since the War we have
    1390
    in the Metropolitan area investigated 120,000 cases of suspicion, and, when the House remembers that the War has not lasted for 120 days, it will be readily seen that means that an average of over 1,000 cases a day have been investigated by the police in the Metropolitan area alone. As the result of these investigations, 342 persons have been interned—that is to say, they have been handed over to the military authorities and interned by them. They were not cases in which the evidence I will not say would not have justified prosecuting, but they were not cases in which it was desirable to take the course of prosecuting the persons charged. They were, however, cases in which there was sufficient evidence to warrant immediately handing the person over to the military authorities. In addition to that, no less than 6,000 houses have been ransacked, and in other forms every step has been taken by the police in the Metropolitan area to trap, hunt out, prosecute or intern any dangerous person. The Noble Lord named a number of cases. They were very interesting, and a great effect—a natural effect, and a proper effect—is created by the enumeration of those cases. If the Noble Lord had only been so good as to send me the names beforehand, I would have been able to give him an explanation or an assurance with regard to every one of them.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I am sorry I did not do so, but I only made the list out this afternoon.
    Mr. McKENNA: If I had only had them for half an hour, I would have been able to give him a reply in every case.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That is quite fair. I am very sorry I did not do so.
    Mr. McKENNA: I would have told him what we were doing, or what we would undertake to do, but I cannot do it, because I cannot pretend to carry them all in my mind. Some of them are familiar to me. The first I happen to know has been interned, and one or two others are known to me. He referred, for instance, to the case of the spy Ernst who received seven years' penal servitude, and he quoted him as an instance of the danger from naturalised Germans. He was not a naturalised German. He was British born, and his offence was committed before the War.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Then he ought to have been shot.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has not heard the last part of my sentence. I said that the offence was committed before the War. He was tried by the civil Court for an offence committed in time of peace. He therefore came under appropriate law, and he received sentence of seven years' penal servitude. There would have been no power to shoot him. He had committed no offence during time of war. Another case the Noble Lord referred to was that of Baron Schroeder. Let me assure the House—I hardly think the assurance is necessary—that he was not naturalised because he was Baron Schroëder, or because he was a rich man. Baron Schroëder was naturalised because there would have been very grave injury to great and material British interests if he had not been naturalised. I do not think it needs a very extensive knowledge of City affairs to understand that if the doors of Messrs. Schroëder had not opened on the morning after Baron Schroëder was naturalised, as they would not have opened if he had not been naturalised, there would have been very serious consequences to the City of London.
    Sir F. BANBURY: What about his partner?
    Mr. McKENNA: That would not do it. I went into that question, and I was informed, and I believe it to be a fact, that if he had not been naturalised the doors of his firm would have remained closed.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This matter has excited a great deal of attention. Could not the case have been dealt with in the same way as the foreign banks were dealt with?
    Mr. McKENNA: The foreign banks were closed.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They were licensed.
    Mr. McKENNA: They were licensed afterwards. I may say that until that day not only did I not know Baron Schroëder, but, so far as I know, I had not even seen him. It was a mere name to me; but his firm was well known to me. It is a very large, I believe the largest, accepting house in the City of London, and the very highest commercial authority in the City represented to me that it would be a disaster—no less word was used—if the doors of Baron Schroëder did not open on the following morning, and, unless he had
    1392
    been naturalised at once, they would not have opened. I had no interest in Baron Schroëder.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: No. I did not suggest that you had. It is not a personal question.
    Mr. McKENNA: Why is it suggested that he was naturalised because he was rich? I had no interest in his wealth or in him, not the very slightest. Nobody I knew had the slightest interest either in him or his wealth, and nobody that I knew or by whom I was advised would be, so far as I was aware, or could be in the slightest degree concerned with the fact that Baron Schroëder was a rich man. I have to labour this point because the statement is always received with cheers when it is alleged that the Government have shown favour to the rich as against the poor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) even in his very fair speech made some allusion to that point, and said that there had been discrimination against the poor in the arrests.
    Mr. LONG: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I did not say that there had been discrimination, nor did I suggest that there had been any favouritism in consequence of wealth or poverty. I said the Government could not complain of the suspicions that had been aroused owing to the fact that, whereas poor men had been interned in crowds, rich men had received naturalisation.
    Mr. McKENNA: I can show the right hon. Gentleman the whole list of naturalisations, and give him the history of every case. He will see that far more poor men have been naturalised than rich, and as to the men interned, if he will go any day to Olympia he will find the men there divided into three classes. Poverty is always more numerously represented than wealth, and, as you might expect, there is the largest class which is called "the Public." Then there is the smaller class which is called "the House of Commons," and finally there is the class of the select few which is known as "the House of Lords." If the right hon. Gentleman knew the numbers of each class at Olympia he would be aware that the proportion which exists outside is fairly represented. It is quite a mistake to suppose that only the barber and the waiter are interned. There are men interned who belong to some of the

    1393
    oldest families of Germany and Austria, and there are certainly some quite rich men. I will not, however, deal further with individual cases.
    I come to the question of principle. I do see a certain divergence between the views held by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) and the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) and by the Government. The view of the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord is that we should run any risk of interning innocent aliens rather than run any danger to our troops and sailors, and they go so far as to say that every enemy alien, without exception, should be interned. I do not know whether they confine it to males, but the word "every" would include the female enemy alien, so that our principle is to go to the extent, in order to avoid a risk which must always exist, whether they be interned or not—to reduce that risk, we should intern all Germans and Austrians, men and women alike. But there are certain considerations which must not be left out of mind. I, at any rate, cannot leave them out, because they are very frequently brought before me. We have at this time in Germany and Austria a large number of English men and women, and I get letters and applications from their friends in this country—
    Mr. LONG: They are locked up.
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no woman locked up.
    Mr. LONG: They did certainly lock up some of these very unfortunate people.
    Mr. McKENNA: They locked up a few early this month, but my information is that, at this moment, the greater part of them are still at liberty, and I know of no case in which a woman has been locked up. I get representations sent me constantly from the Embassies and otherwise, begging me not to intern all the Germans and Austrians in this country, because English people are not being interned in Germany and Austria.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Are they Britishers?
    Mr. McKENNA: They are English residents there.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I mean the Consuls. You said you had representations from the Consuls. I want to know if they are Britishers.
    Mr. McKENNA: I said I heard from the Embassies. At any rate, that is what I
    1394
    meant to convey. I get these communications brought to my notice through the Embassies, and I also get communications from the friends of these people in this country, begging me to remember that any harsh measures that we may inflict upon enemy aliens here will be retaliated upon our own people in Germany and Austria. I also get very strong representations from neutral countries, and I do not think we ought to leave entirely out of account the impression which our action creates abroad. That is worth considering and bearing in mind. Let me add this point: The definition of "enemy alien" is really a technical definition. If I were to go on the principle suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord I should have to hand over to the military authorities for internment large numbers of people who are no more German or Austrian than the Noble Lord himself—people who by mere accident have been born in Germany, who know no German parentage, who were brought here a few months old, and who cannot speak a word of German; and people, again, who have lived here for fifty years or more. I know of one case where a German here has seven sons fighting in our Army; he is as British as any Member of this House. He has lived here all his life. These are technically enemy aliens; they have married English wives, and their wives are technically enemy aliens. It is so.
    Mr. LONG: I did not mean to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I wanted to suggest that, although no doubt that is the literal interpretation of my language, I did not think it necessary to suggest there should be no exceptions.
    Mr. McKENNA: And that is my trouble. My difficulty in getting hold of the principle on which to act is that, unless you admit exceptions to the principle, you are going to do a gross injustice—a quite useless gross injustice. Many cases have come before me, not individually, but scores and hundreds and thousands, in which there is less risk than there is from the ordinary bad Englishman. If you are going to safeguard your troops from danger of espionage you had much better lock up every bad Englishman on suspicion than many of these people who are technically German but otherwise are good English. The moment I have to begin to make exceptions I find those exceptions are very numerous. The classes are so

    1395
    large that the principle disappears altogether. I find, for instance, amongst the Austrians whole sets of nationalities: Slavs, Poles, Italians who hate Austria. [An HON. MEMBER "More than we do?"] Well, certainly, they appear to hate it with a longer and more acid venom than ever we have done. There are, too, the Czechs, and all these classes have to be considered. Consequently I find that the principle, stated in its broad terms, is unworkable and I come back to the question, how far we should intern in order to secure military safety. I am sorry that at an early stage I interrupted the Noble Lord. He thought I had lost my temper. I really had not, neither then nor on a previous occasion, but I only wished to bring home to his mind, if I could, that, in endeavouring to state what are the facts, I am not trying to shift any responsibility from my shoulders to those of other people. I only want to tell the House in order that they may know the facts. I answer attacks in this House. I have never answered a single attack outside, but here I must answer them, and I want to explain what are the limits of the responsibility of my Department.
    On the question of internment the military authority has the deciding word. It is right it should be so. Internment is a military measure under the law of nations, and all I can do is to arrest. When I have arrested I hand the prisoner over to the military authorities who decide how many I am to arrest and how long I am to go on arresting. They tell me when I am to stop. If I arrest I cannot hold. In the case of a civil offence, by bringing a charge against anybody I arrest, I do hold the prisoner; I keep him in the prison cell, and I bring him up for trial. But a military prisoner stands in a different position. I arrest him, but I have to deliver him over to the military authorities, and if they say they do not want him I have to let him go free. That is the law of nations.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Then the law wants altering.
    Mr. McKENNA: You cannot alter it, unless you are going to break The Hague Convention. Prisoners of war taken in war, and civilian prisoners interned in military prisons, stand on the same footing. We have committed ourselves to that principle. All I can do is to arrest them: the military must keep them.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what there is in The Hague Convention which prevents him from interning or releasing alien enemies?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am rather under the impression that I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the authority on the occasion of the last Debate.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I have the right hon. Gentleman's quotation, but it does not answer my point.
    Mr. McKENNA: It lays it down that, while these prisoners are detained, they are subject to the laws and regulations of the Army of the State in which they are.
    Mr. BUTCHER: But that only refers to prisoners of war.
    Mr. McKENNA: These are prisoners of war. I quite admit this subject is not familiar to everybody, but I am advised, and I cannot do more than accept such advice as I receive, that these civilians are prisoners of war, so much so, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me when I remind him, that all civilians of military age have been taken by Germany from Belgium and France, interned in Germany, and kept with the others as prisoners of war, and they are included in the returns of prisoners of war with the soldiers who have been captured. I do not think I have the power which the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think I have. There is no discordance of policy between the different Departments of the Government—not the slightest. The House will agree, I imagine, that the military authorities are the right authority to balance and determine the degree of danger which is suffered, in a military sense, through the presence of these enemy aliens. I think they are the right authority to determine that, and, when they have done so and settled on the action which should be taken in consequence of the degree of danger they recognise, then the Home Office places the whole of its powers at their disposal. I am sure no Minister could have been served with greater zeal or energy or goodwill than I have been served by the Metropolitan Police. They have done everything humanly in their power to track down alien enemies, and I hope the House of Commons and the public outside will be relieved in their minds of any anxiety that dangers are being unnecessarily run. Have the military had proper assistance from the police all

    1397
    over the country? Upon that point I can show this, that I think, over the whole country, the police are efficient in a high degree. I agree that here and there some have not been very efficient. Such steps as we can take to remedy the defect we are taking. The moment the evil becomes serious, however, you have always got this safeguard, that the military in the district themselves have complete power. The military themselves have an organisation covering the whole country, and in every district where they think that the police are not efficient for carrying out their duties the military can step in and themselves enforce it. I see that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) shakes his head, and is doubtful of that.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: There are lots of dangerous districts where there is not a single soldier.
    Mr. McKENNA: Under our Regulations, which we have the power to issue to the local police authority, no enemy alien is allowed to remain in a prohibited area, which covers now the whole of the East and the greater part of the South Coast, unless the chief constable, who is the registration officer, has given a permit, and he is required to exercise the greatest care in the issue of permits. Secondly, he is required to consult the responsible military authorities in the district in any doubtful case. I would remind my right hon. Friend that there are now responsible military authorities in every district, for the whole country is divided up into districts. Thirdly, he must supply full particulars of any enemy alien permitted to reside in a prohibited area to the War Office. So that in every case there is a direct injunction upon the local chief constable to exercise personal care; secondly, he has to consult the responsible military authorities; and, thirdly, he has to communicate in every case with the War Office whenever a permit is given. Therefore the facts are well known. They are known to the military authorities, and in this respect the military authorities are directly over the civil authority, so that we have that second safeguard where the police is inefficient. Personally, I would not shrink for one second from accepting full responsibility for the internment or for the relief of the prisoners, and I would not shrink for one moment from accepting full responsibility for the police all over the country, but I cannot get the first, as I understand international law, and I cannot have the second
    1398
    without a very great Bill. We can never destroy espionage. When war breaks out, how can you get rid of the danger of a spy of your own nationality? If I wanted to employ a spy in Berlin to-day, is it conceivable that I should send over an Englishman? Will it enter into the mind of anybody who wanted to employ a really dangerous spy—
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What about Lody?
    Mr. McKENNA: He was caught.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After a time.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, without delay. He had not been here long.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But in that time he travelled over a good deal of the country, as appeared from his own evidence.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but he had not been here long. He was caught very soon, and, as a matter of fact, he was almost instantly discovered.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: He posed as an American.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, he posed as an American citizen and he had an American passport. I only say this to remind the House that to free ourselves from all danger of espionage is impossible. I do not think that we have suffered such an amount of evil from espionage over and above what we must inevitably undergo as would justify a change which could only be made by breaking, as we understand them, the recognised rules as laid down at The Hague. I would give, if the House would allow me to say so, anything I possess or do anything in my power to reassure the public mind upon this point. If I say I am in a difficulty in the matter; if I say that everything is being done, then I am told that I am blind. If I say that we have been successful here and there in detecting espionage and in bringing the culprit to trial, but beyond those cases nothing has been brought before us in which we have detected anything which would justify a court-martial, then I am told that the Home Office is complacent. After all, you have got to look at the total volume of work that is being done and see how little real proof has been forthcoming and what immense efforts have been made to guard in advance against the evils of espionage. If you take the whole into account together, and look at

    1399
    the work of four completed months, and remember all the expectations there were before the beginning of the War, as to what would happen on the outbreak of war from the organised German gangs who were supposed to be in this country, and when you compare the forecast with the fulfilment, I think that this House ought to do justice to the action of the police. They have been assisted, fortunately, by a most admirable body of special constables—a body who, by guarding all the principal bridges and waterworks, and, in fact, guarding London and the suburbs in their entire extent, have left the regular police free for other duties. We owe great thanks to them. I think we owe great thanks, also, to the police force. I trust that the House will assist me to dispel any unnecessary alarms in the public mind, while I can give them on my side the assurance that we will spare no efforts to get rid of any danger that may rise from espionage.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly made a strong case so far as his own personal position is concerned. It is very satisfactory that we can conduct a Debate of this kind without any suggestion of party feeling or personal attack. The right hon. Gentleman has had his full share of attacks for some time, and I think he was too long silent about his own personal position in regard to this matter. It is only fair, when he has been made the subject of so many attacks for so many reasons, for us to remember that it is to the right hon. Gentleman that we owe the credit of having the Navy in the satisfactory position it is to-day. That fact is too often forgotten, in view of the time that has elapsed. I am sorry to say that, strong as his case has been, he has not convinced me that our case does not remain unanswered: I mean the case for a radical alteration in the present system with regard to alien enemies in this country. The right hon. Gentleman admits it himself. What does his speech amount to? He says. "I have no power; I have no policy; I have no responsibility." In effect it is that. The right hon. Gentleman says, and to some extent truly, that this is a military matter. Will he pretend that the military in this country have an organisation which can deal with this vital matter? They have not got it. I can point him to places—places you never hear mentioned, places you can
    1400
    hardly find on the map—which, if I were in charge of the German Navy, are the places I should go to in spite of the right hon. Gentleman, where there are no soldiers, where you may have your local Territorial Force of men who live in the neighbourhood, but who are not in the true sense the military. They have no more idea of looking after spies, and have never heard of one, than they have of flying to the moon. There is no organisation. There is the local police constable, but no organisation whatever by which the military could take action or deal with the matter. It is right from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view to say that it is a military matter, but when he says that he is condemning the present system. It is the system we are attacking not the man. We say that in this matter there is no organisation in this country at this moment which can deal with this vital matter, and until there is that organisation there is good ground for anxiety and want of confidence on the part of the public. The right hon. Gentleman says that 120,000 cases of suspicion have been investigated since the War began.
    Mr. McKENNA: In London alone.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: That is splendid! No one has said anything against it. Everyone admires the splendid work the police have done and the way in which they have been assisted by the special constables. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of 120,000 cases of suspicion does he mean that those cases were investigated because of special information having been conveyed? I do not think so. I think he has in mind that 120,000 calls were made by the police on supposed aliens.
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no!
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does he suggest that every case he has referred to as being suspicious was a case specially investigated?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, 120,000. The matter is rather important. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we had 120,000 cases of special investigation, on special evidence, about particular people.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: And how many convictions?
    Mr. McKENNA: Three hundred and forty were interned.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Very good. That only shows how efficient the London police are, and it also shows how the country and the public are thinking about this matter. The public must have given the information in most of the cases, because in over three hundred cases evidence was given and they were interned. It is reasonable to assume that those three hundred cases were cases of dangerous persons, otherwise they would not have been interned. It is not, however, a question of how many cases have been investigated. The right hon. Gentleman makes the admission that three hundred dangerous people, supposed to have been spies, have been arrested in London since the War started. It means that there have been three hundred people looking round London for information to give to the enemy. That is a very large proportion, and it justifies what has been said that if you carry that all over the country it is a very large proportion of the foreign population. What we are apt to forget is the importance which Germany attaches to this spy system. For ten years I have spent over a month in Germany every year. I know German officers, and I know their minds. From beginning to end the spy system is their first line of attack.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: In their own country, too.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: In their own country and this country. We have the admission of the Home Secretary that he was watching, I think, 500 spies for five years in this country. Is it conceivable that, with 500 spies employed by the German Government in this country for five years, to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman and watched by him, even if every one of them is interned to-day they have not got an organisation in this country which is likely to be useful to Germany at present? It is inconceivable, with the money which was being spent, that they have not made such arrangements that if they themselves were arrested there was still someone else to carry on the work.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that 500 people were employed by Germany as spies before the War.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: My right hon. Friend did not say that, but the Memorandum did.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Memorandum says that we arrested immediately before the War—I think the figure is twenty-two.
    1402
    These were men against whom we could have brought charges. Then later we arrested 200 or 300 people against whom there was suspicion, but it must not be understood that in every case of suspicion there was proof. I do not think, in fact, that anything like 500 or half that number of persons were employed by the German Government here before the War.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I assert that the Memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman states that to the knowledge of the Home Office there were hundreds of agents of the German Government in this country, and that they were being carefully watched.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The First Lord of the Admiralty said it, too.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It is in the Memorandum, and there is no doubt about it. Is it conceivable, in view of the amount of money at their disposal, that all these agents covered up their tracks, so to speak? In the event of themselves being arrested, there were others—Britishers if you like, because I believe it is true unfortunately, and the right hon. Gentleman says—and they made such arrangements that the information with which it was arranged should be conveyed to Germany should still be conveyed.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have the statement here.
    "Accordingly on the 4th August, before the Declaration of War, instructions were given by the Home Secretary for the arrest of twenty known spies, and all were arrested. This figure does not cover a large number, upwards of 200, who were noted as under suspicion, or to be kept under special observation. The great majority of these were interned at, or soon after, the Declaration of War."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It comes to the same thing. There were some hundreds under suspicion, being watched all the time by the Government. I should like to ask, suppose my right hon. Friend had supreme power at this moment. Suppose he were dictator. Would he keep this question exactly where it is to-day? I am afraid, with his vigour and his zeal, he must come to the conclusion that the present system is unsatisfactory. It cannot be otherwise. He proposed in the first part of his speech to explain to us what his difficulties were, and he told us of the wrestle he had with a Chief Constable somewhere with no result. That is our whole case. He has no power over the Chief Constable, though I believe if he were to exercise it probably he would have a pecuniary

    1403
    power. He might stop grants and that kind of thing. However, that is a far-off step. But, in effect, he has really no power over the Chief Constable, and the Chief Constable is very often, quite rightly so, a very popular man, and it takes a good deal to shift him. The right hon. Gentleman, with all the power behind him, was not able to succeed, and therefore he proves the case that he really has no power at all. He can send a letter, but it makes no difference whatever, as the Chief Constable may or may not act on it. That is the weak link in the chain of the organisation. To go a step further take the chief constable in my own district. He sent Germans to the military authority with solid ground for suspicion. They were kept, some 24 hours, some 48 hours, and sent back without a word of explanation. Did the military authority know more about these people than the chief constable? I allude to that to show how difficult it is. You cannot have the two authorities, because the military have not got the organisation and the police have no power.
    No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that this question is not satisfactory. He says, representing the Government, that there are at this moment no spies along the East Coast, but will he take the responsibility of saying that any disaster we have suffered was not due to spying? I do not think there is any Member of the Government who would say that. We have reason to be anxious about this. We say the organisation does not exist. The military are too full of their own work, which really does not touch a question of this kind. You cannot leave this question to the soldiers. Their minds are not the same. They have not the local knowledge and they have not the time to give to it or to deal with it. It is a very serious matter. We have admittedly places in Scotland built for the purpose of guns. There is no doubt about it. That shows the extent of German preparation and organisation. We have concrete floors in Scotland. Only in yesterday's paper there are two separate cases of petrol having been supplied to foreigners, and they were fined £25. There was another case only a day or two before, and I know another case in which no action has yet been taken. There are four cases of petrol being supplied. Whose business is it to look after it? If you had a proper system to look after aliens, and see what German sailors
    1404
    are doing in nearly all the ports of Scotland at this moment, and going back on alien vessels, an organisation such as we have suggested would deal with the matter of spies, with passports, and all the ramifications of possible information to the enemy, and would give a centralised control.
    Why are the Government so obstinate about this? I really cannot understand. They have had support such as no Government have had before. We have had hardly a whisper of discontent and there has been every desire to help, and they have done nothing. The only two things they have failed in is this question and the manner in which they have treated the censorship. They cannot deny that there is a great body of public opinion that is against them. Why not even stretch a point and conciliate that public opinion? I do not see any difficulty about it. You admit that that section of public opinion exists, and it is the duty of the Government, even if it thought it might not be extremely wise, to try and conciliate it. We only ask that there shall be an authority in this country to deal with this question. There is no authority. That is not satisfactory in a vital matter of this kind.
    Those of us who are dissatisfied with the present system have asked from the commencement that the Government itself shall appoint a Committee representative of the different Departments with different counties represented, and so forth, and with a head authority. It would give confidence if it would do nothing more. If they will not do that, if their great idea of dignity would be insulted by the suggestion of a policy of that kind, why do not they have an advisory committee of half a dozen head constables and heads of the detective services? That some step is necessary to satisfy public opinion I am satisfied, and so long as they refuse to do it, so long are they taking a great responsibility which I hope will never come home to them, but I am afraid may, because it is everybody's business and it is nobody's business. Up to the present they have really not acted in this matter as they ought to have done. The things that they have done in this short Session ought to have been done three months ago. Take the question of tea going to neutral countries. They ought to have stopped that in the first week. They have no settled policy with regard to many of these vital matters. They have no policy whatever in regard to the question of arresting

    1405
    prisoners on neutral vessels. They allowed it to go on and took no action until the mischief had been done. The right hon. Gentleman says, with regard to the treatment of prisoners in this country, that representations were made by the Embassies. I assume he must have meant the Embassies of neutral countries.
    Mr. McKENNA: Letters from Germany came to me through the Embassies. I have had representations also from neutral countries.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman gave an altogether different impression to the House. What he originally said was that our Consuls in foreign countries had made representations. Then he corrected that and said Embassies.
    Mr. McKENNAindicated dissent.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I interrupted, that unfortunately our Consuls in those countries are all foreigners, as some British found to their cost when the War broke out, and they had to go to foreigners to get assistance. No one wants to do anything unjust. On the contrary, everyone recognises that there are Germans in this country who are perfectly good citizens, and were no more responsible for the War than the humblest citizen in the land. They ought not personally to be made to suffer for it. But when the right hon. Gentleman says, "let us treat them well because of Britishers abroad," Britishers abroad have been treated much more harshly than Germans have in this country. Take the question of men of military age. When the War broke out we did not prevent them going back to Germany, and they went back in thousands. Why was that allowed? Why were they not stopped the day war was declared? I should think, if we had a proper committee we should have said to the thousands who were rushing back to Berlin, "stop here a little bit." These are the men we ought to have kept in and not the hairdressers. We ought to have stopped them going back in neutral vessels long before we did. I wish to impress upon the Government that after all it is conceivable that there may be some slight element of wisdom even outside the front Ministerial Bench, and I want them to contemplate the possibility if it is possible. The hon. Gentleman opposite and representative men in the other House have pressed the Government to take some steps and almost every organ of public opinion
    1406
    on both sides of politics has expressed dissatisfaction with the present system and called upon the Government to do something. Why this obstinacy? It is a matter for great regret, and I still hope the right hon. Gentleman will use the influence to get something really practical done.
    7.0 P.M.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think hon. Members will all be of opinion that a very strong case has been made out in favour of some such course as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel). If I may try to put what the mere onlooker feels, it is that there must always be profound misgiving and profound dissatisfaction as long as there is no one person who is responsible who can be hanged if something goes wrong. That is the whole foundation of administrative efficiency in the matter. As to the Press Bureau, we feel that it is difficult to criticise, for when we say that the Press Censor ought to have done this or that, the hon. Member says, "It is the naval or military authorities who are responsible." In the same way, when we raise the subject of spies or alien enemies and question the action of the Home Office, the Home Secretary says, "I have acted in accordance with the suggestion of the naval and military authorities." That is not a satisfactory system, and I venture earnestly to join in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman to amend it. May I remind him that in every foreign country the whole of these matters are put under the military authorities, who are the absolute masters with respect to them. I think that is possibly the only solution in this matter. I see the difficulty of putting any military authority under a civilian authority, and I see the difficulty of getting a united authority unless you have the military brought into it. I think it is a matter well worth considering whether the matter should not be put under the military authority, the police being instructed to act under that authority, and the matter treated, as indeed it is, as one affecting the safety of His Majesty's Forces by land and sea.
    I did not rise really to continue this particular discussion, but because I was very anxious to bring to the notice of the House certain questions connected with the treatment of our sick and wounded. Let me say at the outset that I have no intention to make any attack upon, or even criticism of the Government in this matter. It is possible that on another occasion,

    1407
    when we are able to speak more freely than now, some criticism may be possible. But I think that at the present moment, it would not be desirable to make any criticism as to what has been done in the past. I rose for the purpose of asking some information as to the treatment of the wounded in the hospital—I do not know whether I use the right technical term—in the stationary hospital outside the firing line altogether. I do not want to go into any technical discussion. I mean the hospitals outside of the immediate influence of the actual fighting. So far as they are concerned a very large number of people would like to know what is going on. I am quite ready to accept the very high eulogy passed by Lord Knutsford on the arrangements of the hospitals. I need not say that I am not in a position to dispute what was said by Lord Knutsford, who is a greater authority than I can pretend to be on such a subject. But I am inclined to wonder whether his absolutely unqualified praise was really justified. Still I do not rise to say anything about these hospitals at all. Besides these hospitals, which are what may be called base hospitals, there is a great deal which very closely affects the successful treatment of the wounded. The House is perfectly well aware that when a man is wounded in the firing line, he is first of all taken to a dressing station where the wound is dressed, and ultimately he is taken to what is called a clearing station, which is a building immediately behind the firing line, and within a few miles. He is afterwards sent on to a proper hospital where he can be treated with all the appliances of modern science.
    I should like to know as to one or two points in connection with the treatment of the wounded before the time when they get to what we call the base hospital. I am sure everybody in the House will recognise that it is a vital matter, because a wound is necessarily in a very large number of cases liable to be, and indeed must be, a poisoned wound. It is inflicted under conditions which lend themselves necessarily to septic poisoning, and all depends, in the first place, on the way it is treated immediately, and secondly, on the speed with which you can get the wounded man to a hospital where he can be treated with the full appliances of science. I should like to know, in the first place, as to the treatment up to the time he leaves the clearing hospital. Is the
    1408
    right hon. Gentleman in a position to assure us—I dare say he is—that there is now an ample supply of members of the Royal Army Medical Corps? Let me say—it is almost impertinent for anyone to say so—that it is absolutely out of my wish to make any criticism of the work of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Amongst all the corps which have done heroic service to the State there is not, I believe, any that have done more heroic service than the members of that corps. Their courage and devotion is absolutely beyond the possibility of praise. All I ask is, are there enough of them? I want to know another thing about the clearing hospitals. Are there nurses enough? That is a matter I venture respectfully to think is of great importance, and I know that there are high medical authorities who take that view, not only because of the high skill which an English trained nurse possesses, but also because the actual psychical effect of having a woman to attend a wounded man is a very great element in the satisfactory progress of his injury. I think I am right in saying that at one time enough nurses were not at these hospitals, and I should like to know whether there are a sufficient number at the present moment.
    The other main question I wish to ask is this: After a man leaves a clearing hospital he is brought down to another hospital, and an immense amount depends upon the rapidity with which that is done. If there is poison in the wound it is working all the time, and it may not have been possible to have it entirely dealt with up to the time of leaving the clearing hospital, and it may be fatal to have delay. It is of vital importance that the wounded man should be treated with the greatest possible speed at a hospital properly so-called under conditions such as I have tried to describe. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us whether everything is being done—I am sure it is—to secure the greatest possible speed in bringing these men down from the clearing hospitals to the base hospitals. I wish to know whether every use is being made of the motor ambulance, whether, so far as it is in our power to control it, the train service is working properly in those respects, and whether, in fact, there is a reasonably short interval between the infliction of the wound and the treatment of the man in the base hospital? I am sure the House and the country will be grateful to the

    1409
    right hon. Gentleman for any further information he can give on this subject. I feel, as I suppose everybody feels in this country, that we should all do something to help those who are fighting, and I think one of the things we can do is to take care that when they are wounded they shall be treated with the greatest possible skill. I am sure the House will feel strongly that no expense or trouble should be spared to secure that end.
    Many Members of the House must have had opportunities of talking to wounded men in the hospitals, and I am sure they will agree with me that great as is the heroism of the troops in the field of battle, it is equalled by their heroism in the hospitals. You will talk to these men, suffering from terrible injuries, and even suffering acute pain, and you will find that, although they have been fighting necessarily under conditions which gave them painful experiences, even when they are wounded and when they have had to undergo inevitable delays—because there must be some delays under war conditions—they will not make a complaint. After describing what they have been through, they will wind up by saying that everything was done for them that could be done. I have had opportunities of talking to a number of these men, and I have never known a private soldier or a noncommissioned officer say anything otherwise. It seems to rue that the astonishing patience and amazing courage of the men puts upon us a tremendous duty to see that everything is done that can possibly be done to alleviate their sufferings, at whatever expense or trouble, so that, at any rate, they shall know we are not ungrateful for the great services they have given.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I should like to ask one or two questions as to the care of the wounded. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary, first of all, whether antiquated horse-drawn ambulances are still used for bringing troops from the trenches? Nearly everyone who has experience in these matters would say that motor ambulances could go up farther than they do now. In many cases the roads are good up to the trenches where a great part of the fighting takes place. But at the present moment a poor wounded soldier is first of all taken from the trenches to the regimental dressing station. From there he is taken on one of these horse ambulances to a field dressing station; from there he goes to a clearing hospital; from the clearing
    1410
    hospital he is taken to the railhead, and from the railhead he is taken to the base hospital. All those movements are a source of great pain to him and should be made as quickly as possible. It would be a good thing to make those moves as long as possible, so as to do away with one of them. For instance, to take away from the field dressing station to the clearing hospital and put them far away from the fighting station. Many of the field dressing stations which I have seen are houses in a village where there are no means of carrying the wounded owing to the narrow, staircases, and there is every sort of inconvenience. It would be a very great matter if these antiquated horse-drawn ambulances were only used when it was necessary to go over the fields, and that, wherever there is a road, motor ambulances should be used, so that men may be conveyed a greater distance. What the Noble Lord said about nurses being employed in the clearing hospitals is very true. Until quite recently there were no nurses employed, only hospital orderlies. The sympathy of women would be a good thing to men whose nerves very often have been shattered.
    Then I would ask why are there not more chaplains sent up to these clearing hospitals? I have seen these poor men dying off with the hospital orderlies simply waiting to take them away to bury them, and it would be a good thing if a chaplain were there to give some consolation and take down a few last words, and perhaps tell the people of these men where they have been buried. In a great many instances they are buried simply by the French authorities. I think that if this suggestion were adopted it would do a great deal of good, and I do not understand why the chaplains are not allowed to go up to these hospitals. Then as to the selection, especially in this country, of these hospital orderlies, the R.A.M.C. is one of the finest corps in the British Army. The men work under tremendous difficulties and with great skill, but they have only poor tools. Sometimes at the last moment in order to get the necessary assistance, they have to enlist men who are little better than labourers, and have no training whatsoever in conveying and carrying the wounded. I have seen a lot of these men at work. They do their best, but you cannot expect a couple of rough navvies to know how to lift men in and out of ambulances very carefully, when these men have such wounds as a

    1411
    shattered thigh. I think that in time of peace there ought to be some big reserve from which the R.A.M.C. can draw orderlies, as required in time of war, so that they shall not be obliged to pick up whatever they can get from wherever they can get it, in order to do the work. In reference to hospital trains it is all very well for Lord Knutsford to say that he has seen good hospital trains. There are some good ones, but I have seen dozens and dozens coming in with these poor men still lying in horse boxes on straw. I think that a great effort ought to be made to get more hospital trains fitted up. I am told by doctors that straw is one of the worst things on which a wounded man can lie, because the germ of tetanus, which is such a horrible disease, is a horse germ which is contained in manure or dung, and if you are not very careful when conveying them in that way, men are very apt to contract that disease, and though straw may be a very comfortable thing to lie on, still it is not a suitable thing to send the wounded down on.
    There is another thing which I would like to ask. Have the R.A.M.C. ever considered all the means of conveying the wounded which are available to their hands? A great maxim in fighting is, that the fighting man comes first, and the wounded man must take his chance second. In time of peace it is the other way about. But it constantly occurs that hospital trains are delayed for from 10 to 20 hours, owing to the railways being used for bringing troops up to the front. That is very natural according to the present arrangement; but I would like to know why the wonderful waterways of France, its canals and rivers, are not more used than they are now? France has one of the most splendid systems of inland navigation which exist. They have very fine locks, lit with electric light, in which you can put ten or twelve barges. All up through the fighting area, Bethune, La Bassée and Ypres, there is one of the finest systems of canals through which you can evacuate wounded to Calais and Dunkirk. All along these rivers and canals you can see hundreds of barges lying idle. In every single course which the R.A.M.C. doctors go through the conveyance of wounded by barge has been laid down as one of the most ideal forms of conveyance. Why do they not adopt it? The Red Cross Society fitted out one barge which I had the pleasure of towing. This barge
    1412
    we had fitted for fifty wounded. We had operating tables, beds and every comfort. That has been used on the Seine. It was inspected by all the highest Army authorities who approved of it, but nothing has been done. They say they are going to do something. The great advantage of this mode of conveyance is first, that you do away with one of the necessary movements of the wounded. First of all, you take him away from the line of communication, which is necessary for your fighting troops. You take him through a line of route which is not wanted for troops. It is too slow for troops. The wounded man is in no hurry; he does not care whether he is lying in a barge or whether he is lying in hospital. When these barges are comfortable, as they are, great barges 120 feet long, 16 feet wide, and 10 feet in depth, they make, an absolutely ideal means of conveyance, and with eight or nine of these barges, and the necessary nurses and doctors, you have a floating hospital for over 400 wounded. These barges can be towed to the docks or quays at Havre, Calais, or Dunkirk, and can wait there until the hospital ships are ready for the wounded to be put on board.
    At present even if he has only to wait an hour or two for the hospital ship the wounded man has to be taken out of the train and conveyed to hospital, and then taken to the ship for conveyance across the Channel. By means of the barge they can be brought down to the base or dock, and can remain on the barge until the hospital ship comes in, when the barge is towed alongside and he is gently lifted on. This saves an enormous amount of suffering to the wounded, and I hope that the authorities will not consider this merely an academic idea and as simply the most ideal way of transferring the wounded, but that they will do something in the matter. I trust also that they will do it soon because, owing to the railways being practically entirely used for troops, a great many of these barges are being used instead of the railways to carry coal, and if this matter is not taken in hand at once, we shall not be able to get anything like the nice clean barges which we can get at present. I may also draw attention to the fact that in a great many places they are still continuing to use tent hospitals. There are three or four hundred of our wounded who have been left in Rouen in tents. Why on earth cannot they requisition French houses for the

    1413
    wounded? I believe that there are plenty of houses. I believe that the French would gladly give these houses if they were requisitioned. It is not a question of giving them, because we pay the French for every house we requisition and for every train we use to convey our wounded and our troops. I would like to know, therefore, why it is necessary to keep these men in these tents. I got a letter only the day before yesterday from a man in one of these tents, in which he tells me that the whole of the huge tent was blown down on top of them. You can imagine what that means to wounded men with fractured thighs and other awful injuries. Some of these tents have been put in the coldest places possible. In this particular instance they were put upon the racecourse. It does seem to me a wrong thing that you cannot arrange in this cruel, foggy weather to get more billeting for the wounded, if not in that place, then in some other place.
    I think also that some arrangement might be made for paying the Customs Duties to the French. It is a pity that now and again things like X-rays and medical stores should be held up because the Customs have not been paid to the French Government. That is a matter which might be looked into. I do not believe that it is the fault of the French—it is the fault, possibly, of some French clerk—because the Government are willing to do everything they can. But in one of our bases, I heard, they could not find the X-ray apparatus in the hospital, and they went down and found at the station that the clerk said the duty had not been paid. That requires looking into. There ought not to be hitches like that at all. I think there ought to be more inspection of hospital trains, and then something should be done to see that they are fitted with light and water. Very often trains come in with absolutely no gas in them at all. There ought to be somebody to see that those things are properly replenished. I do not think that it is altogether the duty of Army officers. They have a great many R.T.O. officers, who are what are vulgarly called dug-ups, who go on there, but are not trained men. Why not send out some of our trained railway officials who know about trains? Let them go out and give their services and look after those trains. They will do it infinitely better than any soldier could, for they have got the necessary training. They will see that these
    1414
    terrible delays do not occur, and that things would not be as they are now when very often there are no means of finding out when a train gets in. They would see that proper signalling arrangements were made so that when a train does come in the Red Cross and the Army nurses would be there to meet it instead of, as at present often happens, having the train come in hours late when there is nobody there to receive the wounded, and they have to remain there until they can telephone the hospitals and get the ambulances down. When a man gives his life for his country the least you can do is, when it does not interfere with the military affairs of outfighting forces, to give him every possible luxury and assistance that you can.
    Of course out there the heads of Departments or the heads of the Army are really too busy in fighting for their country and in carrying on the War to a successful issue. The wounded, doubtless, are an encumbrance to those in the fighting force, but there is need certainly of a of supervision in that way. I should like to say a word or two about the Red Cross Society, which is recognised by the Government, who give it a certain amount in grants for the care of the wounded—2s. or 3s.—in the hospitals. The Red Cross Society have an enormous fund at their disposal, and I believe they do their best, but there are a great number of amateur administrators who look after it, and I think it would be a very good thing if some Government official were appointed to represent the Government in this great society which, though a private organisation, has now become almost a part of our Army Medical scheme. You might also, I think, put in somebody who would audit the accounts on behalf of the Government, in order to show the subscribers, often men and women in strained circumstances, who have given up their little and stinted and half-starved themselves to give something to the Red Cross Society, how the money has been spent and whether it has been administered as economically and as efficiently as possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice from those cheers that my remark is received with a certain amount of approbation, and it leads me to believe that others, like myself, realise that there has been a good deal of extravagance and waste in the way this money is spent.
    I think it would be a great relief to subscribers if there were some sort of

    1415
    supervision. I myself have seen numbers of people engaged. I have seen thirty doctors waiting in Paris—each paid a large annual sum by the Red Cross Society—for three weeks with no work to do at all, while being paid out of the subscribers' money. It is not because they do not wish to work the society economically; it is because they have not got the requisite knowledge to do it. The people in charge of the Red Cross Society—I am not speaking of Members of this House; I am speaking of the people out there—are not sufficiently businesslike in management, and there is a good deal of waste. I think that the War Office ought to be very careful to see that all members of the Red Cross Society who have any official positions in that association are English, and that no slur should be put on the society by employing people with German names and German sympathies: first of all, because it gives offence to our men; and, secondly, because it does not tend to good work. All that might be gone into by the Government if they appointed a representative to the Red Cross Society to look after things. The Red Cross Society are a very huge body; there is no getting at any of their accounts or of looking after things, and certainly there is much need of supervision. I trust that the Under-Secretary of State will carefully consider these matters, as this War may be a long one, for the comfort of the wounded so enormously depends upon successful management.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State one or two questions, though I should like it to be understood that I make no attack, nor do I pass any criticism, on the Royal Army Medical Corps, whose heroism I quite recognise. A large number of the wounded, after receiving first aid, are taken down to what is called the clearing hospital. The result has been that a certain number of them, who have not been very seriously injured, have been passed on without having any further attention given to them, and sent down to the base hospital, or even to Boulogne. The case I have specially in mind is that of an officer whose wound was not dressed until the third day. The wound was slight, but a piece of cartridge cloth was found in it, and blood poisoning set in, causing the officer's death. If the wound had been properly dressed he would not have died. I believe there have been many cases of
    1416
    that sort. I think, possibly, that might be remedied by the engagement of a larger number of nurses and doctors, sent as nearly to the firing line as possible. I quite understand the difficulties, I do not want to underrate them; but I think something of the kind I suggest might possibly be done. I know at any rate that for some time after the War there were no female nurses at the clearing hospital; there may have been reasons for that, and, as a matter of fact, I do not know whether they are there now; at that time they were not there. With regard to the hospitals in hotels at Boulogne, I do not doubt that they are very efficient and extremely well managed, but I fear that they are not sufficient to cope with a sudden influx of wounded. I am told that a sudden influx of wounded resulted in so many being brought that, in one case, they were lying so close together as to make it impossible to walk between them. I have taken considerable pains to verify that statement, for I did not see it myself.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: I saw it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member saw it, and I have taken pains to verify my information, and I am sure it is correct. I am informed that there are two other hotels in Boulogne which might be taken in a sudden emergency, causing a large number of wounded to be forwarded, after a big action. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not endeavour to make arrangements, so that the first matter that I have mentioned may be avoided as far as possible in future; and that in the second case, namely, the hospitals at Boulogne, further houses may be taken so that, in the event of a sudden influx of wounded, they may receive proper attention.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I desire to call the attention of the Under-Secretary for War to another portion of our fighting forces which everybody admits deserves profound sympathy and compassion—I allude to the condition of the British prisoners of war interned in German prisons. We have stories from American correspondents, which go far to show that British prisoners have not enough to eat, that they are suffering in health very much from want of meat, and, according to the correspondents, they have not enough to keep them indecent health; they are living in the most insanitary camps, and their general treatment is not at all up to the standard of that which we very properly

    1417
    give to German prisoners in this country. I would like to ascertain whether there is a Department at the War Office which is specially detailed to look after the interests of the thousands of British prisoners of war. These men deserve sympathy, because they are not in the field, but have been taken prisoners while perhaps defending the most advanced trenches in difficult positions, or in performing some brilliant feat in despatch riding, and still more brilliant feats as aviators, to whose knowledge, and daring our Forces owe so much. These men have been made prisoners, nd they are suffering, and naturally must suffer, being prisoners of war. Their position must be irksome and disagreeable beyond anything almost we can conceive. We ought to see that, through the War Office, everything is done that can be done to alleviate their condition in their present very painful position. I should like to ask, for my own information and the information of others, whether the pay of prisoners of war is stopped from the time that they become prisoners, or is it a duty incumbent upon the War Office to get money through to those prisoners so that they may be in a position to buy some store additions to their scanty meals and some warm clothing for the winter.
    The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, said the sum of £3,000 had been sent out to the American Embassy to be spent in extra winter clothes for these prisoners of war. If the sum of £3,000 can be sent out in that way, may I ask whether further sums of money can be sent out through the American Embassy for the purpose of supplying extra food and clothing where needed? I should further like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any voluntary organisation could be usefully set on foot with a view to assisting the prisoners through the American Embassy, or, by other means, to communicate with prisoners of war and give them information as to their wives and families and people in whom they are especially interested in their own country? I ask whether such an association would be of any assistance to the War Office? Further, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible by some arrangement with Germany to have representatives in the nature of wardens in all these camps of prisoners, in order to protect the interests of our
    1418
    men in that country, and that the Germans should have similar representatives in this country, to look after the interests of German prisoners here. I further ask, by way of suggestion, whether it would be possible that representatives appointed by neutral countries could not look after the prisoners in all countries in which prisoners of war are interned? I think that might be possible, and I do not see why the German Government should object to it. It would be equally advantageous to all nations if relatives could learn, through representatives appointed by neutral countries, how prisoners of war are treated, and the information could be communicated to the homes of those prisoners. The friends of officers in this country have, of course, sufficient knowledge to enable them to communicate with members of their families, and I know that in certain cases they have been able to send out money with which the officers were in a position to purchase extra clothing and food in the country where they were interned. But the relations of private soldiers in this country have no such knowledge, and naturally they are ignorant of how to communicate with prisoners. I suggest that some organisation should be set on foot, if no such organisation exists, which might endeavour to put itself into communication between the prisoners interned in Germany and the relations who look with such anxiety for their safe return.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): A number of questions have been raised to which I must give my attention, and to which I ask the attention of the House for a few minutes. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked me about the treatment of our officers and men in Germany, and he has asked me what is the condition under which they are paid. Under The Hague Convention officers receive pay and not the men. The officers receive the pay of their rank in the country in which they are interned. Our pay for officers is very much higher than that of Germany. Intelligence reached us, unofficially, that that pay was not being paid to our officers in Germany, so that we called a conference together, and we decided in this country to give cash payments up to half Infantry rates to the prisoners of war in this country until we heard that the full rates were being paid in Germany to ours.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: To officers and men?
    Mr. TENNANT: The men are not paid under The Hague Convention, only the officers are paid. When the information reaches us that Germany is paying full rates, then, of course, we shall pay the officers in this country their full rates. While they are receiving half rates the officers are being given free messing, but when the full rates are paid they will have to find their own messing. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me what measures are taken by the War Office to secure good treatment for and to make the lives of the prisoners more tolerant, or, at least, as tolerant as may be. Mr. Gaston, of whom I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman has heard, has been doing very admirable work in this connection. In his report, which I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has seen, and if he has not I can let him have a copy, Mr. Gaston says that the German authorities are making efforts to remedy the condition of things of which complaint had been made. There were complaints that there was lack of food, and that the quarters were not clear, and, in fact, that they were verminous. We understand that in Germany they hope to move the prisoners to huts in a very short time, or, as the report put it when it was issued, in less than a week. We are also told that there will be ample bathing facilities by means of shower baths. We have not information which can make one positive that the amount of food is really as good as one would like. I will endeavour, through the American Embassy, to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that money that can be transmitted shall be transmitted, in order to put that matter right.
    The right hon. Gentleman also made another suggestion, which is that we should have wardens appointed by us in Germany and by the Germans here to safeguard the interests of the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will realise that that is a matter which it is impossible for me to give any absolute assurance upon. All I can say is that I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and see whether something of the kind can be arranged between the two Governments by means of the intervention of the American Embassy. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me whether there were facilities for the men, as well as the officers, communicating home. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is so. There is an article in The Hague Convention
    1420
    dealing with the subject of whether any organised voluntary effort to help in the organisation of these camps would be tolerated and admitted. Article 15 of The Hague Convention says:—
    "Societies for the relief of prisoners of war. If properly constituted in accordance with the law of their country, and with the object of serving as the channel for charitable effort, shall receive from the belligerents for themselves and their duly accredited agents every facility for the efficient performance of their humane task, within the bounds imposed by military exigencies and administrative regulations. Representatives of these societies, when furnished with a personal permit by the military authorities, may, on giving an undertaking in writing to comply with all measures of order and police which they may have to issue, be admitted to the places of internment for the purpose of distributing relief, as also to the halting places of repatriated prisoners."
    That would seem to cover the question of wardens, raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I think if we could put any machinery in motion by which such a voluntary organisation could be launched, we would be doing a great public service.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question as to whether any portion of the men's pay might not be set aside, and then some methods adopted of transmitting the men's pay through either the American Embassy or some other way, so that the men as well as the officers may have some extra money in order to purchase food?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certainly, I will consider that, and I think it is a most reasonable proposition. I come now to the other question which has been raised by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), namely, the subject, the most interesting, and indeed the most enthralling, of our treatment of our brave soldiers returned from the war. May I offer the thanks of the Army Council to the Noble Lord for the admirable manner in which he has been discharging the most onerous duties in helping the British Red Cross Society, and may I say that I understand that a continuance of those services will be very much appreciated. The Noble Lord had asked me what are the arrangements for the treatment of the wounded at the front, and whether immediate steps are taken upon a soldier being wounded for his proper and careful treatment. I am sure the House will realise that that can only be answered on the supposition that military exigencies of the case admit of the men being taken away from the firing line at the moment of injury, and then treated, so that the question of the immediateness or otherwise of the treatment is really a military question, and not

    1421
    a medical one at the moment. The Noble Lord has borne eloquent testimony to the wonderful courage with which the officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps have discharged this duty, a testimony which I am sure the House will wish to endorse, and work which we in the War Office cannot praise too highly. Therefore, I think, we may carry some hope in our mind that everything possible is done in order that the wounded shall be treated, and treated effectively, at the earliest possible moment. I should like to give the assurance to the House and to the country that we have an ample number of Royal Army Medical Corps, officers and men. The medical and surgical treatment of the troops is in very high and competent hands, as the Royal Army Medical Corps supply a number of officers of the most highly skilled and trained character, and they produce as fine surgeons and doctors as any other branch of the medical and surgical service.
    We do not limit ourselves entirely to the military and medical profession. We have numbers of distinguished members of the medical profession from the civil side as well, distinguished physicians with whom are associated clinical authorities. In addition to that, we have becteriologists engaged in endeavouring to solve some very very difficult problems. In this connection, I think the Noble Lord will be interested to know that the wounds are inflicted almost entirely by shrapnel, and as everybody knows, the vast majority of the wounds are wounds of an almost novel type, and nothing like them has been seen during the recent history of medical science. You have to go back to the days of the Crimea to find anything like the treatment. In the course of the treatment of these wounds there have been differences of opinion on scientific grounds, as to what that treatment should be. There is, as the House knows, an antiseptic school and an aseptic school. The aseptic school at the beginning of the War was in the ascendant, and now we have had to go back to what was considered a rather antiquated form of treatment by many people. I do not pretend to presume to give any opinion, but the antiseptic treatment is being used so much, that we are now engaged in sending out to every soldier, private as well as officers fighting, a small amount of iodine in order to give immediate treatment to the wounds when it is possible for the men to do so.
    Mr. D. HALLwas understood to ask if a supply of serums had been sent?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman just now, and would prefer to continue in my own way. Nor have we limited ourselves to conducting this work in the established hospitals. We have established a travelling bacteriological laboratory and also a small laboratory for sanitary purposes. Bacteriologists have been doing work which is bearing great fruit. I would like also to mention that the Royal Army Medical Corps are working in close connection with the Lister Institute and the Research Committee of the National Insurance and other institutions. Let me deal for a moment with the question of nurses and clearing station. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Douglas Hall) I think made out one move more than I could account for in anything which we know of at the War Office. When a man is wounded his wound is dressed as near to the firing line as may be, and he is then taken to the clearing station, and from the clearing station to the train which takes him to the base. Thus there are three moves and not four. I think if the hon. Member has different information from that, it must have been in the early stages of the War. It is perfectly true things did occur in the early stages which, as I am sure the Noble Lord knows, do not occur now, and, no doubt, on a tremendous military occasion of the most dangerous and difficult nature which occurred in the early stages of the War, that degree of precision of treatment which you can have when you have fixed trenches could not be attained under such circumstances. I feel sure that that will be fully appreciated both inside the House and outside of it. There is an ample number of nurses in the clearing station. They do not get nearer to the firing line than the clearing station. Not only is there a sufficient number, but there is a waiting list. There are in France, I may say, roughly speaking, because I am not certain of all places, nurses held in reserve.
    Mr. D. HALL: Since when have they had nurses at the clearing hospitals?
    8.0. P.M.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot give the date. I will get the information. There is an ample number now. I should like to make it quite clear that we have an ample supply both of personnel and of materiel, because I have seen it stated that subscriptions are being raised in order to

    1423
    secure articles like chloroform. I have here a telegram received yesterday from the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee), who has been doing very fine work for the State in inquiring into and reporting to us upon this very subject of the treatment of the wounded. It states:—
    "I am informed that the St. John's Ambulance Society has issued an appeal for £100,000 to purchase chloroform and other medical stores, stating that operations on our wounded are being performed without anæsthetics. Can assure you on the highest authority this allegation is totally untrue, both as regards the present and the past. Suggest it should be denied in Parliament today, in order to allay public anxiety and to stop subscriptions to quite unnecessary fund."
    I think that that statement, coming from the source it does, and so immediately, will carry conviction to the minds of the House. Not only are all demands complied with, but they are anticipated. The next point is the removal of the wounded from one place to another, and the circumstances in which it occurs. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Dougles Hall) asks why we have so many horse ambulances. I may inform the House that we have three horse ambulances for every seven motor ambulances. The necessity for having horse ambulances is that there are parts of the country that horses can get over and motors cannot, because of the mud. You really cannot get mechanically-propelled vehicles over some parts of the country which can be traversed by horses. Therefore we have horse ambulances in that proportion. We are now replacing nearly all the horse ambulances by motor ambulances from the front to the rear. It has been suggested, not in this Debate but in the Press, that we have refused motor ambulances. It is not true that we have refused them. All we have said is that we are not ready to accept them just now. We shall no doubt be willing and ready to accept them in the future, and we have told those kindly disposed persons who have been so good as to offer motor ambulances that if they will renew their offers in a month or two months' time, we shall be very glad to avail ourselves of them. Hospital trains have been supplied and have been very much improved since the date to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I can assure him that they are very comfortable at present. Three others are being prepared. We are indebted to Lord Michelham and the Red Cross Society for these trains.
    1424
    That brings me to the conveyance of the wounded—to the question of straw and tetanus. I have a report from the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham saying that tetanus is extremely rare—remarkably rare—in the Army at the present time. With regard to straw, I think that has now been abandoned owing to the improvements in the trains which I have mentioned, but I will make inquiries. I never heard of the straw before.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to the time that elapses normally between the clearing hospital and the base hospital?
    Mr. TENNANT: That depends on the train service. I was coming to that and the barge conveyance suggested by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. It is very difficult to give a specific reply to the Noble Lord's question, because the time varies enormously according to as and when vast numbers of troops and other necessaries are going up. Moreover, the House ought to remember that all the railways are in the hands of the French Government, and when the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should send over from here officers and men versed in railway service that is not a possibility. We cannot insist upon the French Government taking our servants when they have their own servants there. I would ask the House to appreciate that.
    Mr. D. HALL: What I suggested was that they should do work which certain other officers do now—that is, to keep the French officials up to the mark and to get what they want. Railway officials know much better than Militia officers what is requisite to make a train comfortable.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid we cannot absolutely insist upon the French Government accepting those whom we choose to send over. At the beginning of the War we did select certain officers who had had experience of these matters, for the most part Army Service Corps officers; they were accepted by the French Government, and are, I believe, doing excellent work now in endeavouring to expedite the trains. Of course, the difficulty is prodigious. When you have these enormous masses of men and not very great train facilities, it does not require very much imagination to see what a difficult operation it must be. With regard to

    1425
    the Indian wounded, who are necessarily detained in England previous to their departure for India, we hope in a few days to have 3,000 beds at Brighton. In the meantime they are comfortably housed at Brockenhurst. Everything is being done to ensure the comfort of the Indian sick and wounded.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there in the hospital any trouble concerning the food of any of the Indian troops?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it is being perfectly done. There has not been any complaint, so far as I am aware.
    Sir J. D. REES: I do not suggest it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am glad the hon. Member does not. Of course, they have everything specially constructed and a special personnel. We are arranging for the use of mobile hospitals during the winter, which we think may be particularly useful. The barge suggestion, I confess, is quite a new one to me. I shall be glad to lay the hon. Member's suggestions before my medical military authorities, by whom I am sure it will receive the consideration which it deserves. Whether it is possible or not is another matter.
    Mr. D. HALL: A report on the system has been sent to some of the authorities, and they have approved of it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I hope we shall be able to put it in force. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) informed us of a very distressing case, which I am afraid is only too true, as a wounded officer who came home without having had his wound dressed except for the initial dressing after it was inflicted. I can only express the hope that with the more perfect organisation which we now have there will be no recurrence of such a case. With regard to nurses I hope I have said sufficient to satisfy the House. I will certainly convey the hon. Baronet's statement to the medical authorities, and if there is not room in the other houses, the two hotels which he has mentioned shall be utilised. The House may be interested to learn that up to the beginning of November 1,736 wounded arrived at Boulogne, and the average will be somewhere about 500 or 600 a day. That will give the House and the country an idea of the amount of work which has to be overcome by the medical authorities.
    I would say one or two words upon a phase of the medical activities which I
    1426
    think the country will consider as important as those with which I have already dealt. I mean the question of sanitation. Every effort has been made to preserve the health of the troops in the field, and so far, I may say they have been entirely successful. The sanitary difficulties, of course, increase as the course of the campaign proceeds. We are now endeavouring to see in advance what our requirements will be and to meet them. In this connection we are preparing divisional sanitary companies, which will consist of sanitary inspectors and men. Yesterday Sir A. Keogh, the Director-General of the Army Medical Service, saw the members of a sanitary committee whom he had sent out to the front to examine into a phase of the situation which I told the Noble Lord opposite, in private conversation, was causing me anxiety. That committee has just returned from a tour of inspection, and they assure us that nothing could exceed the sanitary condition of the actual trenches at the front. That, of course, is where the danger occurs. I would like to relieve the mind of the Noble Lord of any anxiety that I may have caused him in that particular. I can assure the House that I myself was very greatly relieved by the information brought back by that committee. Of course, every precaution which science, and the experience of these gentlemen, can suggest has been taken, and the task—I hope it will be fully realised by the House—has been admirably conceived and well carried out. The proof of that is that we have had very few cases of enteric. I do not wish to go more fully into details as to the steps which we have taken to preserve the sanitary conditions of our soldiers at the front, because I am informed that the statement might be copied by the enemy, and no doubt it is part of the military situation. If they are inefficient in their sanitary arrangements, we will not regret it. Therefore I do not wish to go further in case I should be aiding the enemy.
    But who is not liable to lie awake at night thinking of the terrible hardships through which our troops have to go and are daily and nightly undergoing in the titanic struggle which is now going on. Our troops have all the horrors which they have before their eyes, with frost bites at night now added; and if the horrors of disease are to be added to all this, then indeed it would be that we were not serving the State in the manner in which the State has a right to expect. We cannot

    1427
    always be certain of these matters, especially as the campaign goes on, and, as I have said, the dangers which confront the troops in the field become greater and greater, almost from day to day, particularly when our troops move to the ground which has been recently occupied by the enemy, and where there may be all the horrors of decomposition going on. I feel that the House realises the task which lies before us. They will know that these are anxious times. I think that Members will be glad to know that so far as this phase of the situation goes, we have been successful. We have been successful through the skill, energy, activity, and scientific knowledge of the Royal Army Medical Corps, under Sir Arthur Sloggett. I should like the House not to withhold the meed of praise where it is due to men like Sir A. Sloggett and Sir Alfred Keogh.
    Mr. J. WARD: I am sure that the discussion upon the Bill relating to the treatment of our wounded soldiers has been highly interesting. The observations which have been made, both by those who criticise the Department, as well as the hon. Gentleman who has just made his defence and explanation of what has been done, shows that the Department has enormously advanced and improved this side of its work since the time that I went campaigning thirty years ago. The improvement must be something enormous. I am sure everybody has been delighted with what has been said. There will be a certain amount of confidence in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has been able to make and the information which he has been able to give. One of the saddest things that we can contemplate is the hardships of wounded men stricken down defending their country, especially now in the winter. Even when you have done everything which organised science can suggest there is bound to be an immense amount of suffering that under ordinary circumstances could be alleviated, but which under the circumstances of active service it is impossible that you can assist. While I am able to give the Department praise in that direction, I am afraid my business to-night for a little while is to deal with a subject where the Department does not profit by past experience, but where, as a matter of fact, if we can take what one sees in the Press at the present time, it seems to go from bad to worse.
    1428
    I wish to refer once again—as it is the last opportunity that I shall have before the House adjourns at this part of the Session—to the subject that I mentioned the other day—that of contracts. I have had an enormous mass of correspondence dealing with the subject since it was first ventilated in this House. Some of it is very queer stuff indeed. There are an enormous number of contractors, or districts, who complain. I am not concerned about that at all. I hope the Financial Secretary will not imagine for one moment that I am concerned in the slightest degree to whom his Department gives their contracts, or how they give them, so long as they get value for the money, and get their work done, and their material and the things required supplied at the price that other people could have got the same thing done for. I do not mean could have got them before the War, but could get them now while the War is on. Unfortunately there is not the slightest doubt that the public has a great suspicion of the War Office because of past experience relating to it. We have had Commission after Commission—in fact, it seems as as though it is impossible for the country to come to any war without an enormous suspicion of corruption relating to the operation of this Department. Instead of getting better it gets worse. I have received a pamphlet relating to the subject, and it is surprising the different Commissions that have been held. There was the Farwell, the Gray, and the Butler Commissions, and another held relating to the canteens.
    Each one of these Commissions have deplored the fact that there was a certain amount of corruption, and a certain amount of favouritism which leads to corruption, and they suggested methods by which matters might be improved. Each one of these Committees has made some recommendations of this description. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be obliged to confess that none of these Committees' recommendations have ever been accepted. If we come to the present time it is just the same old story to that prior to the South African War, only a bit worse, because it is a bit thicker. I cannot for the life of me—and I would ask soldiers who are present here, and some of whom have themselves been administrators—believe that corruption is a necessary and absolutely essential part of waging war. I believe, as a matter of fact, that these things could be got, and

    1429
    these things could be done if the recommendation of these previous Committees were adopted. I feel certain that this part of our business could be managed in just as straightforward a way as any other Department of the State. It is not because everybody does not give the Department warning. The "Economist," the moment war was declared—I believe within some forty-eight hours—made the following observations, which to a large extent practically sum up what I wish to say:—
    "The only measure adequate to prevent scandal is to immediately establish a strong independent committee with the power of scrutinising the control and supply of the commissariat department, and all War Office contracts. By this means a real check may be placed upon fraud, incapacity, bribery, and waste. If we fail to take measures of prevention there is no cure open to us after the event. The responsible officers must know that their contracts are being checked and examined by a superior body, and that any departure from the plain path of duty will be severely visited. Subsequent inquiry of the way the nation's money has been squandered is no better than a feeble attempt to close the stable door after everyone knows that the horse has bolted with the money."
    That is an unfortunate situation. We are going to muddle along I am very much afraid in spite of the experience that we have had. We had a Commission of Inquiry after the Crimea; we had another after the Mutiny; and we had another Commission of Inquiry into the corruption of the War Office after Egypt; and another inquiry into corruption after South Africa; and we shall, as certain as Fate, unless this Department does something, have another inquiry into corruption in Government contracts after the War in which we are engaged. Surely all this experience should be of some value to guide us, and to prevent us getting into this difficulty in the future. The worst of it is that statements made by representatives of the Department give us no idea that they even understand in the slightest degree the position of affairs. They seem to imagine that everything is as good as it possibly can be in any possible set of circumstances, and that if they cannot do right, it is impossible for anyone else to suggest a better way. I venture to say it will be necessary to overhaul all these contracts and all this business in the future. I do not mind confessing openly to the House—even if it is an advantage to Gentlemen upon the other side: they can have it for what it is worth—that I believe the Liberal party to which the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office belongs will go down under the weight of scandal that will be produced before this War is over unless some
    1430
    Committee has the matter in hand to regulate affairs, or unless Lord Kitchener—in whom I have absolute confidence, if he would only pay attention to it—takes action, because he would soon hang or shoot somebody, and that very likely would stop the business and things would be right. But I do not know that he knows anything about it, and I should not be surprised if he were shocked when he finds what is done in the course of his administration in another year or two when the subject comes to light. That is an unfortunate situation.
    I make these criticisms: they are not attacks—they are quite friendly. I do not suppose for one moment that you could have set up a Committee before now. I do not suppose you could attack the case at all when sending out the Expeditionary Force and preparing the necessary equipment up to now. I would give an absolutely clean sheet for everything done in the emergency up to now, and I am sure the country would, but it will not do so for the future. And now, when you can take your bearings properly, and when you understand what the situation is and what you have to contend with, and the gang of sharks that are trying to fasten themselves on to you from day to day, as my own personal experience is able to show, you will be held accountable. I venture to say, therefore, when one comes to consider all the circumstances, that its does seem to me one of the most remarkable things that representatives of the War Office still sees nothing wrong, and never saw anything wrong, and contends that there could be nothing wrong with the Department with which we are dealing. I am sure that is not the feeling of the country. You have only to read some of the trade journals I have here—the "Iremonger," and other papers relating to the business—to see what is going on. Take the "Engineer." The "Engineer" of this week gives attention to this business, and those trade journals know for a positive fact that there are things going on in connection with this business which cannot be defended. The Government is being squeezed. The State is paying in some cases nearly double for everything they require merely because the people who have these things to sell know that the State require them. But is it so? Surely we are not at the mercy of these men. I understand that under the Defence of the Realm Act you are in a position to show that those

    1431
    people could not resist your demand for the commodities you require, and that if they attempted to refuse the things necessary you had the right to possess yourselves of them as long as they are in the country.
    It is quite clear that the House of Commons is armed with ample powers to prevent the State being robbed in the way it is robbed at the present time. I will not refer to matters in detail, because it would take too long, but if the hon. member representing the War Office will only refer to the "Daily Chronicle's" statement made in detail from day to day as to huts, boots, corrugated iron and all manner of things, he will see what is going on. I have a letter here which indicates that there has already been a great meat scandal, that some great stores of meat intended for the Army have been declared to be unfit, and would, if used by the Army, have caused that enteric which the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary was so delighted to say had not attacked the Army. Taking all these things into account, I have seized this opportunity of giving my warning in regard to the matter. I will not pursue it any further. The House is going to adjourn for a few weeks, and may be for a few months, and criticism will be stilled. But if the hon. Gentleman or his friends imagine that that is the end of it, they are greatly mistaken indeed. I am speaking here for no one interest concerned. I do not care where you place your contracts, or whether you give them to one set of men or to another; I do not care how you do it, so long as you do not do wrong or allow yourself to be squeezed into paying away the taxpayer's money without getting full value for the money spent.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: There can be only one feeling in every section of the House on this matter, and that is that we are earnestly anxious that we should go through this War with clean hands in every department of the public service. I have not risen to make any attacks upon I any manufacturers, whether manufacturers of khaki with which to clothe our troops or manufacturers of boots. But I do say that we should see that our brave troops at the front who are fighting the battle of their King and country should be warmly and well clothed and well shod. I have devoted some time during the last two months in obtaining information in
    1432
    regard to the kind of clothes our troops were gétting. I have not arrived at any conclusion hastily. I have had an opportunity in many parts of the country of coming in contact with Kitchener's Army, which has been comparatively newly enlisted, and also with the wounded soldiers who have come back from the front. The other day I met thirty wounded soldiers, all Regulars. Not more than two out of the thirty were in one regiment, and therefore they were very representative of the forces at the front at the present time. I conversed separately with each one of those thirty men. Slightly more than half of them said they had no complaint to make about the quality of the khaki supplied to them. Nearly half of them, on the other hand, said the khaki with which they had been clothed was rotten stuff, and that after a few days in the trenches the trousers were practically in rags and tatters. These brave fellows were one and all willing to go back again to the front when convalescent, and I assured them that I would raise my voice in this House in favour of having them warmly clothed and properly shod.
    They had grave complaint also to make of the quality of some of their boots. But I was not content merely with what these men told me. I met on the promenade at Bournemouth the other day a lot of men of Kitchener's Army. Some of their boots were in a very dilapidated condition. There were at least twenty men walking two and three together, and I stopped them. I was told that in some cases these men came from a camp at the edge of Salisbury Plain, which unfortunately had been placed on a clay soil, with the result that they were often 8 or 9 inches deep in mud, and consequently they had to be transferred to Bournemouth. They told me that in some cases men who had had new boots served out to them found that the soles parted from the uppers in a week. I was not content with getting this information from these men, but I stopped three of their officers in order to ascertain whether the statements of the men could be relied upon, and I got confirmation from the officers. As a taxpayer I do not care what the cost is, but I say that if this flimsy, shoddy khaki which has been made into clothes for our troops has been of that description because it was cheap, unhesitatingly I say that it is the duty of the Government to pay a higher price for a strong, durable, warm material with which to clothe our troops to face the

    1433
    rigours of a winter campaign. I shall be glad to hear that this matter will receive the earnest attention of the Financial Secretary.
    I hold in my hand a sample of the khaki which, three weeks ago, to my certain knowledge, was being made into clothing for our troops. It is thin, flimsy stuff, with cotton warp and shoddy weft, a flimsy kind of material totally unfit to clothe our troops with, especially with the rigours of winter before them. I am not maktng any charge of corruption or fraud against the manufacturers of this material, because I imagine that the authorities are perfectly cognisant of what it is made, and they have fixed their price accordingly. What I contend is that it is our duty as the House of Commons, and the duty of the Government, and it is also true economy in the interests of the country, that we should buy the strongest, the most durable, and the best material we can, and ensure that our men are warmly and properly clad while fighting as they are fighting in the trenches. With regard to the boots, we should remember that often our men are standing in water and mud or slush in the trenches, and surely nothing is of greater importance for the comfort and health of our brave fellows than that they should be well shod. I would approve of the Government paying a good price for boots, taking care at the same time that they get value for their money, rather than give to the men boots of the description that I saw on their feet on the promenade at Bournemouth. These men told me that practically they had to take whatever boots were handed to them, and they could not even choose sizes to fit them, and they got their boots either too big or too little, with the result that on their route marches their feet were badly skinned.
    I know what an emergency we have been passing through; that we have had to clothe and supply with boots an enormous number of men—far above anything this country ever had to do before—and that therefore, up to now, probably the Contract Department has been obliged, in order to get material with which to clothe these hundreds and thousands of new recruits, to take whatever material they could get all over the country. As the previous speaker has already said, very soon the time of extreme emergency will have somewhat passed away; and I earnestly hope for the benefit and in the interests of the soldiers at the front, as
    1434
    well as for those who are kept at home for Home defence, that the Government will be willing to put on a number of experts to go round the manufactories which are producing the khaki, and have a careful inspection of what goes into the khaki, in order to see that they get the right quality. I hope the same will be true with regard to boots in the future. An enormous majority of the manufacturers of khaki and boots would not defraud the State and the Government, and would not lend themselves to supplying inferior material in the shape of khaki or boots. I would, however, ask whether the Government have got a correspondingly large number of experts to visit these manufactories to see that we are getting good value for our money. This would be no insult to the manufacturers. In the iron and steel trades, railway companies frequently send representatives to live in the works and test every piece of steel that goes into the steel rails. Therefore this must not be looked upon as any charge of dishonesty, for it is only a common businesslike policy, and there ought to be an inspection of these goods. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he imagines that our Army Clothing at Pimlico can by any stretch of the imagination have properly inspected the vast amounts of khaki and other Army requisites which have been purchased since the War began.
    I was told by General Sir John Stevens, the head of the Army Contracting Department, that this flimsy khaki probably had been bought by the Territorial Associations, and not by the War Office; but my answer to that is that the 30 men I met the other afternoon, and talked with, did not belong to Kitchener's Army or the Territorials, because the clothes supplied to them had been supplied through the War Office. Leaving the faults up to now entirely alone, I contend most strongly that the Government should take immediate and strong steps to secure that the taxpayers of this country shall get value for their money; that they shall admit freely additional manufacturers as contractors to the War Office, and guard against any firm being given orders several times larger than the total amount they can produce in their own factory, and they should not allow a manufacturer to sub-let his contract. This is in the interests of keeping the trade of the country normal, and I believe the Government

    1435
    have expressed their intention of subdividing these orders. I admit that this means a little extra cost in the way of inspection, but I think it is in the interests of the country that the Government should get out of the usual ruts. There is a certain district in Yorkshire known as "the home of shoddy." I should be disposed, as far as winter clothing is concerned, to go to a district where better material is used. I make no charge against the manufacturers in "the home of shoddy" district, and, if they will undertake to leave out the shoddy material and put in good material, why, then, you might let them have a contract. I trust that the question having been raised now in this way will lead to steps being taken to remedy all defects, and that we may have the comfort and satisfaction of knowing that our men at the front will be warmly and well clothed and shod to face the rigours of the coming winter.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The hon. Member who has just sat down has raised what I think all the House must regard as a very serious question, the question whether our troops at the front are, in his phrase, "warmly and properly clad" for the work they have to do. I can give him an absolute assurance—and I will give reasons for it—in spite of the evidence he has quoted, that that has been the case from the moment the Expeditionary Force went from these shores. I can only conjecture from the personal interview my hon. Friend had with these returned soldiers that neither he nor they have altogether gauged the stress that is placed upon even the most durable cloth during the life in the trenches which these men have to live. I spoke with confidence as to the assurance I could give to the hon. Member, and I do give it. From the moment the Expeditionary Force went away we have had daily reports from the Quartermaster-General with that force, reports characterised by the most complete frankness, and reports which could not conceivably be biassed by any disposition to gloss over shortcomings, because they were reports sent home solely in order that shortcomings might be remedied. Every day the Quartermaster-General with the Expeditionary Force visits a corps and makes his report, and, if one looks, as I have, through a series of
    1436
    those reports, one finds it stated over and over again that there are no complaints, except possibly from the inevitable occasional growler, and everyone feels that they are well done in every respect. Of course, it sometimes happens that wagons with fresh supplies do not come quite close to the fighting line. That is an incident and a temporary matter; but, generally speaking, that is the report we have, and it is a report, I am perfectly certain, in which the House may place the fullest possible confidence. My hon. Friend produced a sample of khaki, and he said it had been suggested to him that it came not under a War Office contract, but possibly under a contract made by a Territorial Force Association. As I have re minded the House on several occasions, there are many contracts for clothing being made for troops in this country not only by the War Office, but also by Territorial Force Associations and by local committees.
    Sir J. WALTON: This was a War Office contract, and not a contract made by a Territorial Force Association.
    Mr. BAKER: I should be very much obliged if my hon. Friend could give me the true genesis or that sample of cloth he holds in his hands, and its history before it arrived in his hands, so that I may make investigations. The inspection of cloth at Pimlico is naturally not carried out on the exhaustive peace scale. This is utterly impossible if anything in the nature of rapid delivery is to be made, but inspection that I think is effective is carried on regularly and without delay My hon. Friend put in a strong appeal for an extension of the list of firms of contractors. He probably is not aware of the vast change that has been achieved in that respect. There are just 200 firms making khaki cloth at the present time for the War Office, apart from all the local contracts going on as well. My hon. Friend said that he thought the War Office were in danger of falling into a dangerous state if they did not call in more help. Some time ago we called to our aid the best expert in cloth, a man of the best scientific attainments, respected in the whole trade, and we have had the inestimable services of that gentleman at our disposal for many weeks past. I do not think full justice is done to the efforts which the War Office is making in respect of contracts. The speech of the hon. Member, with the tone of which I make no complaint at all, and the motive of which I fully appreciate, is

    1437
    at the same time an example of that. The two main complaints he made against us are complaints which ceased to have any basis some weeks ago, even more than a month ago. It was a little difficult for me to follow the hon. Member in his oscillations between the troops in the trenches at the front and the troops who have joined the new Army at home, and who are, of course, in quite a different position. No one would contend that the recruits of the new Army are properly clothed and equipped in the way in which you would clothe and equip troops who are actually engaged fighting the enemy. We have, and everybody realises it, to deal with an unprecedented emergency, and no one pretends that clothing or boots of the, strong stereotyped Army quality have been immediately available for these troops at home, but proper steps have been taken, and long before these troops have to go to the front they will be provided with army boots that are up to the standard we use for active service. My hon. Friend complains of the boots that have been used at the front, and there again I am happy to have the most convincing evidence with which I can refute what he said. That Sanitary Commission which was brought to the notice of hon. Members by the newspapers, and which went out to examine the state of affairs at the front, returned only yesterday and brought with it pairs of boots which I have seen. It stated that in their opinion the present boots being used by the troops at the front could not be beaten.
    Sir J. WALTON: My remarks with regard to boots related not to the soldiers at the front but to the Territorials and Kitchener's Army at home. [An HON. MEMBER: "The King's Army!"]
    Mr. BAKER: With all due deference to the hon. Member, he distinctly stated that he was dealing with the troops at the front.
    Sir J. WALTON: Salisbury Plain.
    Mr. BAKER: I still venture to think—and my recollection is fresh—that unintentionally the hon. Member did apply his remarks to the troops at the front as well as at home. I trust, after the very strong evidence I have put before them to the contrary, that hon. Members will realise, at any rate as far as the troops at the front are concerned, that any such complaint is utterly unjustified. Questions have been asked from time to time as to
    1438
    whether various supplies were reaching the troops at the front. Again I can assure the House that no demand yet made upon us in the way of clothing or equipment for the troops has failed to be met to the satisfaction of those in charge of headquarters in the field. The House is about to separate and may not possibly meet again for some time, but I hope that what I have said in this respect will be accepted, and that the great danger which has arisen from my hon. Friend's speech will thereby be prevented.
    I pass next to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). He has dealt with this subject before, and when he last did so I ventured to complain of there being an air of vague generality about these allegations, and I said I wished they had been supported by more definite evidence. The hon. Member pictured the War Office as surrounded by gangs of sharks of the worst character that could possibly be gathered together. He said he had had personal experience. I wish, in the course of his speech, he had given us some of his experiences, because one ounce of personal experience—that is, fact—would have been worth a ton of the vague denunciations in which he indulges. Indeed, I thought he relied entirely on the evidence of newspapers which he himself discredited at the beginning of his speech. The hon. Member has referred to this subject before. He referred to specific cases which had had a very wide circulation in certain newspapers. At the risk of being tedious to the House, I am afraid that, in the interest of the great Department I have the honour to represent, and in the public interest too, I must deal with both specific cases, even if thereby I occupy an undue share of time. The first of those cases, which has been very widely advertised, is the case of the supposed combine for corrugated steel sheeting, which is said to have exercised a powerful influence on the Contracts Department of the War Office. Let me explain, as briefly as I may, the position in which we stood with regard to this matter at the outbreak of war. There was then an ordinary running contract of the normal type put out in competition for tenders for the supply of such quantity of this sheeting as we required.
    9.0 P.M.
    At the outbreak of the War there was a certain deficiency of spelter, one of the main ingredients used in galvanising these sheets. The deficiency was caused by the

    1439
    fact that the main sources of supply were Belgium and Germany, which were then cut off, and such quantities as were in this country were all required by the Government itself. To meet that difficulty the War Office, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, placed an embargo on the export of corrugated sheets. It was a very serious matter indeed for the ordinary trade in steel sheeting—serious because their exports, on which they mainly relied, amounted to 50,000 tons per month, and they feared that if the embargo were continued it would lead to the closing of their mills. When they realised the danger before them they opened up negotiations with the Government in order to get the embargo on corrugated sheets removed. They called together a conference of sheet-makers. Early in September that conference met, and as a result they said that if we would remove the embargo they would hold at the disposal of the War Office 20,000 tons for the next six weeks and 100,000 tons for the following six months. That was an amount sufficient to give an adequate supply for our hutting requirements at that date. They said they would guarantee that supply at a maximum price, not to be exceeded during that period, of £9 per ton for black sheets, and £14 per ton for galvanised sheets. At that moment the market price for galvanised sheets was £15 per ton, and, therefore, their maximum was £1 below the market price. They added that for our own convenience, and to ensure speedy delivery to us, all orders should be sent through the secretary of the conference—which was the firm to which my hon. Friend alluded—the firm of Messrs. Wenham Brothers. That was the offer put before us. It was accepted by the War Office, but with this further understanding, that the War Office were not bound to any specific quantity but had full liberty to get adequate supplies in other ways if they chose. I want to make the whole thing perfectly clear, and, therefore, at this point, I will insert the fact that, soon after that offer had been made and accepted, the price of spelter fell and the price of galvanised sheeting to us was reduced to £13 10s.
    At that time this conference was supposed to represent the whole trade in sheeting, but, at a later stage, it was observed that some of the hutting contractors
    1440
    were getting rather better terms than the War Office, and that other firms were making offers at lower rates, although not necessarily for sheets of the same quality, but at any rate for galvanised sheets. The War Office pressed this matter on the attention of the conference which, in reply, pointed out the very heavy obligations they had undertaken in maintaining the supply for the War Office. Still under our pressure they further reduced the price to £12 10s. per ton for galvanised sheeting. The next move made by the War Office after having discovered that the conference was not fully representative, was to consider how to bring in outside firms. It turned out there was only one which really mattered in any degree, and we wrote to that outside firm a letter telling them that if they would communicate with the firm of Sir John Jackson, Limited—and I will explain presently the position that firm occupied—they might get orders for steel sheeting. On the same day we sent a letter to the firm of Sir John Jackson, Limited, asking them, if possible, and if prices permitted, to allot some part of their orders to the outside firm. I do not know, nobody at the War Office knows, if, in fact, the firm did so, it turns entirely on the price quoted and the quality offered. But these two letters show that the moment the firm was discovered the War Office did everything in its power to give it an opportunity of tendering and of securing some part of the Government work. That was the effort which was made by the War Office. At the same time the conference, representing practically the entire trade in steel sheeting, arranged with individual firms composing the conference that they could contract with the War Office separately and individually, if they pleased, and not at the fixed rate which had been arranged in the agreement at the early stage of the War.
    Let me now return to the question of price. The suggestion that has been made in the newspapers is that the War Office, through incompetence or something worse, is paying too much for its sheets. I have been asked whether or not I am prepared to deny the statement, quoted from some other source, that the present price is believed to be from £13 to £13 7s. 6d. I have already stated that the price since an early day in November has been not £13 to the War Office or anything like it, but £11 10s. for galvanised sheets and £8 for black sheets.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those are the prices for the standard guage or any other guage?
    Mr. BAKER: The War Office speculation has not been altered during the whole of the time. Whether the sheets which were offered at the same date for £11 5s., as is suggested in this newspaper, were sheets according to the War Office specification is very much open to doubt. The question has been raised how it was that the members of this conference, in replying to an inquiry directed to them by another firm, quoted two prices, one for the Government and one for the outside inquirer. I have no knowledge of the inquiry which was sent to the makers of steel sheeting. I should be taking too much upon myself if I ventured to suggest an explanation, because it is something rather for the manufacturers themselves to explain. One possible and, indeed, probable explanation is that in regard to the War Office they were endeavouring to recoup themselves for the very high prices at which they had to buy raw material, in order to maintain the supply they had undertaken to maintain for us in the early stage of the War, and that the lower prices which they quoted to other people were based on the lower prices of raw material, current at the date on which those lower prices were quoted. I suggest that, and I suggest again, as I have already done, that it does not at all appear, and it is to some extent improbable that the sheetings for which the lower prices were quoted were of the same quality as that demanded by the War Office in its fixed specification. The House has been generous to me and will perhaps allow me to summarise the course of events, which was this: At an early stage of the War the export of this steel sheeting was stopped at the instance of the War Office and with the co-operation of the Board of Trade. The hardship caused by this led to a conference of manufacturers who asked for the embargo to be removed. The conference represented all, or nearly all, of the makers in the country, and it was not a combine in the strict sense that it exhausted the whole trade and eliminated all competition.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I think you said there was only one firm outside the ring.
    Mr. BAKER: I said there was only one firm which could be said to make a difference. I might have said there were
    1442
    more, but I preferred to put the case against myself as severely as I could and I said there was one which could be considered. The conference offered, in return for the removal of the embargo, to maintain a supply to the War Office. The War Office has mostly, but I think not entirely, got its supplies by that means, and it has done so at prices in many cases below the market rates, and all the time limited by a maximum price. Just consider what the War Office has got. Instead of being squeezed by a combine, as those who so very unfairly and with insufficient verification represent it to be, the War Office got covered against excessive prices that might very well have gone up in war time, as the prices of many things have done. It got what was of vital importance for the hutting of the vast number of troops gradually being raised; it got a certain and adequate supply of steel sheeting; and, in addition to that, it got what was no less important, not only a certain supply, but rapid delivery.
    I am told, although I cannot vouch for it, that the makers have mot done well and are extremely dissatisfied with the bargain they did make. The whole of the time the War Office, so far from being tied, had complete freedom of action to buy from any individual firm at different prices, or to buy from an outside firm. If that transaction, in the light I have put upon it, is fairly and squarely looked at by hon. Members who have been tempted to judge rather hardly of what is called the incompetence of the business section of the War Office, it will be seen that, so far from being a bad bargain, it is an extremely good illustration of the proper way to treat a very difficult situation, a situation not merely of going into the market and making a purchase of so much stuff, but a situation complicated by conditions of export and the immediate necessity of having, first, a supply to use for hutting at once, and, secondly, the certainty of a supply for carrying on that operation for a constantly growing number of troops.
    I would willingly omit some of the matters which I must mention to the House, but the challenge has been public and direct, and it touches the honour of the Department which I represent—it also touches the honour of those who make the charges—so that it is my duty to deal with them. Another challenge is in connection with barbed wire. With regard to barbed wire, it is said that we

    1443
    were paying £14 a ton, and that there again there is ample evidence that we have been bullied and coerced like children into paying out the taxpayers' money. The orders for barbed wire have been given not at £14 a ton—though that might have occurred—but at various prices. To suggest that that is the price we are giving now is not merely an inaccurate but a wild statement. There are certain reasons why I should not disclose what the exact price is. They are reasons which will enable us to continue to act with economy in respect of barbed wire. For that reason I hope the House will respect them. In so far as there has been a difference of price between the earlier purchases and the later purchases it may have been due mainly to the fact that the higher prices were paid for quite a different class of wire—good wire which would last ten years. It was found afterwards that by looking to a different source of supply and by getting wire of a different degree of galvanisation, but quite sufficient to be used for entanglements to keep out the enemy, we could buy at lower prices. Therefore that partial and ill-informed attack on the War Office has failed. We are again accused of being at the mercy of a combine in regard to stoves. There may be a combine. I believe there is, but there is no sign of it in the prices tendered to us. We have given large orders. They have all been placed by competitive tenders and every firm in the list has been invited to tender. Nails are another on the list of charges against us. Most fantastic statements have been made about nails. We do not buy nails at all. They are included in the building contract. We are not tied to any particular kind of nail, neither is the contractor, who can get any kind of nail he pleases. Having dealt with nails I have answered one section of the charges which have been brought against the War Department in various newspapers during the last few weeks.
    I notice that in one paper, after having made these various allegations, all of which, I think, I have fairly disposed of in regard to steel sheeting, the article followed with a list of various officers, for no other purpose that I can suppose than it w-as to them that the responsibility might be attributed. Will the House believe it—I ask the House to notice this as an example of the carelessness with which these statements are
    1444
    made, and they are very dangerous statements, as the speeches which have been made show already—that not one of the officers in that list is in the War Office at all, and if they had been at the War Office in the positions in which they were given, not one of them would have had anything to do with the contracts named. The lists given are entirely wrong. Most of these officers, I think, are with the Expeditionary Force, and have been for some time. Colonel Morgan, to whom special attention is directed, is not in the War Office. He is Director of Supplies with the central forces in the country, but his duty is not making contracts, but is purely administrative. But the supply directorate itself has only to do with food and forage. It has nothing to do with huts or the materials of which the huts are made, and that is a mistake which anyone who was not perfectly acquainted with the rather complicated organisation of the War Office might pardonably make. But the supply directorate does not make contracts at all.
    Mr. J. WARD: Not at the front?
    Mr. BAKER: No. There is not a contractor anywhere near the Expeditionary Force at ail. Not one. There is not a man contracting with anyone in the Expeditionary Force. Everything it needs is being sent out from this country by contracts made in this country with people in this country. I think the carelessness with which that list of officers was given may dispose hon. Members perhaps to attach some credence to the disintegrating process to which I have subjected the earlier allegations in that newspaper article. I fear there is one other case which, owing to the wide publicity which it has received, I must also deal with. I mean an article which has been published in a large number of newspapers again regarding huts—an anonymous article contributed by a leading trade unionist. I invite the House to recognise that these hutting operations which we have been compelled to carry out were perhaps the largest building operations which have ever taken place in this country. You have four new Armies, you have the troops from the Dominions on Salisbury Plain, and you have a large number of coast defence troops for whom provision has had to be made round our shores, and the great object that the War Office has had before it all the time has been to get the men

    1445
    in quickly and to save them from what are supposed to be the discomforts of canvas, even if it must be before the huts themselves are quite complete.
    I think most of the criticisms which have been passed on the huts, in this article at any rate, were criticisms, not on the finished product as it soon will be, but on the unfinished hut into which, for the reasons I have given, we have thought it expedient to put the men with the least possible delay. There are several types of huts. They vary, of course, according to situation. In a more exposed situation you want a stronger type, and in a sheltered situation you can use a rather lighter form of construction. The suggestions made about the holes in the roofs, and the absence of lining and the want of surface drainage are all incidents of an inchoate condition in the huts, and they will all be removed in the shortest possible time, and are intended, and have been from the beginning intended, to be removed when the hut is a perfect and complete product. You cannot, of course, expect the same standard of comfort in a hut as you can in those magnificent barracks which have been put up at Redford. But in the best, type of hut, those who visit them will agree that the accommodation is not merely good, but is extremely good. There is a charge that there has been a great deal of sub-letting in connection with the huts. There cannot have been very much, unless it was under some local contract of which we have no cognisance, because only about a quarter of all the vast number of huts that we have put up have been put up by contract. All the rest have been put up by direct labour under Government agents. That brings me to the references to the firm of Sir John Jackson. He is not alone. We have had a signal example of how patriotic many employers can be in the case of these large contractors. When war broke out and it was obvious that we should need a great number of huts, they offered their services free and for nothing for the Government. That free and patriotic offer was accepted, and an enormous quantity of work has been carried out, not by Sir John Jackson, Ltd., alone but by seven large firms as well. They have thereby rendered very great service—not merely a possible saving of money, though for certain extra work which they have undertaken we intend to give them some remuneration at a rate far below that which they would have got in the ordinary way.
    1446
    The services which they rendered of putting their large, skilled, and experienced staffs at our disposal at a time when it would have been impossible for us to find such staffs enabled us, as I think those who have visited the camps will admit, to build them, not so rapidly as we could hope, but still with extreme speed.
    That is the position with regard to contracts. Another charge was made with regard to framing and fixing. There again there was a complete misstatement of the true facts. It was suggested that contractors were scamping their work, and that they should be compelled to give a rebate. The fact is that the War Office specification has always asked for cheaper fixed work and not for framed work. In spite of that, in a great many cases, contractors are using framed work, and are making no additional charge. Another allegation was that very luxurious huts were being put up for the officers and very bad ones indeed for the men. The men are being put into huts before the officers because they are men and are not officers. The officers are being kept out and the men are being put in first. As to the huts themselves, they are all of precisely the same type for officers and men, and if one becomes more luxurious than another it is simply and solely because the inmates choose to make it so. Then there is the question of price. The original War Office estimate for these huts, at scheduled prices, that is at pre-war rates, was £115. That is equivalent to £140 now. The actual prices have been from about £100 to £200, varying according to the difficulty arising from the nature of the situation.
    Mr. J. WARD: Is that the unfinished article?
    Mr. BAKER: Finished. This newspaper article with which I have been dealing suggested by some amusing computation that £85 was enough. The committees of locally raised battalions, who build according to War Office plans and specifications and consist of business men, just those men whom so many Members have been advising us to use as our coadjutors and helpers, drawn from large corporations with full knowledge of local conditions, have hardly in any case been able to build at a cheaper rate. These committees are men who have been patriotic enough to raise battalions and house them. You may be quite certain that if they could do it more cheaply they

    1447
    certainly would. The fact that they have failed to do so must be taken as very strong evidence that the War Office specification certainly does not err on the side of extravagance.
    I have dealt with these specific cases, and I will pass to one or two general observations on the criticism which has been levelled at and the advice which has been offered to the War Office. It seems to be presumed that the War Office has done nothing to meet this present emergency. The War Office certainly does not advertise its merits. It is not one of the great advertising Departments, and it patiently bears the criticism passed upon it. I say nothing of the enormously increased staff we have in the War Office itself. Let me say one word in regard to the new system. My hon. Friend recited a list of Committees which sat after the South African War and said they had all been despised, ignored, and set at nought. My hon. Friend really is misinformed on that subject. I can speak with some knowledge, because I myself spent a very laborious time of more than a year as secretary to one of these Commissions, and during that time I acquired some experience which I hope has been of some value to me since. If he looks at the Reports of the Commissions, he will find that nearly all their recommendations have been carried out, and not ignored by the War Office. That was done long ago in time of peace. But on the outbreak of the War we developed what may be called a new organisation. A very valuable public servant, and one who has rendered great public service, was compelled by ill-health to withdraw from the work of the Contracts Branch. He was replaced by a man of great ability who came from the Board of Trade, and whose services we still have. He came from the Board of Trade, where he had the great advantage of studying the general industrial conditions of the country. It was recognised long ago that the task we had to undertake was not the piecemeal purchases one has in time of peace, but it was the task, and nothing less, of organising several of the largest trades in the country, estimating their total capacity, estimating their output, and securing that the speediest deliveries should come to us, and that the goods did not go to other destinations.
    There were many difficulties to be overcome. We have overcome the difficulties
    1448
    with many employers by repeated conferences. There have been many trade disputes, not serious disputes, but a large number of slight ones, and we have overcome these in many cases by the help of the trade unions themselves. But more than that, as I said in reply to my hon. Friend, we have long ago taken many of the steps which have been urged upon us day after day during the last fortnight. We have had at the War Office for some time buyers, and besides buyers, advisers, who, I may say parenthetically, have nothing to gain by their operations, in regard to all the large branches of trade—men of wide experience whose knowledge is of great value, men who do not give, and do not accept, contracts, but men who furnish just that element of special business experience which it is said we need so much, and have taken so little trouble to seek. I will not go through the list of names. There is no secret about them, and I have no doubt that they are known to many Members of the House. I do trust that hon. Members who claim that we have gone on with the narrow and restricted system which existed in time of peace will recognise that we broke these bounds long ago, and that for a long time past we have been enjoying the very best advice which can be got in all the branches of trade concerned in War Office supplies.
    I must say one word about the suggestions, insinuations, and rumours, without which, I think, my hon. Friend would not have made his speech to-night, or his speech the other day. I would ask the House to distinguish between charges of what I may call bad business and charges of corruption. They are very different things, and the distinction between them is not sufficiently made. The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) took me up with undue severity the other day because of a remark I made that contractors to the Government wanted more from the Government than they charge private individuals. I really meant nothing more than that contractors always will be contractors, just as I suppose newspapers always will be newspapers. I meant that, in regard to contracts, they looked upon the Government as persons to be treated with considerable commercial severity. But I did not intend to suggest that the War Office accepted the suggestion in the slightest degree that they overcharged the Government. I do trust that the two examples I have been able to put in detail this evening will show that

    1449
    the War Office in difficult circumstances have driven some extremely good bargains. Many of the other cases of supposed bad bargains—I pass no judgment whether they were bad or not—have nothing to do with the War Office at all. They were contracts made with local bodies. We are taking steps to limit the powers of competition which local contracting bodies at present enjoy. It is difficult to deal with, but we are doing our best to carry that out. We are endeavouring to cope with the possibility, of having to pay excessive prices because of the fact that the necessity is ours and the opportunity is that of the contractors. We are doing that by, I think, the only means in our power. It has been suggested over and over again that if a contractor proves unreasonable, we should have him shot or hanged at once. That I may say has been considered, and it has been decided, without much delay, that such a course would be likely unduly to restrict the number of those who tender for contracts. What we have done is to take powers under the Defence of the Realm Act yesterday to commandeer at a fair price the whole of the output of any factory, or, in a further stage of necessity, to take over that factory and work it ourselves. We have taken that step in order to secure the power of applying a check to any tendency to squeeze the War Office by charging excessive prices.
    I do ask that before these allegations are made some attempt should be made at precision. When you make charges against anyone, the thing which certainly may be asked is that the charge should be precise. But I do think that there are statements made in the Press and in this House with respect to which I may fairly complain, that there has not been more verification before insinuation. An atmosphere has been created—an atmosphere which I fully admit is intended to avoid certain dangers, but which may prove detrimental to the supply of the Army. The suggestion that things may be wrong now because they were wrong ten years ago, and that anybody may be a rogue because there was a rogue ten years ago has, I think, a very detrimental effect on the public service. If you wish to remedy these matters, a definite charge should be based upon ascertained facts. But if anything, however false, is to be stated against an official, then it simply means that what has sometimes been called "red-tape" at the War Office, or any public office, would
    1450
    be multiplied a hundredfold. It is quite right that my hon. Friend should enforce the lesson of the South African war, a very important lesson that has been largely learned; but I do now, once for all, deprecate these general slanders against individuals or departments, whether in newspapers or in speeches, and I repeat that if there is any such information as will support them, let it be given, and the fullest and most immediate investigation shall be made. I have occupied some time, but the subject is one of very great importance, and I think that I have shown that considerable injustice has been done to a large body of officers and officials who are now working both night and day in the service of their country.
    Mr. SANDERSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a speech for the length of which he apologised several times. I do not think that he need have done so. I think the House recognise that the matters with which he was dealing were of the very greatest importance. I am sure they were glad that he entered in such detail into the specific cases which have been mentioned in various places, and I am sure that the House and the country will look upon that speech with a great deal of satisfaction and that it will make them reassured about the matters with which he dealt. In great contrast to that speech was the speech delivered this afternoon by the Home Secretary. It is in regard to the matter with which he dealt that I want to say a few words. I feel no hesitation in referring to the question of spies and suspected persons, because I feel so very strongly about it. As this will be the last opportunity before this Parliament adjourns of raising the matter, I feel it my bounden duty to say one thing about it. I raise the question again for this reason: I think that it is a duty which we owe to ourselves to leave no stone unturned to put an end to this system of spies. We, who are obliged to stay at home, can do precious little to help our gallant soldiers and sailors, but in this respect I think that we can do something. My second reason is this: Communications have come to me on all hands, not only from London but from different parts of the country, which show me perfectly clearly that there is a great deal of anxiety about this matter in the country. Speaking for myself, the speech of the Home Secretary, instead of diminishing that anxiety has increased it. I

    1451
    go further and say that, so far as I am concerned, the speech which the Lord Chancellor made yesterday in another place was the one thing above all others which caused me the greatest uneasiness, because we had it from him—it seems to me, at all events, reading this speech—an explicit admission that very valuable information had leaked out and been of great use to the enemy. If that be the case, I do not think that I need offer any apology for raising this question once more in the hope that the Government may even now listen to what we say about this matter.
    The case which the Home Secretary made to-day, perfectly plainly, was that this matter could not be dealt with satisfactorily so long as there was divided authority. The Home Secretary, to my mind, absolutely proved the case. He crossed the t's and dotted the i's, and proved conclusively that there was divided authority, and that in many respects he was entirely powerless. He said that he could not get responsibility for the whole of the police in the country. That is exactly what we have been saying to him. We know perfectly well that under the present system he is not responsible for the whole of the police in the whole of the country. He himself only is personally responsible for the policemen of the Metropolitan police. What we want him to do is to get responsibility for the whole of the police. We know perfectly well that in ordinary matters he cannot know the local conditions. Therefore the chief constable of the county or borough must be under the control of the county council or the watch committee, as the case may be. But the suggestion has been made, which I wish to emphasise with all my power, that in this question of spies and suspected persons the Home Secretary—or at all events, some other Minister, or some body or central authority, should have controlling power over the whole of the country. I am sure that it ought not to be difficult to get that. The Home Secretary holds up his hands and complains that he has not got it. We have been passing Emergency Bill after Emergency Bill, for I do not know how long, both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, and if he has not got the necessary powers, for goodness sake let us give them to him.
    We are all perfectly willing to sit here another week, if necessary to do so, in a case of this kind. We are led to believe
    1452
    that this House is going to adjourn tomorrow. That may be so or not. But if it is really necessary for the Home Secretary to have greater powers than those which he now possesses, the Government should ask the House to sit longer and give him those powers. I am perfectly certain that as long as you leave the matter in the hands of this or that chief constable—I am not saying a word against any of them, they are all probably doing their duty to the best of their ability—until you have got some system upon which everybody can work, which is directed by one central authority or one central body, you could never get this matter settled in a proper way. My humble suggestion to the Government is that they should appoint one man. I do not care who he is. He may be the Home Secretary, or if the Home Secretary has got too many duties to attend to, appoint another man altogether. Get the best man in the country and put him at the head of a central body, let him attend to this business, and this business only, and if it is necessary to give legislative powers, let us give them. We are all prepared to sit here and give them. I urge the Government, even now, before it is too late, to consider this matter. There have been appeals made to them by my Noble Friend who spoke here this afternoon, by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway in a most impressive speech. Surely the Government is going to look into this matter. I do not believe that there is a single Member of this House who is not of the opinion that, at all events, with regard to this matter, things are not satisfactory. I have said this simply and solely because I feel very strongly about it myself, and because I could not have gone home with a quiet conscience, feeling I had done my duty, if I had not got up and asked the Government, even at the last moment, to reconsider this matter.
    Mr. JOWETT: The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) has displayed a piece of khaki cloth which is presumed to represent the quality which is being used in the manufacture of soldiers' clothing. No doubt it is perfectly right that we should take the hon. Baronet's word that the cloth is what he said it was—part of a soldier's tunic and undoubtedly is partly composed of cotton and the remainder is almost exclusively of shoddy. I think I would not

    1453
    be doing my duty as the representative of a West Riding Constituency if I allowed it to go forward, without protest, that that is the kind of cloth which is being manufactured for our men at the front. It is more than likely that the particular sample that has been shown to the House was simply part of a suit which had been bought in a time of emergency in large quantities, when the need was so great that the suit had to be bought ready-made. If that be so, then, of course, we must clear the Government of any responsibility, in an emergency of that kind, in getting whatever they could lay their hands on, but we have a right to demand that the material which is used under present contracts shall be good and sound, and I can say to this House, with perfect confidence, that the khaki cloth which is being turned out in the West Riding of Yorkshire to-day is fit for anybody, no matter whether soldier or civilian.
    I want to say a word or two on another aspect of this question. We all of us know that there are camps up and down this country where the men have been for a considerable time without uniforms. It does not need any strong imagination to realise that men drilling in all kinds of clothing, some with one kind, some with another, some of them shabby through no fault of their own, cannot tend towards a proper feeling of dignity, respectability, and esprit de corps, and the sooner these men get into a uniform the better, in my opinion. But it seems to be suggested that we cannot produce the clothing. I was astounded that anybody should suggest such a thing, for I am certain that if the machinery, the resources, and the energy at the disposition of the mills in Yorkshire were properly organised, not only the whole of the soldiers of this country could be clothed, but the civil population as well; the output of the mills would be so prodigious. I hope the House will forgive my making a little, technical explanation in regard to the manufacture of cloth. Khaki cloth is made of thick yarn, and the more the machinery is put on to thick yarns and plain material the greater the output. Fine spun yarn requires a lot of energy, and they have not the weight, but so long as the mills make thick yarn khaki cloth, great quantities can be turned out. But alongside of that there is at present the ordinary trade going on. There is the Bond Street cloth for fashionable clothing, and
    1454
    far more energy in these times is being concentrated on the ordinary catering for fashionable people, with their finicking taste, than ought to be the case.
    I want to suggest that the whole of the spinning and weaving mills ought to be commandeered by the Government in order to make sure that goods of the kind they require can be turned out in great quantities to supply not only the soldiers, but the ordinary requirements of civilians. If that were done, if the machinery and the energy of the workmen were utilised economically in the way I have tried to indicate, then I have no doubt whatever that we should no longer see men waiting for their uniforms for the length of time that they are at present waiting, and that the whole of the soldiers would soon be supplied. I would submit one further consideration regarding this matter. I plead with the Government for the control of production, because in my opinion, young persons are unnecessarily working longer hours than they have any need to work. I do not think the House is aware, though none the less it is a fact, that in mills of the West Riding of Yorkshire girls under sixteen years of age are working from 6.30 in the morning to 8.30 at night, with the necessary breaks for meals, and in some places I am told that they work even longer than that. That is the kind of thing that may be tolerated without much fear of injury for a few weeks or for a short time, but I submit that it cannot go on month after month, or for the length of time that this War may possibly continue, without serious injury to the young persons concerned. For that reason, as well as for others I have given, I do earnestly appeal those who are in control that they will endeavour to so order the method of production, so organise the class of material that is produced, bearing in mind that class which can be quickly produced, as to make it unnecessary to employ these young persons for long hours.
    I have said something about quality and quantity, and as to price I can assure the House that the materials which are required for Army clothing are so simply constructed that with the help of a little expert advice the Government need be under no uncertainty whatever as to whether they are being charged extravagantly. The price of wool, for instance, is well known. Any expert with a very small margin of error can tell the amount to be produced from a given quantity of wool.

    1455
    With attention to one or two simple factors like that I am sure that the Government can protect themselves against any danger of exorbitant prices. The story is told of one blanket manufacturer who interviewed a War Office official and offered his goods, which were taken immediately. He was a rough Yorkshireman doing business in a small way, and, his goods being taken so readily, he could scarcely believe that the matter was all right. To some friends outside who asked him what had occurred he said, "They have taken the lot," but, he added, "Do you think t' brass is safe." Apparently he had some doubt as to the financial standing of the country, or thought there was something wrong. On the question of price, I suggest that the real crux lies in getting control of the raw material, a large amount of which comes from our own Colonies. There are suggestions, and I do not know to what extent they are well founded, that wool is held back from sale, which, of course, increases the price of the small quantity that is offered, and all the competitors are well aware that the bulk of the material will in the end be cloth to be paid for by the British Government. It is not a healthy kind of thing to have knowledge of that kind, and one can easily guess that in certain emergencies certain speculators will not care how high the price goes when they know the Government has to pay. I make the further suggestion that the Government should endeavour to get hold of the wool supplies at the source, and the other operations are so simple that with very little expert advice the price can be so arranged that it would be quite fair to the Government and to all concerned.
    10.0 P.M.
    Colonel YATE: May I say a word in support of the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Appleby Division (Mr. Sanderson) to the Government to give reconsideration to the question of alien spies in this country, and to other representations that have been made in to-day's Debate. The Home Secretary, on the 12th November, said:—
    "I conceive in my humble way that the military and naval authorities are far and away the best advisers as to what precautions are necessary in safeguarding us, either against espionage or against panic."
    To-day, speaking on the question, he told us that the military authorities had to decide as to internment, and that it was
    1456
    right that they should do so. Again, he said that in every district where it is thought that the police are not doing their duty the military authorities will step in. I would ask the Government who are the military authorities that will step in? I am speaking as a soldier and on behalf of soldiers. Take the case of an ordinary officer commanding a detachment, guarding some small port on the East Coast of Scotland, which was the place under discussion. That officer's duty is to prevent submarines entering the harbour, and to repel invasion or attack of any sort, and what does he know, or can he know, of the inhabitants of the district? He knows nothing about them, and has no organisation whatsoever to deal with spies who may be working in the harbour immediately behind him. We have in this matter divided control. The Home Secretary tells us he has no authority on the East Coast of Scotland, or anywhere outside London, and he says, apply to the naval or military authorities, or the chief constable. I do ask that this question should be put on a proper basis. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) said you cannot leave this question to the soldiers. I agree with him it is impossible to do so, and that the soldier is not the man responsible, and has no knowledge or organisation with which to deal with the matter.
    The Home Secretary laid great stress on representations he had received from residents abroad not to intern German residents in this country for fear that they should be interned abroad. I must enter my protest against that. What possible comparison can there be between an alien spy in this country and a British resident abroad. What possible harm or damage can a resident in Germany do by spying there. They cannot give notice of ships going out or of how they can be torpedoed, or of how submarines can act, or of how they can get a supply of petrol. There is no comparison whatever, and I do not think that the Home Secretary's argument on that point should carry any weight whatsoever. Finally, I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for War on the very satisfactory statement he was able to give us about the medical arrangements at the front, and especially I thank him for the arrangements he has made for the sick and wounded Indian soldiers. I know we have a number of scientific specialists

    1457
    working for the good of the soldiers at the front and who are doing so at great sacrifice to themselves. I would ask whether a larger number of young doctors could not be sent to the front to aid in dressing the wounded men between the clearing stations and the base hospitals. We know that an enormous number of civilian doctors are volunteering for service, and all I recommend is that an extra number of volunteers should be taken, so that there may be no possibility of any complaint on the part of wounded men of their wounds remaining undressed for a day or an hour, whatever the time may be.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Order for Third Reading, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to renew with all the earnestness I can command an appeal which I addressed to the Government towards the end of last Session, and which have been repeated by hon. Friends of mine during the present Session. It is too late to do anything in the matter at this moment and in this Bill, but it will not be too late to redress the injustice if the Government can be persuaded to deal with the matter in their next Finance Bill, and to give the provision which they might then introduce retrospective effect. The point to which I want to draw the attention of the House is the treatment of collaterals who succeed to property owing to the death of relatives at the War. Where the succession is to lineals the Government have made, I think, very just provision to meet the exceptionally hard cases which such a struggle as the present, with such an Army as that, which we are recruiting, entails. They have gone, I gladly recognise, much beyond anything that has been done hitherto. But the circumstances of this War are wholly different from even the greatest struggles of the past, and, I must add, the Death Duties to-day are a burden incomparably greater than they were even at the time of the South African war. What we have asked is that in the case of succession by collaterals there should be
    1458
    the same alleviation of the burden of the duty as has already been accorded to lineals.
    The answer of the Government, if I understand it rightly, and I have heard it twice from different Ministers, is that when a collateral succeeds he is a very fortunate fellow, who has come into an estate or fortune which in the ordinary course he could never have expected to enjoy, and that there is no special reason for showing indulgence to him. I do not think you can treat the case fairly if you look only at the individual and at the effect upon him. In regard, at any rate, to landed estates, you must surely think of the family and of the estate as well as of the individual. There have already been cases, and there will be more, of grave hardship to the individual who succeeds unless you make the concession for which I ask. The hardship is not confined to the individual, for an impoverished estate is not only a source of little satisfaction to its possessor, but a source of great misery to the countryside. There probably never was a time in our history when the non-legal obligations so generously recognised by our landowners as a whole were more needed in the management of estates than they are now. An impoverished landlord cannot give that conideration to his tenants or to his estate. I do not believe that the total sum involved to the Treasury can be a serious matter, and I feel certain that the Government would meet a general public sentiment amongst all those who are acquainted with the situation if they would make this small extension of the concession they have already granted. I beg the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whose absence I perfectly understand—the very earnest appeal which, as well for my Friends as on my own behalf I make to him, to reconsider his decision, and to see whether he cannot give us this further concession in his next Finance Bill.
    There is one other matter, not of the same consequence, to which I want to call the hon. Gentleman's attention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the early days of the War, called to his assistance a distinguished gentleman who had previously occupied a position on the Press, and whose position at this moment I cannot undertake exactly to describe. I think the Financial Secretary knows whom I mean. I understand him now to have severed all

    1459
    connection with the Press, and to be a Civil servant in the employment of the Crown. I read to-night in the evening papers an account of an interview accorded by him, or reported to have been accorded by him, to Pressmen on the other side of the Atlantic, which, I think, is not quite in accordance with the traditions of our Civil Service. I venture to suggest that when he returns home he should be reminded of the restraint which his new position necessarily imposes upon him, and warned against too great an expansiveness to his old professional colleagues.
    Sir J. D. REES: I should like to join with my right hon. Friend in pressing upon the Government what he has said with regard to the succession of collaterals. My purpose in rising, however, is to give expression to the feeling of great disappointment which exists on the part of those interested in the tea trade that the heavy increase in the Tea Duty, which they most I loyally accept, and to which I have not risen to take any exception, is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in the duties upon coffee and cocoa. There is a very strong opinion upon that subject. The new duty represents an increase of something like 60 per cent. upon what is already almost the highest duty levied in this country. The duty amounts to 85 per cent. of the value in the case of the better teas, and actually to 100 per cent. of the value of teas produced at something like 8d. a lb. I am anxious not to go into detail, as the subject has been very fully discussed on many other occasions, but I must be allowed, briefy, to raise a matter of such importance to those concerned. Whilst these duties of 85 per cent. and 100 per cent. are levied on the dearer and cheaper teas, the rate upon coffee is only 20 per cent., coffee being a foreign product, the rate upon cocoa is only 14½ per cent., and the rate on manufactured cocoa 12½ per cent., these being to the extent of at least half their volume foreign-grown products, whereas in the case of tea it is to the extent of 93 per cent. British grown, grown with British capital, by British labour, and in British territory. I do not say this in order to urge that the tea industry, or any other industry, should now escape that taxation which it is readily prepared to bear in this great emergency, but to point out that there is a disproportion in the manner in which this extra taxation has been brought to bear, and
    1460
    that at any rate in laying this exceedingly—I will not say excessively—heavy burden upon tea, something of a corresponding character ought to have been laid upon coffee and cocoa. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the results would be very small had the action which I suggest been taken. But the figures produced show that if cocoa were taxed at 85 per cent. like tea, a very large sum would be got into the Exchequer. I confess I do not know why no effort is made to bring it in, because I presume the Government are not prepared to allow that the reason so frequently put forward is really the real reason that actuated the Government in regard to this matter. In his speech upon this subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer really made hardly a serious contribution to the Debate in suggesting that the taxation of mineral waters would only hit those who were in the habit of mixing such waters with whisky.
    I do not think that anything more unworthy of the situation has ever been said since the case of the old lady who declared that her son could not have drunk too much at night because he was so thirsty in the morning. The two arguments are almost upon a par. One cannot be regarded as much more serious than the other. It entirely leaves out of account the whole case of ginger beer, and drinks of that character, which would, if taxed, bring a fair amount of revenue to the Exchequer. Now the drinker of tea will be able to transfer his attention and his taste either to coffee or cocoa, which will not be taxed. There is another particular reason, and a good and important one, which I must just briefly refer to—that is, the margin between the cost and selling price of tea. It is a fair illustration, and obtains in the case of the other drinks which I have mentioned. For instance, tea is sold at from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d. a pound. This gives a profit of 1½d. to 2½d. per pound, whereas in the case of coffee, the wholesale price is 7½d. per pound, and the profit is about 6d. a pound. Similarly, or rather more strikingly in the case of cocoa, what you pay 7d. per pound wholesale for is actually sold by Cadbury's in a packet of one pound for 2s. 2d. You have thus a case of enormous profit compared with a very small profit, and you have a drink which yields a small profit taxed to an enormous extent, and the drink which yields a very large profit actually, with no increase in taxation, at a time of great crisis like this, when

    1461
    everything which can be properly taxed should be taxed to bring in such revenue as it can to the Exchequer.
    There has not been any explanation of this or I should not have ventured to trouble the House. What the Chancellor said cannot be seriously regarded. It was no serious contribution to the Debate, and I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is prepared to-night in that respect to improve upon his chief, and to explain why it is that in a time of emergency the one product is taxed under circumstances which I have briefly recounted, and the other, which is ready for corresponding taxation, has entirely escaped the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not only that, but the extra taxation that if placed upon tea is of such an amount that it makes it extremely difficult for the trade to distribute it, and to collect it from the retail purchaser. The grocer does not deal in facthings like the draper, and, as he cannot easily pass on three farthings in the pound, he charges a penny. Consequently the poorer people, who are less able to bear this taxation, are those who are going to suffer most from it. The Financial Secretary is probably aware—if not, I should like to tell him—that amongst the poor it is quite a usual thing to buy tea in halfpenny packets, and therefore this question is one of the utmost importance to these folk in their domestic arrangements.
    Then I wish to refer to the cost to the grower and the tea planter, a man who is never mentioned, but who is one of the most loyal, enterprising, law-abiding citizens this country or any other ever had. He is a man who does not complain about this tax, yet he is grievously hit. Why is he taxed, while Brazil and Bolivia escapes? Why should the Indian tea planter have to pay a tax of £13 per acre for his product, while the foreigner has only to pay something like a tax of £2 upon the produce of an acre of cocoa and coffee? What aggravates the situation is this, that the cocoa and chocolate people are enjoying exceedingly great prosperity, owing to the fact that manufactured cocoa and chocolate are no longer imported from Germany. While they complain of the hardship owing to the high price of sugar, they conceal the fact that they are making great profits from the increased sale of their products. They are making money hand over fist when tea is subject to this, I will not say oppressive, but exceeding heavy and onerous taxation. What makes
    1462
    this and every other tax so extremely hard now is that it comes upon taxation in times of peace, already raised to war rates, for partisan and party purposes, and for what is called social, but what I call socialistic, legislation. It is piling Pelion upon Ossa. It is so exceedingly onerous that even at this eleventh hour, or a quarter to twelve, I beg the Government to take this matter into consideration and see if they cannot even now make some semblance of fairness by imposing some proper taxation upon those other temperance drinks. Then again I have, had the strongest representations made to me of the injustice done to the beer trade by the exceedingly high taxation put upon it, and I ask the Government to consider whether at this moment they are not laying themselves open to the suspicion of partisan administration in the finances of the country by piling everything on to one or two products and leaving exempt that class of products which for various reasons will provoke that suspicion. I think the Government would do well to explain why it is that they have allowed those articles to escape the extra taxation which they felt bound to impose upon the country in the present crisis.
    Mr. DUNCAN: I have listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and I must say that I think on some points he has a case. But it always seems to me very strange why, when a man has got a good case upon one point, he drags in other matters which only indicates a bias and destroys his good case. I think, further, this ought to be said, that if there is any matter upon which this House could take very great credit to itself indeed since this War has broken out, it is the part played by, I believe, almost every Member of the Opposition, and, in my judgment, their conduct is worthy of the highest praise that can be given to them for the attitude they have displayed by speech and action in this House on every occasion. The speech we have just listened to seems to be the exception, and I am sorry it has been delivered. There is this point with regard to cocoa. I am not here as an apologist for the cocoa trade, and I have nothing to do with it, but I have been to Birmingham, Bristol, and York, and in each of these centres there are very large firms employing thousands upon thousands of people in the cocoa trade, producing chocolate and other things. It

    1463
    should be obvious to the hon. Member for East Nottingham that although the original price of cocoa may be 7½d. per lb., and may be sold for 2s. 2d. per lb., surely it should be evident to him that the reason for any difference there should be in the price will be indicated by the enormous number of people employed in this industry. I am sorry that the hon. Member saw fit, when he had a good case in regard to tea to spoil it by an exaggeration in regard to cocoa.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Member suppose that there is no labour employed in the bringing of tea to the market?
    Mr. DUNCAN: So far as the employment of labour goes in regard to tea it is small as compared with the cocoa and chocolate trade. That is my own experience, and I am sorry that the hon. Member should so mix these two things up.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I will convey to my right hon. Friend, who asked me to apologise for his absence, the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has made on behalf of collaterals. He was good enough to say that two of my colleagues had attempted to answer his case, and, therefore, it would be presumptuous on my part to attempt to add anything further. He quoted the argument upon which they relied and all his appeal amounted to was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider again the case he and his Friends made before next March. With regard to the other matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I will also convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer his observation, but I will observe that I have always understood that the American reporter is a gentleman peculiarly difficult to avoid, and the reports of interviews in newspapers are not always conspicuous for their accuracy. I will not now attempt to answer the case which the hon. Member for East Nottingham once more made, but I will point out several important facts. It has never been considered, when a tax has been put upon tea, that coffee and cocoa should also be taxed. That was not considered necessary when the tax on tea was raised upon the last occasion, and it is a mistake to assume that cocoa, coffee and tea are interchangeable beverages. The man who drinks tea is a man of different habits to the man who drinks
    1464
    cocoa and coffee. Although coffee is the same price as tea, I understand it requires twice as much to make it, and it needs a lot more milk, and in other ways is much more costly. With regard to cocoa, it is the raw material of an important industry, and in this case the bulk of the tax would not be paid on a drink, but on a valuable foodstuff which is now playing a valuable part in feeding the population of this country. I may add to this that taxes on coffee and cocoa would produce little or no revenue, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right in placing his tax upon a commodity which will raise revenue.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (1914) AMENDMENT BILL.
    As amended, considered.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Use Information in Evidence Against Informant.)
    Where a person has given any information to a person appointed to inspect the books and documents of a person, firm, or company under Section two of the principal Act, the information so given may be used in evidence against him in any proceedings relating to offences of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act, notwithstanding that he only gave the information on being required so to do by the inspector, in pursuance of his powers under the said Section.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Very few words are needed for me at this late hour to explain what this new Clause proposes, and I hope the House will be prepared to add it to the Bill without any misgivings, as soon as they see the necessity for it. In a general way we do not allow a statement that has been made in answer to an inquiry, such as under this Bill may be made by an inspector, to be used in subsequent proceedings against a person who makes a statement in order to convict him. There are exceptions to that principle. For example, in our bankruptcy law, although the bankrupt, of course, has got to answer questions in his public examination,

    1465
    the answers which he gives can, none the less, be used against him suposing he has committed a bankruptcy offence. Experience has shown, and that is all I have got to say about it, that when you are endeavouring to suppress trading with the enemy, and when you are dealing with persons who therefore are much disposed to conceal the real nature of their transactions, if they want to offend against this law at all, it is in some cases impossible to punish an obviously guilty man unless you are entitled to use the explanation which he has offered to the inspector who visited his premises and made inquiry. I need not say that the power to use such evidence certainly should not be exercised as a matter of course. On the other hand, no prosecution can take place under this Bill without the approval of the Attorney-General. He has to give his fiat. Of course, it is my duty to examine in detail what the case is, and I hope the House will be willing to add this Clause to the Bill, I, on my part, assuring them that I should not at all regard it as right to use such a power as a matter of course, but should only use it where the other circumstances were such as to make it plain that otherwise there would be a real miscarriage, of justice.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: On an occasion like this one does not like to oppose any power sought by the Government, but except under such exceptional circumstances as these, I want to make it perfectly clear that it is absolutely a most monstrous proposal, and I should deeply regret to see it ever becomes part of our common law or Statute law, on any occasion except an emergency. Anything more monstrous than that an inspector should be allowed to go to a man's place of business and get any remark from any subordinate, who ever he might be and however spiteful, and use it against him without producing the servant or employé—
    Sir J. SIMON: It is not that at all. It has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That would be the effect of it.
    Sir J. SIMON: Not in the least.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Any statement made to the inspector.
    Sir J. SIMON: By the person accused, nobody else.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The person accused?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is all I am asking.
    Mr. RAWLINSON:
    "Where a person has given any information to a person appointed to inspect the books and documents of a person, firm, or company under Section two of the principal Act, the information so given may be used in evidence against him"—
    Sir J. SIMON: Against whom? "Him!"
    Mr. RAWLINSON:
    "in any proceedings relating to offences of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act, notwithstanding that he only gave the information on being required so to do by the inspector, in pursuance of his powers under the said section."
    Is it not intended to be given in evidence against a company? In nine cases out of ten the charges will be against companies. If it is not, the section certainly will not be of the value which I imagined. The effect of the section, apparently, is that on any occasion when you are prosecuting a particular man answers given by him to the inspector may be used against him. I agree that is not so bad as I anticipated the Clause to be, but as long as the Attorney-General agrees that even as it is it should not be carried further in the criminal law I do not offer any objection.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Duty of Trustees for Enemies to Notify the Custodian.)
    Any person who holds or manages for or on behalf of an enemy any property, real or personal (including any rights, whether legal or equitable, in or arising out of property, real or personal), shall within one month after the passing of this Act or if the property comes into his possession or under his control after the passing of this Act, then within one month after the time when it comes into his possession or under his control, by notice in writing communicate the fact to the Custodian, and shall furnish the Custodian with such particulars in relation thereto as the Custodian may require, and if any person fails to do so he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such a fine

    1467
    and imprisonment, and in addition to a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues.
    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause the following new Sub-section:—
    "(2) Every company incorporated in the United Kingdom and every company which though not incorporated in the United Kingdom has a share transfer or share registration office in the United Kingdom shall within one month after the passing of this Act by notice in writing communicate to the Custodian full particulars of all shares, stock, debentures and debenture stock, and other obligations of the company which are held by or for the benefit of an enemy, and every partner of every firm, one or more partners of which on the commencement of the War became enemies or to whom money had been lent for the purpose of the business of the firm by a partner who so became an enemy, shall within one month after the commencement of this Act by notice in writing communicate to the Custodian full particulars as to any share of profits and interest due to such enemies or enemy, and if any company or partner fails to comply with the provisions of this Sub-section the company shall on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Act be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in addition to a further fine not exceeding fifty pounds for every day during which the default continues, and the partner and every director, manager, secretary, or officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the default shall on the like conviction be liable to the like fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months or to both such imprisonment and fine.'
    These words will bring into this Bill in what I think is the proper form, a valuable suggestion which was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford) and which was supported in all quarters of the House. It is a proposal to this effect: that a company incorporated in the United Kingdom which has enemy shareholders shall be required to make a return to the Custodian showing who these enemy shareholders are and what their address is, even although the company is not distributing a dividend. I propose that shall be extended further in
    1468
    the case of companies not incorporated in the United Kingdom if they have share registers here—such as a Transvaal mining company, or an American company. It should also extend to the case of partners where one or more are enemies. That is only putting into form what was proposed yesterday and accepted by the Committee as highly desirable. I can assure the House with complete confidence that the Clause simply expresses in proper form a highly desirable improvement of the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I dare say the idea of the Clause is excellent. But it is going to give an enormous amount of trouble to large companies. Take the case of the Great Northern Railway Company, of which I am a director. I do not know how many shareholders we have—I think 30,000. We also have a large number of debenture and preference shareholders in addition. Supposing our registrar, who would have to go through 50,000 different names to find out if any are enemy aliens, omits to do that? Am I to be fined or imprisoned with or without hard labour? A great deal of work is going to be put on everybody by the present Amendment. What is going to be gained by it? I should like to know what the advantage will be. Take the case of a company like the London and North-Western Railway. The work which will be cast upon it will be enormous, and I do not quite see what is going to be gained by it. I understand there is a Clause coming on later—Clause 8—which says no company may transfer from an alien enemy unless it receives valuable consideration. That Clause, so long as it is not made retrospective, is a good one, but I shall object to its being made retrospective. This new provision is going to cost the large companies a great sum of money, and I should like to learn from the Attorney-General who is going to gain by it?
    Sir C. CORY: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for drafting this Clause, but it does not at all meet the Clause I proposed yesterday. This Amendment provides that companies shall register their shareholders.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Shall give the information to the Public Trustee or Custodian.
    Sir C. CORY: The object of my Clause was that creditors here should give notice to the Custodian—
    Sir J. SIMON: That is a different Clause.
    Mr. DUKE: As the Attorney-General said, there was a consensus of opinion in Committee last night that it was desirable to have some effectual means of enforcing the wish that Members in all parts of the House expressed that the dispatch of dividends directly or indirectly to alien enemies should be prevented. It is recognised that in the great companies in this country there happens to be a very large number of shareholders who are alien enemies. Extreme views were expressed as to the desirability of dealing in a much more stringent way with those shareholders, but the common view of the Committee was that in order that there might not be, by negligence or want of scruple, the dispatch of money, directly or indirectly, out of the country so that it would assist the enemy, the Government should have the assistance of responsible people. I think the Board of Trade should have the assistance of the actual communication of the names of shareholders. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has said it will cost great expense to the Great Northern Railway Company—
    Sir F. BANBURY: And to all railway companies.
    Mr. DUKE: On the other hand it is just the class of company in which there is a sure return upon investments and it is very likely that proceeds of investments will go abroad by some means or other.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No.
    Mr. DUKE: At any rate the community is very anxious about this at the present time. I cannot doubt that that is appreciated by the Great Northern Company or any other, and it will be desired that the cost of sorting 500 out of 30,000 names shall be paid for the purpose of satisfying the public demand. The right hon. Gentleman has met the wish unanimously expressed from all sides, and I hope he will adhere to what he has proposed.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Vest Enemy Properly in Custodian.)
    (1) The High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application in accordance with rules of Court of any person who appears to the Court to be a creditor of
    1470
    an enemy or entitled to recover damages against an enemy, or to be interested in any property, real or personal (including any rights, whether legal or equitable, in or arising out of property real or personal) belonging to or held or managed for or on behalf of an enemy or on the application of the Custodian or any Government Department by order vest in the Custodian any such real or personal property as aforesaid if the Court or the judge is satisfied that such vesting is expedient for the purposes of this Act, and may by the order confer ion the Custodian such powers of selling, managing and otherwise dealing with the property as the Court or judge may seem proper.

    The Court or judge before making any order under this Section may direct that such notices (if any), whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, shall be given as the Court or judge may think fit.

    (3) A vesting order under this Section as respects property of any description shall be of the like purport and effect as a vesting order as respects property of the same description made under the Trustee Act, 1893.

    Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "in accordance with rules of Court."
    I propose this Amendment in order to get rid of the reference to rules of Court, which is rather a cumbrous process, and to substitute instead some words which will enable the Lord Chancellor in England or Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland to make the rules. I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor, and he thinks that by that means what is necessary will be more satisfactorily done.
    Question, "That the words 'in accordance with the rules of Court,' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Holding and Dealing with Property by Custodian.)
    (1) The Custodian shall, except so far as the Board of Trade or the High Court or a judge thereof may otherwise direct, and subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Sub-section, hold any money paid to, and any property vested in him under this Act until the termination of the present war, and shall thereafter deal with the same in such manner as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct.

    1471

    (2) The property held by the Custodian under this Act shall not be liable to be attached or otherwise taken in execution, but the Custodian may, if so authorised by an order of the High Court or a judge by whose order any property belonging to an enemy was vested in the Custodian under this Act, or of any Court in which judgment has been recovered against an enemy, pay out of the property paid to him in respect of that enemy any debts due by that enemy and specified in the order.

    (3) The receipt of the Custodian or any person duly authorised to sign receipts on his behalf for any sum paid to him under this Act shall be a good discharge to the person paying the same as against the person or body of persons in respect of whom the sum was paid to the Custodian.

    (4) The Custodian shall keep a register of all property held by him under this Act which register shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable times free of charge.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "enemy" ["in respect of the enemy"], insert the words "the whole or any part of."
    At end of Sub-section (2), add the words: "Provided that before paying any such debt the Custodian shall take into consideration the sufficiency of the property paid to or vested in him in respect of the enemy in question, to satisfy that debt, and any other claims against that enemy of which notice verified by statutory declaration may have been served upon him."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Sir C. CORY: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words: "Notices or writs and other process shall be served on the Custodian, who shall forthwith give four weeks' notice thereof in the 'London Gazette,' and a copy of the 'London Gazette' shall be forwarded to the Foreign Office of the country to which the enemy owes allegiance, through any available diplomatic channel, and such notice shall be deemed to be good service on the enemy."
    I wish to impress on the Attorney-General once more the great importance that traders attach to the power of serving a writ. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman heard my arguments last night.
    Sir J. SIMON: I read every word.
    Sir C. CORY: If a company is registered in compliance with the Act you can serve notice on it through the registered post if there is no one here to defend the case. Therefore if the company has not complied with that they are really in a better position than one that has, because it has been stated that it would not be fair to serve a notice through the Custodian because he could not get the company to defend his case. He is in exactly the same position as a man who had registered. Therefore the man who does not comply with the law has an advantage over the man who has. I cannot for the life of me see if it is fair in one case why it should not be fair in the other. If you go to Scotland there is the power there of arresting the assets, in which case the enemy has no more chance of coming to defend his case than if the writ is served on the Custodian. It is very easy to send a copy of the "Gazette" to the Foreign Office in Germany through the American Ambasador, and if the Foreign Office did not notify the debtor in Germany, that would be their look-out. It would give him every opportunity of sending back through the American Ambassador instructions to defend the case in the Courts here. In justice to the debtors of this country the Attorney-General might do something to meet their wishes.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Amendment made: At end of Clause, add the following new Sub-section:
    "(5) In England and Ireland the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor for Ireland may by rules, and in Scotland the Court of Session may by act of sederunt, make provision for the practice and procedure to be adopted for the purposes of this and the last preceding Section."—[Sir J. Simon.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Invalidity of Assignment of Debts, etc., by Enemies.)
    (1) No person shall by virtue of any assignment of any debt or other chose in action, or delivery of any coupon or other security transferable by delivery, or transfer of any other obligation, made or to be made in his favour by or on behalf of an enemy, whether for valuable consideration or otherwise, have any rights or remedies against the person liable to pay discharge or satisfy the debt, chose in action, security or obligation, unless he proves that the assignment, delivery, or transfer was made by leave of the Board

    1473
    of Trade or was made before the commencement of the present War, and any person who knowingly pays discharges or satisfies any debt, or chose in action so assigned, or any security so delivered, or any obligation so transferred after the said date, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence of trading with the enemy within the meaning of the principal Act:
    Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the person to whom the assignment, delivery, or transfer was made, or some person deriving title under him, proves that the transfer, delivery, or assignment, or some subsequent transfer, delivery or assignment, was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "so assigned, or any security so delivered, or any obligation so transferred after the said date," and insert the words "to which this Sub-section applies."
    At end of Sub-section insert the words "nor shall this Sub-section apply to any negotiable instrument."—[Sir J. Simon.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Right to Pay into Court Sums Due on Coupons Suspected of being Enemy Properly.)
    Where during the continuance of the present War any coupon or other security transferable by delivery is presented for payment to any company, municipal authority, or other body or person, and the company, body or person has reason to suspect that it is so presented on behalf or for the benefit of an enemy or that since the eighteenth day of November it has been held by or for the benefit of an enemy, the company, body, or person may pay the sum due in respect thereof into Court, and the same shall, subject to rules of Court, be dealt with according to the orders of the Court, and such a payment shall for all purposes be a good discharge to the company, body, or person.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "eighteenth day of November," and insert thereof the words "commencement of the present War":
    After the word "into" ["in respect thereof into Court"] insert the words "the High."

    CLAUSE 8.—(Invalidity of Transfers of Shares in Company, etc.)
    (1) No person shall by virtue of any transfer of any securities made by or on
    1474
    behalf of an enemy have any rights or remedies in respect thereto unless he proves that the transfer was made with the leave of the Board of Trade, or was made before the commencement of the present War, and no company or municipal authority or other body by whom the securities were issued or are managed shall except as hereinafter appears take any cognisance of or otherwise act upon any notice of such a transfer.

    Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the transferee or some subsequent transferee proves that the transfer or some subsequent transfer was made before the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, in good faith and for valuable consideration.

    (2) No entry shall, during the continuance of the present War, be made in any register or branch register or other book kept in the United Kingdom of any transfer of any securities therein registered, inscribed or standing in the name of an enemy, except by leave of a court of competent jurisdiction or of the Board of Trade.

    (3) No share warrants payable to bearer shall be issued during the continuance of the present War in respect of any shares or stock registered in the name of any enemy.

    (4) If any company or any body contravenes the provisions of this Section the company or body shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and every director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company or body who is knowingly a party to the default, shall be liable on the like conviction to a like fine or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months.

    (5) For the purposes of this Section the expression "securities" includes any annuities, stock, shares, debentures, or debenture stock issued by or on behalf of the Government or by any municipal or other authority, or by any company or by any other body.

    Sir F. BANBURY: In order to get some explanation as to its retrospective nature, I beg to move to omit Clause 8. If it is retrospective it will inflict very great hardship upon everyone who in good faith has bought certain shares or stock in any foreign company. It might happen that an alien enemy on 4th August had

    1475
    transferred certain stocks to a neutral without proper consideration, and that neutral had sold them for good consideration to an Englishman on 10th August. Since 10th August there have been five or six different transfers—all bonâ fide. This Bill says that no company may transfer stock which has at any time since the 4th August been in the hands of an alien enemy unless it is proved that the transfer has been for proper value received. The result of that would be that if I purchased through my stockbroker £1,000 London and North-Western Railway ordinary stock, and it came out in the name of my hon. and learned Friend—he is a first-class person—I would pay him for the stock. I find that he has given good value for the stock, and I part with my money to him. Then I have to go through any amount of gradations to find out whether eight, nine, or ten transactions before my hon. and learned Friend got the stock were bonâ fide for value received. In these circumstances I venture to say that a severe blow will be inflicted upon a market which is already very much depressed, and which does not want further blows put upon it. What you want to do is to enable people to realise their securities, if they wish to do so, as easily as possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making it almost impossible to realise English securities by this regulation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that on and after 26th November no stock standing in the name of an alien enemy must be transferred unless it is proved that good consideration has been paid, I would not have a word to say against it. But if a transfer is presented with the name of Johann Schmidt, I will not pay for it unless I am sure that good consideration has been paid.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have the warmest sympathy with the hon. Baronet's sentiments—in fact I share them—but I would ask him to look at the actual terms of the Clause. I do not complain at all, because for the moment he was misled about it. If he will look at the Clause he will find that, so far from doing what he supposes, it does the exact opposite. He will find that is so if he will look at the language of the proviso which meets the precise case he has put. It is quite true that we begin by saying that transfers since the beginning of the War are null and void.
    1476
    But the proviso does not merely say that the transfer is all right if the person who bought from the alien enemy bought bonâ fide and for good consideration; but the transfer before the introduction of this Bill, between the beginning of the War and now, substantially speaking, gives a good title to the hon. Baronet if anybody in the course of the chain has bought bonâ fide for value. So it is a mistake to say that it is invalidating the title. The language of the Clause does exactly what the hon. Baronet wishes to do.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am sure that the Attorney-General is, quite unintentionally, absolutely mistaken as to the effect of the Clause. The proviso is that it must be done before 19th November. Therefore if the purchase is made to-morrow or any other day between now and the end of the War it makes absolutely no difference to him to show that he paid full value. That is where the hardship comes in. He has got to show that he paid good value for it not to-morrow but before 19th November, which is a very different thing. It is a grave business difficulty for people who are going to buy London and North-Western stock in the month of December that though they pay full value for it they will not have a title unless they go a great deal further and prove that somebody has given good consideration before the 19th November. I quite appreciate the case which the Attorney-General wants to get at, but I do not think that this is the best way of dealing with it. I do not think that the penalty is sufficiently clearly set out.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (5) leave out the word "includes," and insert instead thereof the word "means."

    CLAUSE 13.—(Short Title and Construction).
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914, and shall be construed as one with the principal Act.
    (2) No person or body of persons shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as an enemy who would not be so treated for the purpose of any Proclamation issued by His Majesty dealing with trading with the enemy for the time being in force, and the expression "commencement of the present War" shall mean as respects any enemy the date on which war was declared by His Majesty on the country in which that enemy resides or carries on business.
    (3) In the application of this Act to Scotland "real property" shall mean "heritable property"; "personal property" shall mean "moveable property"; "chose in action" shall mean "right of action"; "attached or otherwise taken in execution" shall mean "arrested in execution or in security, or otherwise affected by diligence"; "assignment" shall mean "assignation"; "judgment has been recovered" shall mean "decree has been obtained"; a reference to a vesting order made under the Trustee Act, 1893, shall be construed as a reference to a warrant to complete a title granted under Section twelve of the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1867. Any money paid into Court in terms of this Act shall be paid in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of sederunt.
    (4) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the power of His Majesty by Proclamation to prohibit any transaction which is not prohibited by this Act, or by licence to permit any transaction which is so prohibited.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "Court" and insert instead thereof the words "the Court of Session."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TRUSTS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  TRUSTS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Delegate the Execution of Trusts by Power of Attorney.)
    (1) A trustee (whether a sole trustee or a trustee with others) may, notwithstanding any rule of law or equity to the contrary, by power of attorney, attested by one or more witnesses, delegate to the donee of the power the execution during any period for which the trustee is engaged on war service within the meaning of this Act, and a further period of one month thereafter, of any trust of which he is trustee.
    (2) For the purposes of this Act a trustee shall be deemed to be engaged on war service:—

    (a) If he is engaged on active service in connection with the present war as a member of any of the military or naval forces of the Crown; and

    1478

    (b) If he is engaged on service in any work abroad, in connection with the present war, of the British Red Cross Society, or the Saint John's Ambulance Association, or any other body with similar objects; and

    (c) If in connection with the present war he is a prisoner of war in the enemy's country or is interned in the country of a neutral Power.

    (3) All jurisdiction and powers of any Court shall apply to the donee of a power of attorney given under this Act so far as respects the execution of the trust in the same manner as if the donee were a trustee of the trust.
    (4) A statutory declaration by the donee of a power of attorney under which the execution of the trust is delegated, that the donor is engaged on war service within the meaning of this Act, or that in any transaction the donee is acting in execution of the trust, shall be accepted as sufficient evidence of the fact by any person dealing with the donee.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "to" ["delegate to"], to leave out the words "the donee of the power," and to insert instead thereof the words, "any person capable of being appointed to be a trustee of the trust."
    It is obvious that this is a reasonable Amendment, and that the person who is appointed must be a person concerned.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Powers of Attorney given Under Act 44 and 45 Vic. c. 41.)
    (1) A power of attorney given under this Act may be deposited at the Cenral Office of the Supreme Court or proper office of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland under Section forty-eight of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, without any further verification of its execution; and notwithstanding anything in any Act or rules, the Bank of England, the Bank of Ireland, the Paymaster-General, the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, and any other person, shall not refuse to act on the authority of any such power of attorney, although the power is not attested by two

    1479
    witnesses, or fails in any other respect to comply with any formality required by law or practice.

    (2) The donee of a power of attorney given under this Act may, for the purpose of the transfer of any inscribed stock, himself delegate to an attorney the power to transfer.

    (3) The fact that it appears from any power of attorney given under this Act, or from any evidence required for the purposes of any such power of attorney, or otherwise, that in dealing with any stock the donee of the power is acting in the execution of a trust shall not be deemed for any purpose to affect any person in whose books the stock is inscribed or registered with any notice of the trust.

    (4) In this section the expression "stock" includes shares and any fund, annuity, or security transferable in books kept by any person or by any instrument of transfer, either alone or accompanied by other formalities, and any share or interest therein.

    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "any" ["without any"], leave out the word "further" and insert instead therof the word "such."
    After the word "execution" ["of its execution"] insert the words "as therein required."—[Sir S. Buckmaster.]
    Bill reported; as amended considered; read the third time and passed.

    POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Orders of Local Government Board Modifying or Repealing Section 9 of 10 and 11 Vic. c. 31.)
    (1) The Local Government Board for Ireland may by order modify or repeal the provisions of Section nine of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1847 (which prohibits the giving of relief from the poor rates of a union to any person not within the union when so relieved), so far as respects any union specified in the order if, in the opinion of the Board, the modification or repeal is necessary or expedient for any purpose in connection with the present war or for the better administration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1900, and may by the same or any subsequent order make or provide for
    1480
    such adjustments and apportionments of the property, powers, duties, income, liabilities and expenses of any board of guardians or other local authority affected as appear to the Board to be proper.
    (2) An order under this Section may contain such consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions (including provisions as to the remuneration and superannuation of officers) as the Board deem necessary, and shall have effect as from any date subsequent to the first day of August one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, which may be specified therein for the purpose.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "War," to leave out the words,
    "or for the better administration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1900, and may by the same or any subsequent Order make or provide for such adjustments and apportionments of the property, powers, duties, income, liabilities and expenses of any board of guardians or other local authority affected as appear to the Board to be proper."
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, is prepared to accept that Amendment.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am extremely anxious to meet the hon. Baronet, because I quite recognise that he is well within his rights that in connection with emergency legislation it should not be used by an anxious Department to avail themselves of doing
    "good by stealth, and blush to find it fame."
    I am willing to accept the Amendment with the omission of certain words, but I cannot help thinking that the hon. Baronet will see that this is absolutely essential that the Local Government Board should have power to make
    "such adjustments and apportionments of the property, powers, duties, income, liabilities and expenses of any board of guardians or other local authorities affected as appeared to the Board to be proper."
    What has happened is this: The War Office has already taken some thirty of our workhouses for the purpose of prisoners and for the purpose of troops. I have got powers which justifies the Local Government Board in removing about 150 paupers to some fifty or sixty other

    1481
    workhouses outside their union. I have to get a Bill to indemnify me for what I have done. When the War comes to an end the workhouses will be absolutely empty, and it will be perfectly impossible, and it might be undesirable, that I should go about the country to find these paupers and remove them from the sixty or seventy workhouses to other workhouses. That is eminently undesirable and probably impossible. I have to make adjustments between the guardians of the paupers whom I have removed and which were chargeable to one union and the guardians of the union to which they have been removed and to which they were not chargeable. All I wanted was not to come rushing to this House immediately peace was declared, and perhaps even then all the troops would not be removed for some time, and then I should have some of those workhouses which I do not want to fill up again, and all I want is to get powers to authorise the Local Government Board by Order to make such necessary adjustments as may be required in order to keep the paupers perhaps where they are already, and to use those empty buildings it may be for the purposes of segregation of classes of paupers, or it may be for auxiliary lunatic asylums or the like. See what my position as President of the Local Government Board would be at the moment peace is declared. I have to rush to the House of Commons in order to enable me to carry out things which are absolutely consequential on what I have done.
    I agree that the words as drawn naturally excite the financial susceptibilities of the hon. Baronet, to which I in no way demur. In Sub-section (2) there are the words "including provisions as to the remuneration and superannuation of officers." It may be that those words smack somewhat of reform of the Poor Law, which, although a most desirable thing, I quite agree is not a proper thing to introduce in this Bill. I am therefore very willing that that part of the Amendment to exclude those words should be accepted. I do assure the hon. Baronet, and I think he will be so assured by any of the Irish Members, that the other words authorising me to make such Orders as are necessary for the adjustment and alterations which would secure the actual emptying of thirty workhouses are literally consequential upon the powers which I seek to take, and which I have already exercised illegally, to hand over
    1482
    thirty workhouses, and I have already handed over fifteen to the War Office, for the purpose of prisoners and troops. I do assure the hon. Baronet with all consciousness of his alertness to public duties, I am really doing nothing whatever excepting those words as to superannuation but that which is consequential, and I am willing those words should be omitted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman in every way, but there are also the words "or for the better administration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1900."
    Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Baronet likes I will leave out those words.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman. With those words out it will be necessary to move an Amendment at the end.
    The CHAIRMAN: The best course is to withdraw the Amendment before the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words, "or for the better administration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Acts, 1838 to 1900."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, after the word "proper" ["appear to the Board to be proper"], to add the words "for the said purpose."
    Mr. BIRRELL: I agree to that.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "including provisions as to the remuneration and superannuation of officers."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done, although I am not sure that he has not got the better of me. I have tried to fulfil a rather difficult task in a very short time.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to amend the Clause, otherwise I should have voted with the hon. Baronet.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (NAVY AND ARMY) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (NAVY AND ARMY) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Rule of Conditions under 1 and 2 Geo. V., c. 35, Section 46 (3) (h).)
    The requirements as to proof of state of health and to making application within the prescribed time imposed by paragraph (h) of Sub-section (3) of Section forty-six of the National Insurance Act, 1911, as conditions on which a seaman, marine, or soldier, on his discharge from service, can become entitled to benefits payable out of the Navy and Army Insurance Fund shall not apply in the case of a seaman, marine, or soldier who, on his discharge from service during or within the prescribed period after the conclusion of the present war, is certified by the Admiralty or Army Council to be suffering from any disease or disablement, or bodily or mental unfitness, but every such man shall become entitled to benefits payable out of that fund as from the date of his discharge:
    Provided that if in any case the Insurance Commissioners are of opinion that the state of the man's health on discharge is not such as to disqualify him for admission to an approved society, the Commissioners may, by notice, fix a time (not being less than three months from the date of such notice; not being more than six months from the date of his discharge) at which he shall cease to be entitled to benefits out of the fund unless he satisfies them that he has been unable by reason of the state of his health to obtain admission to an approved society.
    Amendment made: After the word "discharge" ["as from the date of his discharge"], insert the words "in like manner and under such regulations as aforesaid."—[Dr. Addison.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill Reported; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask a question which I put on the Second Reading, namely: Whether the Commissioners have considered the method by which they will avoid any partiality being shown to any society when the people who come within the scope of this Bill return to civil life?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): I have consulted my right hon. Friend and I can assure the hon. Member that the Commissioners, whilst not prepared to commit themselves to details just now, will be very careful, so far as possible, to meet the wishes of the societies generally, and will certainly avoid any appearance or inclination of impartiality in any way.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    ROYAL MARINES BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and Reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and Reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) [IRELAND] BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This Bill includes certain Irish Amendments which should have been inserted in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914. That Act does not refer to the Irish Statutes applicable to the occasion. It was thought that the tenant should have the opportunity of showing that his inability to pay was owing to, or had arisen through, the War.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Read a second time.
    Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. BOOTH: On that Motion, I would like to make an appeal to the Government that next year they will try, if they possibly can, to avoid rushing legislation as they have done now. There are many points that might be raised in Committee, but one hesitates to delay measures on an occasion like this for fear of jeopardising them. I hope we may not again be put to the strain to which we have been subjected just now.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR IN EUROPE.
  ISLAND OF HERM.
  ISLAND OF HERM.
  COPPER IMPORTS.
  COPPER IMPORTS.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (CHRISTMAS POST).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (CHRISTMAS POST).
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT SERVICE.
  ANTI-AIRCRAFT SERVICE.
  RED CROSS HOSPITALS (TELEPHONES).
  RED CROSS HOSPITALS (TELEPHONES).
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
ARMY AND NAVY COMMANDS.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
  CIVIL SERVANTS (ARMY COMMISSIONS).
  CIVIL SERVANTS (ARMY COMMISSIONS).
  LETTERS FROM WOUNDED.
  LETTERS FROM WOUNDED.
  ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS.
  ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS.
  NEW SERVICE BATTALIONS (EX-NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
  NEW SERVICE BATTALIONS (EX-NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS).
  INCOME TAX (DIMINUTION).
  INCOME TAX (DIMINUTION).
  PRE-MORATORIUM BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
  PRE-MORATORIUM BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
  FINANCE ACT, 1910 (SEASONAL HOTELS).
  FINANCE ACT, 1910 (SEASONAL HOTELS).
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
  WHITWORTH COLLIERIES, GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  WHITWORTH COLLIERIES, GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS RECALLED TO DUTY).
  INDIAN ARMY (OFFICERS RECALLED TO DUTY).
  SS. "KOMAGATA MARU."
  SS. "KOMAGATA MARU."
  LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
  LAND VALUATION DEPARTMENT.
  EXPLOSIVES (EXPORT).
  EXPLOSIVES (EXPORT).
  PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS.
  PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS.
  BILLETING OF TROOPS (SAFFRON WALDEN).
  BILLETING OF TROOPS (SAFFRON WALDEN).
  COMMISSIONS (UNIVERSITY CANDIDATES).
  COMMISSIONS (UNIVERSITY CANDIDATES).
  MOTOR DISPATCH RIDERS.
  MOTOR DISPATCH RIDERS.
  WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST (CANDIDATES' FEES).
  WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST (CANDIDATES' FEES).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (RIFLES).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (RIFLES).
  PAYMENTS TO DEPENDANTS OF SEAMEN.
  PAYMENTS TO DEPENDANTS OF SEAMEN.
  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT.
  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT.
  Beer Duties.
  Beer Duties.
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Silver Coin in Ireland (Shortage).
  Silver Coin in Ireland (Shortage).
  Income Tax Deductions.
  Income Tax Deductions.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DONEGAL GRANT.
  DONEGAL GRANT.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Unemployment (Dublin).
  Unemployment (Dublin).
  Superintendent Registrars (Ireland).
  Superintendent Registrars (Ireland).
  Assistant Paymasters.
  Assistant Paymasters.
  School Playgrounds.
  School Playgrounds.
  Excise Advisory Committees.
  Excise Advisory Committees.
  Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act.
  Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act.
  Death Certificates.
  Death Certificates.
  Rating Bill.
  Rating Bill.
POST OFFICE.
  LETTER DELIVERIES.
  LETTER DELIVERIES.
  TEMPORARY POSTAL WORKERS.
  TEMPORARY POSTAL WORKERS.
  BAGWORTH LETTER DELIVERY.
  BAGWORTH LETTER DELIVERY.
  POSTAL RATES TO CANADA (BRITISH MAGAZINES).
  POSTAL RATES TO CANADA (BRITISH MAGAZINES).
  Opium Conference (Report).
  Opium Conference (Report).
  Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Committee.
  Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Committee.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM CONSOLIDATION BILL. (No. 10.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor).
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DISQUALIFICATION RELIEF) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Stanmore). (No. 11.)

THE PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL KITCHENER): My Lords, since I last addressed your Lordships on the general military situation there have been certain important changes in the scene and scope of the operations on the Continent, and at the risk of repeating what is already common knowledge I think it may not be undesirable if I briefly allude to some of the salient features of the campaign since early in October. In France the German Army was then attempting an outflanking movement to the north of the French lines, and our troops were being transferred to the left flank of the French forces in order to prevent the enemy from pushing West, and thus threatening Dunkirk and Calais. The Germans were also besieging Antwerp and, owing to the overwhelming superiority of their heavy artillery which had been brought into action a against that place, it soon become manifest that the comparatively out-of-date fortifications of Antwerp would not be able to resist much longer and though the fall of the town was delayed, and the gallant Belgian garrison was safely removed by British efforts, Antwerp was occupied by the Germans on October 9. With their flank and rear thus secured the German forces were pushed rapidly forward in considerable strength, their objective being to capture the northern coasts of France. But the delay which had been caused in the release of the besieging forces in front of Antwerp just gave time for Sir John French, by a bold forward march and by taking up an extended position from La
180
Bassée to Dixmude, to meet this German movement and prevent the Germans from obtaining their objective.
At this period Sir John French's force was increased by an Infantry and a Cavalry Division from England. Very severe fighting took place for several days, as the Germans, in considerably superior forces, vigorously attacked our left line of defence. As an instance I may state that our Cavalry Divisions, extended for seven miles of front in trenches, threw back the fierce attacks of a whole German Army Corps for more than two days. The arrival of the Indian Divisions on the scene was of great assistance to Sir John French, and with French reinforcements which were being pushed up to the front the Germans gradually realised that their public boast to advance to Calais resembled closely their statement with regard to Paris. During all this time the long line from Lille to Verdun was maintained intact by our French Allies against constant attacks from the German forces. The French Army have shown the greatest tenacity and endurance, and have displayed the highest fighting qualities in thus defending their positions against any advance of the Germans. For although they have made notable advances at various points, they have never yielded up a yard of their country since I last addressed your Lordships.
On our left, the gallant Belgian Army held the line from Dixmude to the sea and fought with their well-known pluck, throwing back vigorous and incessant attacks on their positions. Their fine resistance was supported with energy by the co-operation of our Fleet, which effectively shelled the German positions within range of our guns. Through the whole of the period I am now reviewing, the Belgian Army has been constantly led in the field by their King, who, though hard pressed, has never yet left Belgian territory, and does not intend to do so. Sir John French's successful resistance to the German advance was maintained notwithstanding German supports being pushed up in large numbers. At this time no less than eleven corps were attacking his position. At this critical period the 8th Division was despatched to join our forces in the field, and the valuable co-operation of General Foch's armies on our left materially strengthened the British position. On November 11 a supreme

181
effort was made by the Germans, the Prussian Guard being ordered to force its way through our lines at all costs and to carry them by sheer weight of numbers. But this desperate attempt failed, as had failed its predecessors.
General Joffre having sent up strong reinforcements, a considerable portion of the British trenches in front of Ypres was taken over by them, and the British front being thus appreciably shortened our troops—which for over fourteen days and nights had never left the trenches, and never allowed the enemy to sustain a footing in them—have been enabled to enjoy a partial but most certainly well-earned rest. Several battalions of Territorial troops have joined -Sir John French's forces, and have made their presence felt. Our losses, naturally, have been very heavy during such strenuous fighting, but they are slight in comparison with those inflicted on the enemy. Reinforcements have replaced our casualties, and the troops under Sir John French are now refitted, in the best of spirits, and confident of success under their leader.
There have been two other prominent changes in the military situation which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice—-the advance of Russia and the entrance of Turkey into the field against the Allies. Early in October the Russian Army was massing on the line of the Vistula and San. The Germans were invading Poland from Silesia, and about October 11 had reached the neighbourhood of Warsaw. The Russian Army then took the offensive with overwhelming force, and drove the Germans back to their frontier, a distance of about 133 miles. Recently, by making use of their strategic railways and massing troops in the neighbourhood of the fortress of Thorn, the Germans were able to bring a preponderating force to bear upon the Russian right flank on the Vistula, causing them to retire. After a hotly-contested battle the reinforced Russian troops in this neighbourhood have been able to check and defeat the Germans with, I believe, heavier losses than they have ever sustained before. In the meantime the Russian advance on Cracow and in the Carpathian Mountains has been uninterrupted, and has driven the Austrian forces before it.
At the end of October, without any warning, Turkey violated her neutrality by
182
suddenly bombarding Odessa and other Black Sea ports. Previous to this she had already massed troops in order to invade Egypt, and armed Bedouins had crossed our frontier. We are now in touch with the advanced parties of the Turkish forces about thirty miles east of the Suez Canal. On the declaration of war by Turkey the Russian Armies in the Caucasus immediately took the offensive, and they are now successfully advancing on Erzeroum. Fighting is also now going on in the mountainous district in the neighbourhood of Van. The hostile action of Turkey has further induced us to send an Indian expedition against the Turkish provinces at the northern end of the Persian Gulf. This force has twice met and twice defeated the Turkish troops, and has occupied the important town of Basra. Active operations are also going on in South and East. Africa.
This short summary of recent military events gives me the opportunity to say that the Government desire to keep back nothing from the public that cannot be utilised to advantage by our enemies. It is not always easy to decide what. information may or may not be dangerous, and whenever there is any doubt we do not hesitate to prevent publication. It must be remembered that in this war our troops form part of a much larger force engaged in the same campaign, and the dissemination of news in regard to one part of the forces must affect the whole. It is, therefore, the Commander-in-Chief of the whole Allied Army, General Joffre, who is the man responsible in this and every other matter connected with the operations of the Army in the field. And I feel in the strongest possible way that it is my duty loyally to co-operate with him and to see that his wishes are carried out. Subject, however, to these considerations, I recognise that it is in the highest degree desirable that news from the front which can be circulated without detriment to the military position should be communicated to the country, and it has always been my aim, while regarding military considerations as paramount, to facilitate the circulation of all news which can be given with safety. I feel confident that the public will respond to the call which we have to make upon their patience and moderation with that grit which has always been the pride of the British nation, and will realise that such reticence as is preserved by the other combatants is impera-

183
tively demanded of them in the interests of their Armies.
Your Lordships may very reasonably expect a word from me as to the preparations that are being made for prosecuting the war in addition to keeping up the forces we now have in the field. The difficulties with which the War Office have had to contend are many and various, but I may confidently say that they are being met and dealt with in a more satisfactory manner than I at first thought possible. We feel strongly that our soldiers have a right to be placed in the field provided with all the material of war which modern conditions demand—fully equipped as well as efficiently trained. The wastage of the fighting force naturally demands a large stock of men on which to draw, but although the number of casualties reported is heavy, our actual losses are relatively low, and it must not be forgotten that wounded officers and men returning to the front are the more valuable from having learnt the caution horn of experience which adds to the qualifications of the bravest soldier who is taking part in such a campaign as this. As regards numbers, there is real need and ample room for all the men who are ready to come forward and serve their country, and when further special calls are made on the manhood of England I am confident they will be responded to—as before—in a manner and in a spirit which will ensure the prosecution of the war to its successful conclusion.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, your Lordships will, I am sure, feel that a statement of the great importance of that to which we have just listened should not pass without some appreciative continent from the Benches on this side of the House. We are grateful to the noble and gallant Earl for the manner in which on more than one occasion he has come down to this House and from his place on that Bench has given us in a singularly clear and concise fashion an account of the military situation as it is at the moment at which he speaks, and of his expectations with regard to the future. I am tempted to say, attaching as we all do the highest value to these periodical statements, that it would be an excellent thing—if I may venture to commend the suggestion to the noble Marquess opposite and to the noble and gallant Earl himself—if from time to time during the Parliamentary recess
184
which is about to begin similar statements could be issued from the War Office with a view of informing the public. We shall not be here to ask questions; the noble and gallant Field-Marshal himself will be otherwise employed; and it would not only be very encouraging to the spirit of the nation but I think it would greatly stimulate the recruiting which we all desire if from time to time statements of that nature could be heard.
The noble and gallant Earl, in the remarks to which we have just listened, has covered a wide field. He has described to us what he himself called the salient features of the campaign, and in his brief summary he has done admirable justice to the various combatants who are concerned. We gather from his remarks that in his opinion the German troops have, at any rate up to date, failed in the objective of their campaign in the West, and that, just as they failed to reach Paris, so they have up to the present time failed to reach Calais and Dunkirk. He spoke of the singularly gallant conduct of our own troops in the trenches. The House will well understand how such praise coming from him will infuse fresh spirit into those gallant men, and for my own part I must thank him for the reference that he made to the Indian soldiers. To those who, like myself, advocated the employment of those forces in the field and who have followed their operations with daily increasing interest, it is indeed a source of delight to know that they have comported themselves on the field of battle with a gallantry not less than that of our European Allies or of the British comrades by whose sides they are placed.
Glad I was to hear the noble and gallant Earl include in his tribute words regarding the tremendously heavy part that is being played by the French. I think we in this country are apt—it is a pardonable fault, concentrating our attention, as we naturally do, on the fifteen or twenty miles where cur own troops are fighting—to think that this is the centre and focus of the war. Do not let us forget that it is not, perhaps, more than one-tenth—I do not know the exact proportion—of the line that is being held by our Allies, and that to their patience, to the strategy of the French Commander-in-Chief, to their endurance, is due the fact that France, who is fighting our battle as much as her own, has so gallantly held her

185
own all the way from Switzerland to the sea. It was not without a thrill of satisfaction that we heard the noble and gallant Earl include in his tribute a word of praise for the valiant; little Belgian Army, reduced in numbers but indomitable in character, and the patriot King who, at its head, has made a name which will live in history.
The Secretary of State passed on to consider the Russian position, and we were gratified to learn from him an official confirmation of that which we had gathered from the newspapers of this morning—namely, that a substantial victory has been won in that theatre of war. It is indeed an encouragement to us to witness the progress of our Allies, so patient in their movements, so silent except in the hour of victory, and to gather from them an inspiration for our own conduct. The noble and gallant Earl then referred to the war with Turkey. With this he dealt so fully that words from me would be superfluous. But I would like to join in the congratulations which I understood him to offer to the Indian troops for their singularly successful operations in capturing the very considerable port of Busra. Anybody who knows the East will believe that this exploit will ring throughout Asia, and that it will be regarded there not merely as the capture of a substantial position but as a damaging blow to Turkish prestige in those parts of the world.
The noble and gallant Earl passed on to a matter in which we all take supreme interest, and which we have more than once presumed to raise in this House. I speak of the question of greater publicity as regards the movements and deeds of our soldiers in the war. I hope the noble and gallant Earl will believe that we thoroughly realise the weighty character of the considerations that he placed before us. We fully understand the obligations of loyalty to the French Commander-in-Chief. We realise that it would be impossible for one plan of action to be adopted over nine-tenths of the field of war and to insist upon an exception for ourselves. But I hope I was not wrong in drawing from one sentence of his remarks the conclusion that he is disposed to make a greater concession to popular sentiment in the matter, and that whatever news he can give to the public consistent with loyalty to our colleagues and the highest military considerations be will give. If I am right in
186
that interpretation I believe I may thank him on behalf of those who sit in every quarter of the House.
It is not that we are curious about things; it is that we look to the effect that good news produces upon our people. We must remember that the Press is almost the only literature of the greater number of our population. It is practically the sole educator of the people. Many of them know very little about this war, and it is only by reading in the newspapers the details of what happens, the deeds and achievements of their fellow-countrymen, that they understand what is passing, and that their spirits are raised to a high and becoming level.
The noble and gallant Earl added a word or two about the administration of the War Office. I am sure he will believe me when I say that no criticism that has been heard on this side of the House has been of a carping or censorious nature. We have never made any remarks about War Office administration except in the desire to strengthen the hands of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal. And may I, as Parliament is about to adjourn for the present, take the opportunity not merely of confessing our realisation of the great strain under which he and his colleagues have worked, but also our recognition of the manner in which they have risen to the difficulties of the case and removed many of the obstacles of which complaint has been made. The question of the conditions under which recruits are kept in camp, the question, of allowances and pensions, the question of surrounding the movement of our troops with greater colour and pageantry, have all engaged the attention of the War Office, and I take this opportunity of acknowledging the substantial advance in all these respects that has been made.
Upon one point I think we should have been glad if the noble and gallant Earl had been a little more explicit—namely, as to the question of numbers. We know that large numbers have been called for and that large numbers are still required; the measure of the demands of the noble and gallant Earl we do not know. We see accounts in the newspapers that recruiting is in some parts of the country going slowly; anon comes the more reassuring statement that men are coming in with all the readiness that is required. I hope that

187
some opportunity will be taken before Parliament separates of giving us rather more precise information on the matter. The noble and gallant Earl concluded by appealing to the steadfast and continued spirit of the nation. Upon that I believe he may confidently rely. That spirit, I think, could not be better expressed than in a letter which I received this morning from a friend of mine who had sent to the war three sons, one of whom had already given up his life. He answered my mingled condolences and congratulations by the phrase, "If I had twenty sons and £20,000 a year I would give them all to the same cause." That spirit, I believe, is one which animates not only the members of your Lordships' House but the entire nation, and it is a spirit which is incompatible with anything but ultimate victory.

RECRUITING.
LORD CHARNWOOD*LORD CHARNWOOD rose to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is making use of, or will make use of, the services of the County Territorial Force Associations for the purpose of ensuring that recruits shall present themselves for enlistment in such numbers as may from time to time be required.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the impressive speech which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal made to your Lordships in the month of August last he gave voice to the determination of this country that its military forces should grow as the war went on. I think I may assume that, for obvious reasons, in carrying out that purpose recruits will be wanted in larger numbers at one time and in smaller numbers at another, but it is obviously impossible to regulate the flow of enlistment, which first and last must be enormous, by any simple process comparable to the turning on and turning off of a tap. There are two things which add force to that consideration. What quite inevitably happened when the first rush of recruits came, and came in such large numbers that it had to be checked, has had a damping effect which to some extent lasts. That would not by itself matter very much, but a large number of the people of this country only very dimly realise the character of the continuing national emergency in which we stand. I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect the mothers of the working
188
classes, who have such an important say in this matter of enlistment, to have any very clear realisation of the position in which the country stands. Day by day people read the newspapers and see news which, taken altogether, shows a satisfactory and continued progress in the war, and they are apt to draw the very natural inference that the war will speedily be at an end. But in spite of revolting incidents such as occurred at Chelsea the other day, when the appeal of Colonel Burne was treated in the horrible manner in which it was treated—in spite of occasional incidents of that kind here and there, I by no means wish to suggest that the recruiting problem is an alarming one. Nevertheless it presents serious difficulty, more serious in some parts of the country than perhaps is easily realised in a large centre such as London.
A step is being taken to deal with this matter which, so far as it goes, is excellent. I mean the circular letter signed by the leaders of Parties, which I believe in some districts has already been received by every householder upon the register. I think your Lordships would welcome, if it be convenient to give any such explanation, some statement of how it is proposed to follow up that step. Clearly there must be on the top of that some canvass of those who neglect to fill up the returns. The business of educating those who do not understand the country's need must go on hand in hand with this canvass. The calling up of the willing men must proceed with careful regard to the needs of industry, and, so far as possible, to special domestic circumstances. Men anxious to serve with their friends and neighbours should be enabled so far as possible to do so. Men honestly distracted between conflicting duties should, as I believe they can, be enabled to put themselves at the disposal of some authority in close touch with them.
This, my Lords, is a task which no centralised authority could possibly perform completely or satisfactorily. I believe that in the County Associations, with the district committees which they now command, the Secretary of State has at hand an organisation admirably fitted to perform any task of this kind which he may lay upon it. I would not, even remotely, hint any sort of minute criticism of a Minister bearing responsibilities so varied and so vast as are borne by the Secretary of State for War.

189
Nor do I wish to trouble him with any detailed suggestions. But I venture earnestly to hope that the Secretary of State will in this matter consult the Lords Lieutenant, many of whom are in some ways the best organisers of public opinion and of public effort in this democratic country. I think that before the House adjourns for a long time, as I understand it will to-morrow, your Lordships would welcome some assurance that full use will he made of the County Associations in this matter. The larger the responsibility that the Secretary of State for War may see tit to put upon them the more effectually will they be able to help him. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
EARL KITCHENER: My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity of expressing not only my own grateful thanks, but those of the War Office and of the Recruiting Department, for what the Parliamentary Committee have done to help us in this matter. I can assure the noble Lord that the problems which he has mentioned are having our most sincere consideration. We are trying to work out things on practical lines to help recruiting in every way. On August 7 last I addressed a letter to all the Lords Lieutenant and chairmen of County Associations inviting their co-operation in the work of raising recruits, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of expressing my thanks for what they have done.
The noble Earl opposite [Earl Curzon of Kedleston] asked me to give some information as to the number of recruits we were obtaining. Of course, it is a variable quantity, and I myself, as I said at the Mansion House, have nothing of which to complain. We get approximately 30,000 recruits a week besides regiments that are being formed by different localities. I do not say that that number will be sufficient. I think it will be understood from what I said before that the time will come when we shall require many more. When that time comes—and I shall certainly let it be thoroughly well known—I feel sure that we shall have the response which this country always gives on such an occasion.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report of the Select Committee considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

ARMY CONTRACTS.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask whether, in view of the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in this House on July 27—that no new contracts under any circumstances were to be entered into with Liptons, Limited — there is any present intention of reinstating their name upon the list of firms eligible for Army contracts; and whether it is proposed to give early effect to the recommendations made in the Interim Report of the Committee on Garrison and Regimental Institutes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Question on the Paper in consequence of a circular of an extremely impudent nature to which my attention has been called and which has been sent to members of the House of Commons requesting them to use their influence to get this firm reinstated upon the War Office list and pointing out that there are many shareholders in every constituency. I do not imagine that the Government are likely to give way on this point, but I should like a re-affirmation of the statement which was made in this House towards the end of July last with regard to the cessation of the employment of this particular firm. No doubt it is highly distressing to the shareholders in Liptons, Limited, to see other large firms nothing considerable profits out of the war, but I hope that this feeling of disappointment is not likely to make any impression upon his Majesty's Government. I observed, somewhat to my surprise, that in the circular to which I have alluded it is stated that Liptons, Limited, are to-day serving the Admiralty and giving complete satisfaction. I asked some months ago whether this firm was employed by the Admiralty, and the noble Lord who replied to me stated that he was unable to give the necessary information. I do not know whether the standard of morality is lower in the Admiralty than it is in the War Office, but I should have thought that in view of the revelations which have taken place a Government Department would have been only too glad to cease dealing with this firm at the earliest opportunity.
EARL KITCHENER: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is in the negative. As regards the recommendations made in the Interim Report of the Committee on Garrison and Regimental Institutes, that matter is under our consideration and will be dealt with, I hope, shortly.

THE INDIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): Your Lordships may remember that when it was decided that Indian troops should be brought to Europe to join the forces there, I submitted a Motion to the House in similar terms to that which your Lordships now see on the Paper. That was necessitated by a section of the Act of 1858, the great Constitutional Act under which India is now governed, whereby a charge may not be placed upon India in respect of Indian troops serving in other parts of the world without the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Since then various other Indian forces have been sent to different parts of the world, as is quite familiar to the House—in fact, their various destinations have already been mentioned in the course of the speeches which have been delivered this evening. It is my duty, therefore, to submit, with The agreement of the Government of India, a similar Resolution in respect of that fact. The House may remember that on the former occasion I went rather fully into the question and described the various occasions when Indian troops had been employed outside India and the various degrees in which the charge had been placed either upon this country entirely, or upon India entirely, or upon both in varying proportion.
It may fairly be said, I think, that "the direct interest of India"—the phrase that was used by the Commission appointed to inquire into this matter in the year 1899—in the fate of the various places in which operations by Indian troops are being conducted greatly varies. The obvious interest of India is far plainer in some of those places than it is in others, but I venture to submit that, if ever a time comes for making a nice calculation of less or more in that matter of direct interest, this is not the moment to attempt it, and that for the present all that we need do here is to express our appreciative thanks to India for the generous and spontaneous manner in which she comes forward to make this offer of bearing a share of the expenses. Therefore I submit this Resolution to the agreement of the House without further preface.
Moved, to resolve, That His Majesty, having directed military forces charged
192
upon the revenues of India to be despatched out of India for service in the war in which this country is engaged, this House, in compliance with Section 55 of Government of India Act, 1858, consents that the ordinary pay and other ordinary charges of any troops so despatched, or that may be so despatched during the continuance of the War, as well as the ordinary charges of any vessels belonging to the Government of India that may be employed in these expeditions which would have been charged upon the resources of India if such troops or vessels had remained in that country or seas adjacent, shall continue to be so chargeable, provided that if it shall be necessary to replace the troops or vessels so withdrawn by other vessels or forces, then the expense of raising, maintaining, and providing such vessels and forces shall be repaid out of any moneys which may be provided by Parliament for the purposes of the said expeditions.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I will only say, in a sentence, that I think the noble Marquess is right in attaching at the present juncture a wide and generous interpretation to the phrase "the interest of India"; that the present moment would be an inopportune one to enter into any minute discussion of such a topic; and that we may certainly renew on this occasion the support which we gave to a similar Motion in the month of September last.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE CONTINGENCY OF INVASION.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the position of civilians towards belligerents. In a certain contingency there is no doubt that the relationship between civilians and belligerents may become a matter of the most vital importance, and, whether the contingency is remote or not, if it can be foreseen as possible it ought to be provided against. The reason why I have put this Question, which I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to answer, is that, so far as I have seen, there have been no regulations issued which are sufficiently plain to the ordinary citizen.

193
The necessity for some such statement is emphasised by this consideration. The systematised rules, which for convenience are called Rules of International Law, prevail not as regards individuals but as between States, and each State becomes at once liable to she charge of having violated these rules unless it does all that is practicable to secure that individual citizens should have knowledge of them and abide by their provisions. I think myself that the violation of International Law during a war is to be reprobated in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, we have had too much of it so far in the present war. I am anxious that in this country, even in times of stress and trial, every effort should ha made to secure that there should be no violation of what are the recognised international rules as between civilians on the one side and belligerents on the other. Of course, it is known generally that if a civilian as such becomes a combatant without. any other qualification, he is liable to what may be very severe punishment indeed—punishment because he is infringing, the international rule which has been laid down in order that war may be carried on in a more humane, manner as regards non-combatants than it was centuries ago.
The real position of a civilian is this. If he is attacked or wounded or subjected to what I may call the violence of war, he has a right to say that International Law has been infringed; but, on the other hand, if he purports to take any part in warfare he runs considerable risks. At the present, moment the rules under which non-combatant irregular forces my take part in war are laid down in Article I of The Hague Convention No. 4. In a certain sense the provisions are specific. But when we examine them as guides for the ordinary individual there is much left which ought to be filled up by some statement made by the Government. The first of those rules is this, that noncombatants or irregulars may put themselves in a position to have the advantages which are due to them when engaged in legitimate warfare if they are "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates." That is a very vague phrase, and it is necessary that the ordinary citizen should know what constitutes the conditions under which an irregular force of this kind is commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. In my
194
view any one in such a position ought to have a commission in some form direct from the Crown. It is exceedingly difficult to see under what other conditions a person in that position is really responsible for the subordinates whom for the time being at any rate he is going to command. When a very crucial and vital question may arise as to the violation of what are called the legitimate rules of warfare, people in this country are entitled to have precise information upon what a rule of this kind really means and how it ought to be applied.
I have had a large number of letters upon this very point, the question asked being under what conditions are civilians entitled to be regarded as combatants in the unfortunate event of an invasion of our country. I ask the Lord Chancellor, in the first instance, whether he will tell us, either now or in some circular which may be issued later by the Government, what is really meant, by the words "commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates." The second rule of The Hague Convention No. 4 is not difficult to follow. It is that there must be a fixed distinctive emblem recognisable at a distance. I do not propose to dwell upon that point, because it is a matter which can probably be easily determined. The third rule is that the civilian, to have the protection which The Hague Convention will give him, has to carry his arms openly. That is sufficiently specific and does not need further elucidation. The last of the four rules laid down by The Hague Convention requires much more definition if it is to be of practical use as a guide for civilians who may desire to take up arms in defence of their country. It says, "Operations must be conducted in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Now what are the laws and customs of war which would protect a civilian if he complies with them, but which would render him subject to be punished summarily if he does not comply with them? I ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether on a point of that kind far more information might not be available than has heretofore been given, in order that a due distinction may be raised between civilians who are complying with the rules of International Law and those who, by not complying with them, would not only-submit themselves to punishment but might commit the whole of the districts in which

195
they live to the horrors of war, from which, on other grounds, they ought to be free.
There is one other point to which I have to refer in order that I may completely review the matter we have to consider. In The Hague Convention it is recognised that before a territory is occupied—it is different after a territory has been occupied —the citizens are entitled to arise en masse in their protection, but even when they so arise they have to comply with two of the rules of The Hague Convention—that is to say, they have to carry their arms openly and conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. It is of vital importance that the true position of civilians as against belligerents should be explained in a way that can leave no doubt upon the mind of the ordinary man. What is a civilian entitled to do, and what would render him liable to the severe punishments and penalties to which I have referred? Personally feel very strongly that civilians should he warned against taking any part in warlike operations unless they have been in some form enrolled under a recognised officer. Any step short of that may subject them to very great risks.
I should like to ask what is the position of the police and of special constables in a matter of this kind. In my view neither the police nor special constables would be justified, without having special authority conferred upon them, in taking any part in warlike matters; in other words, they would have the status of civilians. This is a matter of great importance. Suppose that the contingency should arise and it is necessary to have civilian forces to deal with civilian difficulties—and I know that counties likely to be affected are earnestly considering this question at the present moment. But if our constables and special constables are, as I have heard suggested, to be made into what is really a military combatant force, then we should lose the advantage of their assistance for civilian purposes just at the moment when that assistance would be most needed. I apologise for having said so much in asking this Question, but I could not explain more shortly the information which I desire to obtain on this matter, which is one of vital importance at the present moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is well justified in raising this subject, which is one of importance, and if I cannot give him a specific and detailed answer on all points to-day he will recognise that it is for reasons of weight. The questions which he has raised have been under the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and their report on the subject has passed into the hands of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal the Secretary of State for War. My noble and gallant friend has himself taken this question in hand, and when the moment comes the instructions for which the noble and learned Lord asks will be given. It is not desirable that details should be published beforehand about things in respect of which there will be ample opportunity for making the arrangements when the time comes. But I may say that broadly the principle is that the military authorities should assume direction in this matter and should give directions to the civilian population. I agree with my noble and learned friend that it is not desirable that the police and special constables should be diverted from their proper purpose. They will no doubt have important functions to perform at a time of this kind and they should not be regarded as combatants. Their functions are quite different, and it would be only confusing those functions and diminishing the activities of these officers to divert them to other forms in which they may be probably less useful to the State.
The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saving that this question of the position of civilians is no longer in the vague condition in which it was formerly. It is regulated by The Hague Convention, to which he has referred, the first of those rules relating to the laws of war. That Convention divides itself into two parts—the rules which were agreed on as rendering it permissible for a civilian who is not a regular combatant to take part in war without exposing himself to the penalties attaching to irregular and illegitimate participation, and the provisions to regulate the case of a levee en masse to protect territory not yet occupied. The noble and learned Lord quite correctly laid down the conditions. He is no doubt right in suggesting that the person responsible for the direction of any corps of irregulars must be a person who has some recognition as repre-

197
senting the Crown—that is to say, he must be an officer appointed by the military authorities. At least, that is highly desirable, and, without it, it is impossible to be sure that the interpretation which would be placed upon the first of these rules would be generally accepted by other countries. Therefore I think the noble and learned Lord may assume that arrangements will be made which will prevent the irregular assembling in corps of the civilians of whom he speaks.
As regards the other point—a distinctive badge—steps have been taken to that end. Conforming to the laws of war, which is the important thing, is, after all, something that is not very difficult, because the laws of war are, contained in The Hague Convention and in the Handbook of Military Law. They are simple, and not very difficult to follow. The carrying of arms in an open fashion is practically one of them. It is put separately, but it is really one of the regulations under which warfare is to be conducted in modern times. As regards a levee en masse, that can only take place in the case of territory which has not vet been occupied, and there certain conditions, which the noble and learned Lord correctly defined, must be complied with. All these things have been under careful consideration, and are in the hands of the Secretary of State for War. The military authorities are busily engaged organising the defence of this country, and plans have been carried to a very detailed point. The question of what civilians are to do is one of those questions with which, of course, they have to deal, and in due time the Secretary of State for War will provide information in a public fashion which it is not desirable at the present; moment to discuss in detail.

SEDITIOUS IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON had the following Notice on the Paper—
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to take any, and if so what, steps with regard to certain Irish newspapers who have published articles calculated to impede recruiting for the Army and gravely misrepresenting the action of this country in relation to the war in Europe."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that this subject is undergoing the earnest attention of the Government, that they are fully alive to the importance of it, and that it would not he possible for them to make a statement on the subject to-day. Therefore I will not pursue the question.

LOSS OF THE "BULWARK" BATTLESHIP.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty whether he has any information he can give the House with regard to the alleged loss of H.M.S. "Bulwark."
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, I have to say that H.M.S. "Bulwark" was blown up at eight o'clock this morning while at anchor in the Medway. Both the Admirals on the spot are of opinion that the cause was internal magazine explosion. An inquiry will be held tomorrow. I regret to add that all the officers on board lost their lives and that twelve only of the ship's company were saved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I understand that it will be necessary for the House to meet formally later this evening in order to receive some Bills which will be coining up from another place with a view of their being at our disposition to-morrow. I will therefore move that the House do adjourn during pleasure. But I may state, for the information of noble Lords opposite, that we propose that the House should meet at half-past three to-morrow afternoon, if that hour is convenient to them, and we hope that it will be possible for the Commission for giving the Royal Assent to the Bills to take place in the course of the evening. The House would then be able to adjourn for a lengthened period.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord COLEBROOKE.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911 read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Stanmore). (No. 13.)
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Privy Seal (M. Crewe)). (No. 12.)
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (1914) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 14.)
TRUSTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 15.)
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Wimborne). (No. 16.)
NATIONAL INSURANCE (NAVY AND ARMY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Stanmore). (No. 17.)
ROYAL MARINES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Wimborne). (No. 18.)
NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Wimborne). (No. 19.)
INJURIES IN WAR (COMPENSATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Wimborne). (No. 20.)
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Wimborne). (No. 21.)

LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Emmott). (No. 22.)
House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.